Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I fail to see how it's "the worst".

And really if the only point is to "win", I think I'd just concede rather than play.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I fail to see how it's "the worst".

And really if the only point is to "win", I think I'd just concede rather than play.

Well if the point isn't to try win and have fun doing it, then whats the point?

Because if the point is anything but that then its a bad game.

Manchu wrote:TBH I sometimes find listbuilding fun too, even if it's just building themed lists and trying to get everything in at a certain cost. It's still a challenge, and can be fun, even if you are not cranking out a tourney build. But I don't think it is an essential part of games overall, as some folks believe.

Me too! I love building lists of armies, and seeing what I can squeeze into 1850, 2000, 2500, 3000 points. I haven't even played with most of the lists I've made

Kilkrazy wrote:40K certainly has a strong tendency to net-lists and so on.

I don't see that AOS gets rid of this by not having lists or points. There still will be weaker and stronger units and people who want to min-max them will find ways to discover and use them.

I agree completely on both of these points. 40k is a really bad offender because a strong list is astronomically, unbeatably better than a weak one. Points give the illusion of fairness in 40k, and as fun as it is to build lists, it has nothing to do with balance or building a fair fight. I just like building them to see what I can do with some arbitrary numerical constraint.

AoS won't be any different; but what it comes down to is, player Joe and Jim look at each other's lists and go, "Is this a fair fight?" If Joe and Jim are honest about it and / or willing to iterate over a couple of games, the two lists can be synced up. If Joe and Jim just want to win really badly and want to use listbuilding as the means of achieving that, the AoS mechanism breaks down.

In fairness, 40k is the same: you can balance a DraigoStar by simply acknowledging that it's more powerful than Draigo and Grav Centurions taken separately, and let your opponent take something extra to make up for it. But how often does that happen in a pickup?

Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Talys wrote:
The issue I have with the concept of game mastery in wargames with list building is that too much emphasis is placed on list building, and not enough on predicting, outsmarting, and entrapping your opponent.

This is entirely a game design issue. If unit A has better rules/stats/abilities/whatever than unit B but both cost the same points then only unit A will see the table in 'competitive' lists, although both would still be used in themed lists etc. If unit A and unit B were still different but properly costed then both would see the table. This obviously requires work and research but it is far from impossible to do.

As AoS doesn't have points values unit B may see the table more often (may) but unit A will still be used more frequently as it is more effective.

Internet lists are a scourge but their cure is designing a good, coherent and well balanced game; not just giving up all pretence of army building and balance.

Taking my example above, if Draigo is 2 points and Centurions are 2 points separately, taking them together makes a 12 point unit -- because they'll easily kill 3 times their points in enemy models. In other words, you can't cost things in isolation in a game filled with "special rules". To fix this, you could:

1. Simplify everything and remove special rules that can potentially be used as powerful combinations. Magic is the greatest offender: in medieval warfare, there weren't wizards that could buff archers to let them launch fireballs out of their bows or clerics that could keep heroes alive forever. The problem is, as gamers, we like this stuff because it's cool.

2. Charge more points for powerful combinations, or at least the most egregious ones. There are a finite number of them, so this actually isn't that hard. The problem is, it would be wildly unpopular, because after all, a lot of us enjoy making a list better by squeezing efficiency/value out of points, and we're not just trying to design a fair fight.

A third solution, the road GW has taken in 40k post 2015, is to create formations and superformations that have such great bonuses that the combos that used to be awesome can be matched or exceeded by out of the book bonuses (for example, the Decurion can go head-to-head with anything and not be embarrassed). I actually like this approach, as long as everyone has access to enough of these formations, and as long as there's enough variety in them per faction. Because the formations are generally pretty expensive (points wise), you can't just say, "I'll load up on a whole bunch of the same formation", even if the play group were to allow it.

I don't like this approach for a skirmish game, though; it just doesn't make sense in the context of a small number of models.

Sure, someone could min-max AoS. It's important to realize that is a comment about the player rather than the game. There are games out there, however, that are designed to be min-max'ed.

The point is not to "win" only for the sake of "winning", because "winning" is easy if you just focus on "good" units. That's a degenerated and atrophied thing to do, rather shallow and boring.

The actual point is to play the best game you can with the forces you choose to bring to the table. As a game to play, AoS is a good one.

Hey, thanks a lot for the nice comments on my blog post, Talys. Everyone is making some good points on this thread and it's great that it seems like everyone is keeping things civil.

Talys, I completely agree with you regarding a points system meaning you will never take certain poor value units, except in themed games. And that is definitely one of the things I like about the absence of a point system. Manchu, your points regarding min-maxing and how certain systems are designed for it and even encourage it are very astute.

In any case, I made most of my points in my blog post. My goal really was not try to sell anyone on my point of view or be dismissive of anyone, so I do hope that people read it and maybe come away with a fresh perspective. And enjoy the pics of the battle while you're there.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The point is not to "win" only for the sake of "winning", because "winning" is easy if you just focus on "good" units. That's a degenerated and atrophied thing to do, rather shallow and boring.

The actual point is to play the best game you can with the forces you choose to bring to the table. As a game to play, AoS is a good one.

How is AOS a good game for this? Please explain because what you described is what any good game does but without as many simple options to break it.

I mentioned above that the point is to win and have fun doing it. AOS does not do this at all without planning. Winning in AOS is as easy as taking good units, in most games you take units via whatever selection method and win using the unit rather than having it. Historicals either have points or have historical imbalanced scenarios instead (because war is never balanced, but the goal is not to win but to change history). Other straightforward games (like warhammer for example) rely on points for an even match up, however you can change the matchups (using points) for scenarios if you wish too.

AOS is nothing like the above. Simply put it is a brain dead game where you select units (for whatever reason you selected them) and pit them against someone else s and hope you have models that work.

I mean you just said the point is to do the best (winning, by the way) with the forces you bring. Of course AOS is good for that because I can bring 87 Stegadons based on the smallest base possible. Thats not even a very broken list too compared to many I have seen. But taking that list fits in with your criteria of a fun game. But I know your game would not be fun playing this list... especially if you happen to play a traditional army.

So actually explain how AOS as a ruleset is good and not rubbish? You choosing not to play the rules does not make it good rules.

One of the chief complaints about games that rely on points to create fairness is that the points fail to do that.

Also, historical games are not necessarily played to "change history" (with or without points). In all the scenario-based historical games I have played, the players have always "played to win" even in unwinnable scenarios. For example, we played Berlin 1945 using a scenario rule that destroyed Soviet units could redeploy next turn. When only one side has inexhaustible units, only that side can win (turn limits notwithstanding). And yet the German players still spent every turn doing their best to hold back the red rampage. Everyone had a lot of fun, too!

 Manchu wrote:
One of the chief complaints about games that rely on points to create fairness is that the points fail to do that.

Also, historical games are not necessarily played to "change history" (with or without points). In all the scenario-based historical games I have played, the players have always "played to win" even in unwinnable scenarios. For example, we played Berlin 1945 using a scenario rule that destroyed Soviet units could redeploy next turn. When only one side has inexhaustible units, only that side can win (turn limits notwithstanding). And yet the German players still spent every turn doing their best to hold back the red rampage. Everyone had a lot of fun, too!

Do points fail to do that? I find they do better than simply having no points or balancing scenarios at all... Unlike most games out there.

Yes but a good winning in a historical game usually inst a complete route of the enemy or destruction of every unit. So the what the scenarios do is pit you in the place of command at the time and you get to do things differently. Can you change the outcome of waterloo? Can you delay the enemy at Iwo Jima? Can you so on. Like all games you play to win, but in the scenario driven historical games you usually play to change the course of history... Unless you are playing a non historical game in a historical setting, then again you are playing to win. Historical games are ultimately down to what ifs.

@Swastakowey - AoS is a much better game with planning than without planning.

If you want to have two strangers meet at a table play against each other with armies of a predetermined size, AoS is the wrong game. You'll hate it.

AoS basically leaves you with planning your game or playing a prewritten scenario, both of which can be made into a fair fight without too much effort, given the intended optimal model counts.

AoS as a ruleset is "good and not rubbish" because some people find it to be fun -- to me that's the only litmus test that matters. Things that make it a decent game are that It's easy and relatively cheap to get into, but has quite a bit of exploration possible by way of legions of units and special rules. In v 1.0, it's not strategically super deep (or doesn't look like it is), but it's still enjoyable, and doesn't feel repetitive, even if you play the same armies in 2-3 games in a row.

Incidentally, "doing your best" and "winning" are not the same thing. When I play golf against.. well, 99% of the people I play golf with, I always do my best, but I have no hope of winning. I do mean, zero. I play with guys that are like, par, and I'm... double par on a good day.

In the context of AoS, and just reading this thread and others, there are a reasonable number of people who want to enjoy playing a game using units other than efficiency, meaning that once they start, they're trying to win, but they don't want to engage in the list-to-win meta-game that occurs in a lot of fantasy wargames. To offset that, they're willing to sit down with their opponent before the game starts and figure out by whatever estimation, that it's going to be an close battle.

And no, that is definitely not for everyone.

I'm not sure that historical and non-historical gaming are really very different for me. Regarding the game playing aspect of the miniatures hobby, it's all about doing the best I can with the forces available to me. Determining what forces are available to me, that is where I prefer the hobby to be about modeling and painting -- i.e., collecting the units that I want rather than the ones that perform best thanks to their rules (including their points cost, which is indeed part of their rules).

 Swastakowey wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The point is not to "win" only for the sake of "winning", because "winning" is easy if you just focus on "good" units. That's a degenerated and atrophied thing to do, rather shallow and boring.

The actual point is to play the best game you can with the forces you choose to bring to the table. As a game to play, AoS is a good one.

How is AOS a good game for this? Please explain because what you described is what any good game does but without as many simple options to break it.

I mentioned above that the point is to win and have fun doing it.

I mean you just said the point is to do the best (winning, by the way) with the forces you bring.

Of course AOS is good for that because I can bring 87 Stegadons based on the smallest base possible. Thats not even a very broken list too compared to many I have seen. But taking that list fits in with your criteria of a fun game. But I know your game would not be fun playing this list... especially if you happen to play a traditional army.

I already covered that.

I already explained that the point is NOT to win, but to play, and you continue to choose not to understand, because you don't have the concept of playing vs winning, process vs outcome. You're still failing to comprehend that the playing is the game, not the winning.

I said the point was to do your best, but I specificially did NOT put "winning" as part of the objective. You added that, because you refuse to imagine a game that can be enjoyed for the experience vs the outcome.

If you feel that you need to bring 87 Stegadons, after I finish deploying what would have been a 1000 pt army, that's fine. I'll choose a Sudden Death victory condition, and we'll see how it goes. If the game becomes a foregone conclusion, I'll simply concede, and you will "win". Presumably, that will make you happy, but you shouldn't be surprised if I choose not to play rather than to play you again.

The problem with you is that you don't understand when it's time to focus on the journey rather than the destination. If you can't do that, then games like AoS simply aren't for you.

I don't think he refuses to see your points. The issue is, this points thing had become really deeply ingrained. There are gamers out there who simply do not know that this is not an essential part of game design.

 Talys wrote:
Incidentally, "doing your best" and "winning" are not the same thing.

When I play golf against.. well, 99% of the people I play golf with, I always do my best, but I have no hope of winning. I do mean, zero. I play with guys that are like, par, and I'm... double par on a good day.

In the context of AoS, and just reading this thread and others, there are a reasonable number of people who want to enjoy playing a game using units other than efficiency, meaning that once they start, they're trying to win, but they don't want to engage in the list-to-win meta-game that occurs in a lot of fantasy wargames. To offset that, they're willing to sit down with their opponent before the game starts and figure out by whatever estimation, that it's going to be an close battle.

And no, that is definitely not for everyone.

Yeah, there's definitely a "doing your best" vs "winning at all cost" thing going on here.

I golf like you do, but had a lot of trouble getting that I was really playing against myself vs playing against par. Over the past few years, I've started doing yoga, and I'm much better about going with the flow, not having expectations, etc. and just trying to be in the moment and enjoying the little improvements that I find. Life can be good that way.

I'm of a mixed mind about negotiating each game in detail, thinking that recommending flexible ranges (e.g. "6" meaning +/- 50% for 4 to 8) could be a better way of playing. AoS wants to be very flexible and ad hoc.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
I don't think he refuses to see your points.

The issue is, this points thing had become really deeply ingrained. There are gamers out there who simply do not know that this is not an essential part of game design.

That could be, except my writing:

"The actual point is to play the best game you can with the forces you choose to bring to the table."

became:

"I mean you just said the point is to do the best (winning, by the way) with the forces you bring."

He completely changed my focus on playing into "winning" - that's the exact opposite of what I was intending.


I agree that points have become a disease, and one need look no further than the myriad points threads under Proposed Rules to see how far this has permeated things.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The point is not to "win" only for the sake of "winning", because "winning" is easy if you just focus on "good" units. That's a degenerated and atrophied thing to do, rather shallow and boring.

The actual point is to play the best game you can with the forces you choose to bring to the table. As a game to play, AoS is a good one.

How is AOS a good game for this? Please explain because what you described is what any good game does but without as many simple options to break it.

I mentioned above that the point is to win and have fun doing it.

I mean you just said the point is to do the best (winning, by the way) with the forces you bring.

Of course AOS is good for that because I can bring 87 Stegadons based on the smallest base possible. Thats not even a very broken list too compared to many I have seen. But taking that list fits in with your criteria of a fun game. But I know your game would not be fun playing this list... especially if you happen to play a traditional army.

I already covered that.

I already explained that the point is NOT to win, but to play, and you continue to choose not to understand, because you don't have the concept of playing vs winning, process vs outcome. You're still failing to comprehend that the playing is the game, not the winning.

I said the point was to do your best, but I specificially did NOT put "winning" as part of the objective. You added that, because you refuse to imagine a game that can be enjoyed for the experience vs the outcome.

If you feel that you need to bring 87 Stegadons, after I finish deploying what would have been a 1000 pt army, that's fine. I'll choose a Sudden Death victory condition, and we'll see how it goes. If the game becomes a foregone conclusion, I'll simply concede, and you will "win". Presumably, that will make you happy, but you shouldn't be surprised if I choose not to play rather than to play you again.

The problem with you is that you don't understand when it's time to focus on the journey rather than the destination. If you can't do that, then games like AoS simply aren't for you.

Having fun WHILE TRYING TO WIN is not the same as only having fun if I win. Its the trying part that's fun. But when there is no chance, or if it is stupidly easy then whats the point? Winning has nothing to do with the fun but the trying part is important. Leaving out the word winning makes your point still the same as mine. And AOS does not create a good game for that, because you cannot say why it is a good game without ignoring the rules. Everyone else is saying the same thing...

"If you don't follow the rules for deployment and limit yourself then the rules can be fun" but even to do that you have to have a rough idea of the game and know all the armies and units to a degree. Or you will be playing games that are a waste of time (I.E playtesting) until you get a working game. But ultimately GW should have done that. If you enjoy that then fine, but at least say "the rules are fun if we finish them of ourselves". Because that's what people are saying...

I get it, I mean I play 40k and we have a lot of do's and don'ts to make it a little enjoyable, but none of us pretend like its awesome as a rule set... because its not. It is only awesome because we put in time and effort to get there and ultimately thats why we still play it (and some of the models are epic). But 40k still has better rules than AOS. AOS makes it worse for new players trying to get into the game and even the vets are, as we speak (those still playing that is) trying to work out the best way to actually use this ruleset. Those are all signs of a bad ruleset.

AoS do not do anything well, only you the players make it remotely decent but thats not because of the rules. Thats because we all see the rules suck and have to change them. Just for some reason people dont see that changing the rules to make a playable game makes the original game bad.

If thats what you enjoy thats fine, just know it doesnt mean the rules are good. I mean I enjoy eating junk food from time to time, but the food is still pretty bad.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
I don't think he refuses to see your points. The issue is, this points thing had become really deeply ingrained. There are gamers out there who simply do not know that this is not an essential part of game design.

I play games that have no points... but they all have universities worth of background and information for me to play a balanced scenario that works. Fantasy has a crappy picture book of history that is not well thought out and does nothing to help create a balanced game. That is why AOS needs points.

 Swastakowey wrote:
If you enjoy that then fine, but at least say "the rules are fun if we finish them of ourselves". Because that's what people are saying...

That's not what I have been saying. I think AoS is fine as it is -- to clarify: fine for me and the people I will play it with.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I fail to see how it's "the worst".

And really if the only point is to "win", I think I'd just concede rather than play.

Me too. I would rather lose a fun game than win a tedious game.

 Manchu wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
If you enjoy that then fine, but at least say "the rules are fun if we finish them of ourselves". Because that's what people are saying...

That's not what I have been saying. I think AoS is fine as it is -- to clarify: fine for me and the people I will play it with.

So you have had a reasonable amount of issues (all games have issues) with the game to call it a good ruleset? If so then thats fine, but it seems you are a minority. I wonder... if someone completely new joins your group and brings his collection, would your group say the same things still. Because I suspect that like my group, you rely on discussing before hand the lists and knowing what models everyone owns. But that relies on players personally having access to these things, many people do not.

 infinite_array wrote:
[

But that's not a problem with points systems - that's a problem with GW being unable to spend the time and effort to properly playtest their game and correct mistakes when they arise.

I said I was being nitpicky about his comment that points have no drawbacks. Besides, you just made another point--having points in your game means it either has to be completely balanced or it is broken and everyone hates you. KoW just had to do a new edition after 3 years (just as I was building my armies and gaining momentum towards playing) because gamers just had to break it and demand Mantic fix it.

So, instead of fixing the system that was already in place - which was possible, since you can easily find plenty of wargames that use points and don't have that wailing and gnashing of teeth - they decided to through out the baby with the bathwater, as well as the bath, the sink, the cabinets, the mirror and the family dog for good measure.

And terms like nerf, buff, and balance can still make sense in a system without points. Take model ranges, for example. Two units with equal weapon abilities and ranges are "balanced." Increasing one unit's range by an inch is a "buff," and decreasing the other unit's range by half an inch is a "nerf". Suddenly, imbalance. And no points needed.

I think this is a mindset kind of thing. After years in the hobby, I'm just tired of people who worry about that kind of stuff.

But I never claimed AoS was good for pick-up gaming (much less tournaments). I don't think that means it is terrible. Maybe it would help if I said I think AoS is just okay. I don't think it is the best game ever or anything like that.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
Now, I just buy exactly what I want and use it how I want, and I see nothing degrading or toxic about it.

I don't quite understand - isn't that how everybody should be relating to GW and other sellers? Buy what you want, and use it as you will? Shouldn't we all be taking control of our own gaming?

I can see you're new to wargaming...

the AoS rule book hinted that the AoS minis would look really nice in a display case.

I took a 4+ year break from Fantasy after 8th came out, so yeah, this whole "fantasy" thing is kinda new to me. Despite playing a smidge of 5E, a bunch of 6E and some 7E, no I really don't "get" how I'm "supposed" to Warhammer Fantasy.

Of the things that I own (and AoS isn't among them), AoS would be toward the back of the things that I would potentially display in a case. DreamForge Leviathan, Eldar Wraithknight, Kingdom Death : Monster monsters (coming soon!) would all have higher priority. I may well look into cabinets for these large items.

It was a joke, but by your criteria, I'm a permanent noob.

Nothing I have assembled is going into a display case, except maybe for some spaceship kitbashes.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I already explained that the point is NOT to win, but to play, and you continue to choose not to understand, because you don't have the concept of playing vs winning, process vs outcome. You're still failing to comprehend that the playing is the game, not the winning.

I said the point was to do your best, but I specificially did NOT put "winning" as part of the objective. You added that, because you refuse to imagine a game that can be enjoyed for the experience vs the outcome.

If you feel that you need to bring 87 Stegadons, after I finish deploying what would have been a 1000 pt army, that's fine. I'll choose a Sudden Death victory condition, and we'll see how it goes. If the game becomes a foregone conclusion, I'll simply concede, and you will "win". Presumably, that will make you happy, but you shouldn't be surprised if I choose not to play rather than to play you again.

The problem with you is that you don't understand when it's time to focus on the journey rather than the destination. If you can't do that, then games like AoS simply aren't for you.

Having fun WHILE TRYING TO WIN is not the same as only having fun if I win. Its the trying part that's fun. But when there is no chance, or if it is stupidly easy then whats the point? Winning has nothing to do with the fun but the trying part is important. Leaving out the word winning makes your point still the same as mine. And AOS does not create a good game for that, because you cannot say why it is a good game without ignoring the rules. Everyone else is saying the same thing...

"If you don't follow the rules for deployment and limit yourself then the rules can be fun" but even to do that you have to have a rough idea of the game and know all the armies and units to a degree. Or you will be playing games that are a waste of time (I.E playtesting) until you get a working game. But ultimately GW should have done that. If you enjoy that then fine, but at least say "the rules are fun if we finish them of ourselves". Because that's what people are saying...

I get it, I mean I play 40k and we have a lot of do's and don'ts to make it a little enjoyable, but none of us pretend like its awesome as a rule set... because its not. It is only awesome because we put in time and effort to get there and ultimately thats why we still play it (and some of the models are epic). But 40k still has better rules than AOS. AOS makes it worse for new players trying to get into the game and even the vets are, as we speak (those still playing that is) trying to work out the best way to actually use this ruleset. Those are all signs of a bad ruleset.

AoS do not do anything well, only you the players make it remotely decent but thats not because of the rules. Thats because we all see the rules suck and have to change them. Just for some reason people dont see that changing the rules to make a playable game makes the original game bad.

If thats what you enjoy thats fine, just know it doesnt mean the rules are good. I mean I enjoy eating junk food from time to time, but the food is still pretty bad.

Once again, you're still focused on "TRYING TO WIN", so you're still failing to understand the distinction between playing and "winning". And you claiming "leaving out the word winning makes your point still the same as mine" is false and completely misses the point of what I wrote.

Also, I don't agree that AoS isn't a good game, nor do I agree with that block quote you inserted, so your claim of "everyone" is demonstrably false. I'm pretty sure I can play games of AoS with Bob here in SoCal exactly has GW wrote them, and we would both have a really good time.

AoS is fine for new players because they don't come in full of bad habits telling people how to play a different game than what AoS is. I don't think the rules suck or need changes, so again, your claim that "we all see" is demonstrably false.

The worst part is that you guys have backed yourselves so far into a corner, you can't possibly enjoy AoS. Which is too bad, because 8E was gak, and AoS is great.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I already explained that the point is NOT to win, but to play, and you continue to choose not to understand, because you don't have the concept of playing vs winning, process vs outcome. You're still failing to comprehend that the playing is the game, not the winning.

I said the point was to do your best, but I specificially did NOT put "winning" as part of the objective. You added that, because you refuse to imagine a game that can be enjoyed for the experience vs the outcome.

If you feel that you need to bring 87 Stegadons, after I finish deploying what would have been a 1000 pt army, that's fine. I'll choose a Sudden Death victory condition, and we'll see how it goes. If the game becomes a foregone conclusion, I'll simply concede, and you will "win". Presumably, that will make you happy, but you shouldn't be surprised if I choose not to play rather than to play you again.

The problem with you is that you don't understand when it's time to focus on the journey rather than the destination. If you can't do that, then games like AoS simply aren't for you.

Having fun WHILE TRYING TO WIN is not the same as only having fun if I win. Its the trying part that's fun. But when there is no chance, or if it is stupidly easy then whats the point? Winning has nothing to do with the fun but the trying part is important. Leaving out the word winning makes your point still the same as mine. And AOS does not create a good game for that, because you cannot say why it is a good game without ignoring the rules. Everyone else is saying the same thing...

"If you don't follow the rules for deployment and limit yourself then the rules can be fun" but even to do that you have to have a rough idea of the game and know all the armies and units to a degree. Or you will be playing games that are a waste of time (I.E playtesting) until you get a working game. But ultimately GW should have done that. If you enjoy that then fine, but at least say "the rules are fun if we finish them of ourselves". Because that's what people are saying...

I get it, I mean I play 40k and we have a lot of do's and don'ts to make it a little enjoyable, but none of us pretend like its awesome as a rule set... because its not. It is only awesome because we put in time and effort to get there and ultimately thats why we still play it (and some of the models are epic). But 40k still has better rules than AOS. AOS makes it worse for new players trying to get into the game and even the vets are, as we speak (those still playing that is) trying to work out the best way to actually use this ruleset. Those are all signs of a bad ruleset.

AoS do not do anything well, only you the players make it remotely decent but thats not because of the rules. Thats because we all see the rules suck and have to change them. Just for some reason people dont see that changing the rules to make a playable game makes the original game bad.

If thats what you enjoy thats fine, just know it doesnt mean the rules are good. I mean I enjoy eating junk food from time to time, but the food is still pretty bad.

Once again, you're still focused on "TRYING TO WIN", so you're still failing to understand the distinction between playing and "winning". And you claiming "leaving out the word winning makes your point still the same as mine" is false and completely misses the point of what I wrote.

Also, I don't agree that AoS isn't a good game, nor do I agree with that block quote you inserted, so your claim of "everyone" is demonstrably false. I'm pretty sure I can play games of AoS with Bob here in SoCal exactly has GW wrote them, and we would both have a really good time.

AoS is fine for new players because they don't come in full of bad habits telling people how to play a different game than what AoS is. I don't think the rules suck or need changes, so again, your claim that "we all see" is demonstrably false.

The worst part is that you guys have backed yourselves so far into a corner, you can't possibly enjoy AoS. Which is too bad, because 8E was gak, and AoS is great.

Wait a minute...

I play the game to have fun (if you try to win, necessary to play the game, then you are having fun while trying to win.) and part of playing a game is trying to win. Please epxlain how you play a table top wargame without trying to win. Do both players leave their models idle?

Do you move your units to eliminate another unit in order to gain an advantage? Then yes... you are trying to win. Get that? Take my sentence "Have fun while trying to win" and take out win. Have fun while trying. What is the difference? None. You are saying the same thing but trying to play it out like we play games differently or something.

It is not demonstrably false because I grantee if you played a game with a new person, not your mate bob (who you likely know their collection, their habits and playstyle to make a fun game), the game will likely fail as he may have units that completely destroy yours because he doesn't know any better. This is the result of a bad game. Saying you enjoy it with bob because of the reasons above doesn't make it good. You just made it playable by limiting yourself and not following the rules. You even said if someone plays the games following the rules you would likely not play them again (I.E 87 Stegadons) proving to me that you think the rules are bad unless you the player fixes them.

How can rules be good if you yourself are saying you wont play people for following the rules because it would break the game? Sorry but can you be clear? If I play my stegadon dream list (legal, following these "rules" and playing to the rules the whole time, smiling and having fun) and you concede and never look at me when in need for a game again then the rules suck mate. Simply put, you can only have fun if you fix and change the rules yourself not because the rules are great.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I took a 4+ year break from Fantasy after 8th came out, so yeah, this whole "fantasy" thing is kinda new to me. Despite playing a smidge of 5E, a bunch of 6E and some 7E, no I really don't "get" how I'm "supposed" to Warhammer Fantasy.

Of the things that I own (and AoS isn't among them), AoS would be toward the back of the things that I would potentially display in a case. DreamForge Leviathan, Eldar Wraithknight, Kingdom Death : Monster monsters (coming soon!) would all have higher priority. I may well look into cabinets for these large items.

It was a joke, but by your criteria, I'm a permanent noob.

Nothing I have assembled is going into a display case, except maybe for some spaceship kitbashes.

Heh, I'm almost certainly more n00b than you at Fantasy - remember, I haven't played in at least 4 years.

I'm a decent model builder, and the WK built up really nicely (after conversions). I wouldn't be ashamed to let strangers see it, assuming I actually paint the darn thing!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Once again, you're still focused on "TRYING TO WIN", so you're still failing to understand the distinction between playing and "winning". And you claiming "leaving out the word winning makes your point still the same as mine" is false and completely misses the point of what I wrote.

Also, I don't agree that AoS isn't a good game, nor do I agree with that block quote you inserted, so your claim of "everyone" is demonstrably false. I'm pretty sure I can play games of AoS with Bob here in SoCal exactly has GW wrote them, and we would both have a really good time.

AoS is fine for new players because they don't come in full of bad habits telling people how to play a different game than what AoS is. I don't think the rules suck or need changes, so again, your claim that "we all see" is demonstrably false.

The worst part is that you guys have backed yourselves so far into a corner, you can't possibly enjoy AoS. Which is too bad, because 8E was gak, and AoS is great.

Wait a minute...

I play the game to have fun (if you try to win, necessary to play the game, then you are having fun while trying to win.) and part of playing a game is trying to win. Please epxlain how you play a table top wargame without trying to win. Do both players leave their models idle?

You are saying the same thing but trying to play it out like we play games differently or something.

It is not demonstrably false because I grantee if you played a game with a new person, not your mate bob (who you likely know their collection, their habits and playstyle to make a fun game),

You even said if someone plays the games following the rules you would likely not play them again (I.E 87 Stegadons) proving to me that you think the rules are bad unless you the player fixes them.

I already told you, and you quoted it, but it obviously didn't stick: "You do the best you can with the forces you have." That is how you play the game without trying to win.

I am saying something different, and we are playing the games completely differently.

No, you stated something false, because "bob" is BobTheInquisitor, who happens to be here in SoCal, same as me. I don't believe that I've played him, but from what I've read by him on Dakka, I suspect we would be compatible in playing. If I played against him, he would be new to me, and I think we could play the game as is just fine.

I would not play YOU again, because of how you approached the game that we played, not because the game is bad. You're coming in with a notion that the game is bad, that we have to do all of this stuff to change it, etc. and I don't agree with that. I don't believe AoS needs changing at this point in time. I don't believe that it needs "balancing". I believe the game is what it is, and it is great at being AoS. I think it would be a huge mistake to make AoS into 8E.

 Swastakowey wrote:

Wait a minute...

I play the game to have fun (if you try to win, necessary to play the game, then you are having fun while trying to win.) and part of playing a game is trying to win. Please epxlain how you play a table top wargame without trying to win. Do both players leave their models idle?

Do you move your units to eliminate another unit in order to gain an advantage? Then yes... you are trying to win. Get that? Take my sentence "Have fun while trying to win" and take out win. Have fun while trying. What is the difference? None. You are saying the same thing but trying to play it out like we play games differently or something.

It is not demonstrably false because I grantee if you played a game with a new person, not your mate bob (who you likely know their collection, their habits and playstyle to make a fun game), the game will likely fail as he may have units that completely destroy yours because he doesn't know any better. This is the result of a bad game. Saying you enjoy it with bob because of the reasons above doesn't make it good. You just made it playable by limiting yourself and not following the rules. You even said if someone plays the games following the rules you would likely not play them again (I.E 87 Stegadons) proving to me that you think the rules are bad unless you the player fixes them.

How can rules be good if you yourself are saying you wont play people for following the rules because it would break the game? Sorry but can you be clear? If I play my stegadon dream list (legal, following these "rules" and playing to the rules the whole time, smiling and having fun) and you concede and never look at me when in need for a game again then the rules suck mate. Simply put, you can only have fun if you fix and change the rules yourself not because the rules are great.

New... person?

What is this new person?

They aren't part of my club, they may have... scary different ideas from me.

OH GOD THAT'S SCARY!

But on a more serious note the ignore button is your friend. Just felt like mentioning that, yep... maybe something to do with replying to a self-confessed troll... maybe not...

 Swastakowey wrote:
I play the game to have fun (if you try to win, necessary to play the game, then you are having fun while trying to win.) and part of playing a game is trying to win. Please epxlain how you play a table top wargame without trying to win. Do both players leave their models idle?

Do you move your units to eliminate another unit in order to gain an advantage? Then yes... you are trying to win. Get that? Take my sentence "Have fun while trying to win" and take out win. Have fun while trying. What is the difference? None. You are saying the same thing but trying to play it out like we play games differently or something.

Let me give you a few actual, non-hypothetical examples of NOT trying to win.

1. It's more important to me that my opponent is having fun than that I'm winning. If I look at my opponent's army, and I think that the game is going to screw them and give them an unpleasant experience, I will adjust my army without them ever saying a word or even knowing that I plan to. To take a 40k example, I won't take flyers if they can't shoot them down. It doesn't matter if it guarantees me victory if I just take a few. I'll remove AV14 if I know their whole army only has 3 models that are S8+. Of course, I might point out, "If I took a land raider, you'd be screwed, you know"

2. If some tactic proves to be just far too devastating and my opponent has no way to counter it, I'll stop, and try to win by some other method.

3. If my opponent does something obviously stupid, or forgets to do something, or forgets to move a unit, I'll point it out. I'll go so far as to say, "You'll be out of cover if I move from this way, and that will pretty much guarantee you'll lose the whole unit.. you sure you wanna do that?".

4. If I just know that I'm more experienced than my opponent, and I KNOW that I can win, I would rather help make them a better player than to just win, because winning is hollow and pointless; and making them a more challenging opponent is better for my own fun in the long run.

Sometimes, sportsmanship or just being social demands that we take actions that harm our own chances of winning, or give something other than winning priority.

 Swastakowey wrote:
How can rules be good if you yourself are saying you wont play people for following the rules because it would break the game? Sorry but can you be clear? If I play my stegadon dream list (legal, following these "rules" and playing to the rules the whole time, smiling and having fun) and you concede and never look at me when in need for a game again then the rules suck mate. Simply put, you can only have fun if you fix and change the rules yourself not because the rules are great.

This is exactly the kind of painful situation that just isn't fun for a lot of people.

Games aren't broken because the possibility of a lopsided battle exist. That's just people deciding to break a game for their own fun, possibly at the expense of their opponent's. Many Wargames -- not just GW ones -- often allow players to build disproportionately powerful battleforces. Not everyone wants to play with one, or against one, which is the real crux of the issue here. Being able to build a powerful spammy army doesn't make you a clever commander, it just makes you an irritating opponent, if that's not what I want play.

I think it was Manchu who mentioned that he simply wanted to play with the models he wanted to build and collect, not build and collect models just to play a game. For me, I can deal with spammy armies, but I certainly don't want to play against them, *every game*.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Once again, you're still focused on "TRYING TO WIN", so you're still failing to understand the distinction between playing and "winning". And you claiming "leaving out the word winning makes your point still the same as mine" is false and completely misses the point of what I wrote.

Also, I don't agree that AoS isn't a good game, nor do I agree with that block quote you inserted, so your claim of "everyone" is demonstrably false. I'm pretty sure I can play games of AoS with Bob here in SoCal exactly has GW wrote them, and we would both have a really good time.

AoS is fine for new players because they don't come in full of bad habits telling people how to play a different game than what AoS is. I don't think the rules suck or need changes, so again, your claim that "we all see" is demonstrably false.

The worst part is that you guys have backed yourselves so far into a corner, you can't possibly enjoy AoS. Which is too bad, because 8E was gak, and AoS is great.

Wait a minute...

I play the game to have fun (if you try to win, necessary to play the game, then you are having fun while trying to win.) and part of playing a game is trying to win. Please epxlain how you play a table top wargame without trying to win. Do both players leave their models idle?

You are saying the same thing but trying to play it out like we play games differently or something.

It is not demonstrably false because I grantee if you played a game with a new person, not your mate bob (who you likely know their collection, their habits and playstyle to make a fun game),

You even said if someone plays the games following the rules you would likely not play them again (I.E 87 Stegadons) proving to me that you think the rules are bad unless you the player fixes them.

I already told you, and you quoted it, but it obviously didn't stick: "You do the best you can with the forces you have." That is how you play the game without trying to win.

I am saying something different, and we are playing the games completely differently.

No, you stated something false, because "bob" is BobTheInquisitor, who happens to be here in SoCal, same as me. I don't believe that I've played him, but from what I've read by him on Dakka, I suspect we would be compatible in playing. If I played against him, he would be new to me, and I think we could play the game as is just fine.

I would not play YOU again, because of how you approached the game that we played, not because the game is bad. You're coming in with a notion that the game is bad, that we have to do all of this stuff to change it, etc. and I don't agree with that. I don't believe AoS needs changing at this point in time. I don't believe that it needs "balancing". I believe the game is what it is, and it is great at being AoS. I think it would be a huge mistake to make AoS into 8E.

Ok well why are you constantly saying I am playing to win, when doing the best with the forces you have is the same thing. Please EXPLAIN how it is any different? How is playing the best with your army (the best being winning by the way...) any different AT ALL from having fun while trying to win. I do not understand???

I didnt approach the game any differently. Explain how I approached the game differently? Because the only difference between you and me would be the models I use. Did I even mention 8th edition?

Look, you clearly dont seem to be reading what I say. You say "I dont believe the game needs balancing" but then say 'I dont like how you play within the rules so dont play me please" and then say the game is fine. In other words what you are saying is "The game is fine if you play it my way and use my house rules". Which means the game is not fine, your version of the game might be ok but thats not because the rules are any good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

As others have noted, playing your best doesn't mean you will win. It also focuses on playing, not "winning" - that is the difference.

You consistently say the game needs changing, and I keep saying it's fine as is. That's a very big change in mindset right there.

Also, stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't say those things, so stop creating quotes out of thin air.

Finally, you seem to confuse my dislike for the players and the game itself. I hate the player (you), not the game (AoS) - again, another key distinction that you fail to make, just as you fail to separate playing from "winning".

At this point, I am going to Ignore you, because this going nowhere when you refuse to understand the words that are coming out of my mouth, and just make stuff up.

 Talys wrote:

4. If I just know that I'm more experienced than my opponent, and I KNOW that I can win, I would rather help make them a better player than to just win, because winning is hollow and pointless; and making them a more challenging opponent is better for my own fun in the long run.

I'm just going to call you out right now and say that your whole "I don't care about winning" philosophy is total crap. It's got nothing at all to do about winning itself, and everything to do with the very elaborate framework you have built around what a "REAL win" looks like. It's just a rather transparent defense mechanism. If you lose, then it's either because you "let them win" by hamstringing yourself in some way, or your opponent "brought a cheesy list" that you purposely avoided giving yourself the tools to play.


But even still, Age of Sigmar isn't the sort of game that is conducive to this sort of gaming. Because there ISN'T EVEN A FRAMEWORK for figuring out what is or isn't fair. Yeah, OFC 12 bloodthirsters is unfair. But what about 2? What about 3? How many plaguebearers is equivalent to a stegadon? How many mages can one take before it's too much?

Unless you're intimately familiar with your opponents' army, and he's intimately familiar with yours, then there's absolutely no way you can figure this out. There are simply too many variables, and no yardstick for comparing one unit against another.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
As others have noted, playing your best doesn't mean you will win. It also focuses on playing, not "winning" - that is the difference.

You consistently say the game needs changing, and I keep saying it's fine as is. That's a very big change in mindset right there.

Also, stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't say those things, so stop creating quotes out of thin air.

Finally, you seem to confuse my dislike for the players and the game itself. I hate the player (you), not the game (AoS) - again, another key distinction that you fail to make, just as you fail to separate playing from "winning".

At this point, I am going to Ignore you, because this going nowhere when you refuse to understand the words that are coming out of my mouth, and just make stuff up.

No but playing your best means you are trying to win, please explain how playing your best has nothing to do with winning? Please.

Why? What did I do to the game besides play the game as intended (bring a collection and play it? not that I have even tried to break it or anything...). When have I separated playing from winning sorry? See you don't actually know how I play (I play it exactly like you and that is something I am willing to bet on). What have I made up again. You said if I come to the table with a too powerful army (does it matter if that army is intentional or not?) then you will not play me again. Then instead of blaming the rules for this imbalance you would first blame the player for it. Why?

It seems like what you are doing is exactly what I said. You are not having fun when the rules are played as written, because you have to put players on an ignore list or you wont have fun. You have to work to make the game fun more than what I think is reasonable.

But yea by all means put me on an ignore list because I happen to think a bad game is bad and you think its because I only want to win and won;t have fun otherwise (because that makes sense).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:

 Talys wrote:

4. If I just know that I'm more experienced than my opponent, and I KNOW that I can win, I would rather help make them a better player than to just win, because winning is hollow and pointless; and making them a more challenging opponent is better for my own fun in the long run.

I'm just going to call you out right now and say that your whole "I don't care about winning" philosophy is total crap. It's got nothing at all to do about winning itself, and everything to do with the very elaborate framework you have built around what a "REAL win" looks like. It's just a rather transparent defense mechanism. If you lose, then it's either because you "let them win" by hamstringing yourself in some way, or your opponent "brought a cheesy list" that you purposely avoided giving yourself the tools to play.


But even still, Age of Sigmar isn't the sort of game that is conducive to this sort of gaming. Because there ISN'T EVEN A FRAMEWORK for figuring out what is or isn't fair. Yeah, OFC 12 bloodthirsters is unfair. But what about 2? What about 3? How many plaguebearers is equivalent to a stegadon? How many mages can one take before it's too much?

Unless you're intimately familiar with your opponents' army, and he's intimately familiar with yours, then there's absolutely no way you can figure this out. There are simply too many variables, and no yardstick for comparing one unit against another.

Thank you. This indeed.