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.

 Talys wrote:

 SilverDevilfish wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
You know, what really saddens me about this entire discussion, is that for most people, the world is black and white.

If you don't like points, you're a casual peasant, if you want points, you immediately become a TFG WAAC COMPETITIIIIIIIVE player.

Can't forge a narrative with grey. Though I have to say the black and white narrative is poor, people need to learn how to be better story tellers.

It's like politics. Pander to your base for the primary votes, then drive to the center when it comes prime time.

In other words, act all crazy online, be a pretty reasonable guy at the table Must be, because the ratio of reasonable people when I actually play is like... 95%, but you'd never know it in a forum. HATE IT! LOVE IT! DIE! DIE! DIE!

Well at least Dakka will never hit the low levels of comment sections for political articles.

But we could use a #CPCSigmar, though.

 SilverDevilfish wrote:

 Talys wrote:

 SilverDevilfish wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
You know, what really saddens me about this entire discussion, is that for most people, the world is black and white.

If you don't like points, you're a casual peasant, if you want points, you immediately become a TFG WAAC COMPETITIIIIIIIVE player.

Can't forge a narrative with grey. Though I have to say the black and white narrative is poor, people need to learn how to be better story tellers.

It's like politics. Pander to your base for the primary votes, then drive to the center when it comes prime time.

In other words, act all crazy online, be a pretty reasonable guy at the table Must be, because the ratio of reasonable people when I actually play is like... 95%, but you'd never know it in a forum. HATE IT! LOVE IT! DIE! DIE! DIE!

Well at least Dakka will never hit the low levels of comment sections for political articles.

But we could use a #CPCSigmar, though.

This just in... The Donald buys The Games Workshop, kills all paints except the golds. Blames sluggish sales on Mexican rapist immigrants, though of he assumes some are good people. Tells Tom Kirby, "you're fired!" Bans Privateer Press employees from his golf courses. And Mark Mondragon. The Imperium of Man builds a giant intergalactic wall so that xenos can't get in. Makes Eldar pay for it. Marneus Calgar knows how to defeat Chaos but he's not going to tell anyone what it is. Azyr deports all duardin and aelf. Al stairs in Azyr replaced with golden escalators.

Tells enraged players he doesn't need their money, because he's REALLY rich.

Hopefully this will serve as a useful metaphor for those of us who think the idea of playing GW games "competitively" is a bit silly.

Speed Demon: I just spent $300,000 on this brand new Rolls Royce Phantom, and I am mad as HELL that it doesn't go 200mph! How am I supposed to win drag races??

Friend: Well, that's not really what a Rolls Royce Phantom is about. It's a 3 ton tank designed for comfort and status.

Speed Demon: But I paid $300,000 for it and I want it to go fast. I want to drive competitively!

Friend: Well, that's not what it does. Maybe next time you should look at any number of other fine high-end cars that will do exactly what you're looking for.

Speed Demon: But I like how it looks! I don't like how the other cars look! I like this one! I want it to go fast! I paid good money! They owe me!

Friend: They have, in the past, made "sport" editions as a half-hearted nod to sport driving enthusiasts, but they've always still been plush leather tanks. It's been pretty obvious for the past 20 years that going fast is not what giant Rolls Royce luxury cars are about. I really think you should look elsewhere.

Speed Demon: No! I paid good money for this thing! I am going to tear around the streets like it's a sports car anyway and no one better get in my way! And when I buy the next model as soon as it comes out, it damn well better be fast! If not, I am going to howl about it to the ends of the earth!

You are not at all a jerk for wanting to go fast and even win races against other like minded drivers. But you might be a jerk for racing on surface streets with people who aren't interested in racing.

And if going fast and winning races is what you want to do, you may want to reconsider your choice of car. Now that the ultra-plush luxury 4 ton edition is the only car that Rolls seems to be making, might be time to buy a Ferrari and Drive Like You've Got a Pair(TM).

Just a thought!

(Notice to our friends with Asperger's - no need to hop on Google to research whether I have my car facts accurate. It's very likely I don't. The point of the metaphor should still be apparent)

Well my friend and I played Ogres vs Lizardmen.

Without going into detail, we played a 50 wound game with two character max to try it out. We did the entire set up with all the terrain and rules for the terrain. Then set up armies and we have a go. Lasted about 5 turns with the Lizardmen dominating the ogres. Even though I got hammered, still had fun.
We both believe the Lizardmen are a force to be reckoned with. Lots of attacks and the ability to ignore rend makes them pretty tough. But was really over the top was the magic. I swore I was playing against the undead. The Lizardmen have the power to summon more Lizardmen during the hero phase...that kind of blows if your playing against them. Ogres did alright, but I wouldn't brag about them. Having your ability to rend taken away makes for an uphill battle. The Ogre magic was funny though and a tad powerful. I guess this balanced out the Lizardmen Magic. They raised....sorry, summoned more troops and the ogre butcher ate them up with the power of the great maw....literally.

Impressions.....

Liked the flow of the phases as we started to get them down.
Liked the random terrain roll and the terrain effects. Liked how they played a part in the battle.
Liked the easy nature of the rolls and the stats, but also appreciated the modifiers if the weapon posed them. Speeds up the game.
Really like the fluff of AoS and where it's going. It's about time the Warhammer story changed (even if it was drastic).


Didn't like measuring from model to model. We both agreed that we should measure from the base.
Both of us felt as if there wasn't enough to the rules...like something was missing. Couldn't really put a finger on it, but felt incomplete none the less.

Enjoyed AoS though and glad it doesn't take itself too seriously. Great beer and pretzel skirmish game as long as you agree on model wounds (count). Will be playing this again soon and my buddy already bought the starter set. I may as well. Can't wait to see what they do with this. The new models coming out are looking amazing.

 Vermis wrote:

BobtheInquisitor wrote:I hate making army lists... WHFB game outcomes seemed to be determined in the list-writing phase, which makes WHFB less a contest of tactical skill or adaptive thinking so much as a contest of who wastes more free time on that particular part of the hobby. You can have that win every time.

I also gave up on GW's core two because they were too much about listbuilding (overloaded on 'strategy', to be generous), sometimes to a ridiculously nitpicky degree, relying on the 'meta' rather than the game. This was even before the hunt for the optimal units and builds in the unbalanced mess evolved into that mathhammer thing. You won because you have an army book, a calculator, and a knowledge of basic probability. Good for you. I'm so impressed I almost slipped into a coma.

Now you don't need a calculator to win in Warhammer, just a wallet.

However...

For me, the hobby is all about the models and the fluff. Maybe I'll be generous and including thinking about how I might want to paint my minis, too.

Wait, what was all that pining for tactical skill and adaptive thinking?

You act as if I had never been young and competitive and tried things out to find out what I like and do not like. Besides, I hardly have to play the game to observe how others do. It's easy: if or when I want a competitive game, I want it to be a fair contest of skill or quick thinking, not who spent time on the internet reading up on other people's math.

Maybe if I knew more people who aren't secret d-bags, I could appreciate some of the competitive nature of a war game, but as it is I'm done playing to win.


So, JohnHwangDD, if you're still interested we should game sometime.

Ah, so it was a stealth moan about people who think wargaming is about more than giggling at the dice result. Any dice result.

That's a bit of a stretch. I've never jumped into any discussion on wargames to complain about people using points or playing competitively. In this thread, it came up that there could possibly be a game that comes from an entirely different perspective, a game without points, and that it could be a valid form of gaming. However, this point needs to be defended because apparently a lack of points makes the game garbage, or incomplete, or the worst thing ever. Clearly it is not the same kind of game as...almost every other wargame/tabletop game. If people want to play a game with points, there are already a ton of options. Some of them even sound good to me. I'm interested in playing KoW because it seems simple, easy to learn, quick to play, and has a potentially thriving community that will keep it expanding. Granted, I still won't play it with my competitive friends, but no game is so perfect that they won't find a way to try to make victory bitter or loss humiliating.

You want a game with points, fine. Go play one. You can even homebrew points for AoS easy-peasy. Just please stop pretending points are the only way to play and that there is something wrong or lacking from people who want to enjoy a (hopefully) fun game on its own terms.

I'm not sure why you two should get together to game. The chances of one of you doing better than the other are just too great - a horrifying situation to contemplate! I guess you could play a narrative scenario about BFG ships entering the warp, using rubber bands. (be careful not to notice how much further one of you might manage to send them. Best to wear blindfolds while playing)

Weren't you the guy just complaining about the arguments being black and white?

I explained how I feel. I demonstrated that there are players (at least one ) out there who don't care about pick up games, don't care for balance, don't like list building, and don't play to win (at least not as the primary point of the game). It's like you just can't conceive of any other reason to play a game.

Besides, the real danger is that a lively conversation might break out.

 Xenocidal Maniac wrote:
Hopefully this will serve as a useful metaphor for those of us who think the idea of playing GW games "competitively" is a bit silly.

Speed Demon: I just spent $300,000 on this brand new Rolls Royce Phantom, and I am mad as HELL that it doesn't go 200mph! How am I supposed to win drag races??
...

What a perfect analogy for Games Workshop and AoS.

A pile of crap selling on an old name that has a ridiculous set of "features" that makes it super overpriced, but totally nonfunctional for what its primary purpose should be. And both are made for people who don't care about money!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
That's a bit of a stretch. I've never jumped into any discussion on wargames to complain about people using points or playing competitively. In this thread, it came up that there could possibly be a game that comes from an entirely different perspective, a game without points, and that it could be a valid form of gaming. However, this point needs to be defended because apparently a lack of points makes the game garbage, or incomplete, or the worst thing ever. Clearly it is not the same kind of game as...almost every other wargame/tabletop game. If people want to play a game with points, there are already a ton of options. Some of them even sound good to me. I'm interested in playing KoW because it seems simple, easy to learn, quick to play, and has a potentially thriving community that will keep it expanding. Granted, I still won't play it with my competitive friends, but no game is so perfect that they won't find a way to try to make victory bitter or loss humiliating.

You want a game with points, fine. Go play one. You can even homebrew points for AoS easy-peasy. Just please stop pretending points are the only way to play and that there is something wrong or lacking from people who want to enjoy a (hopefully) fun game on its own terms.

I don't know why people like you don't understand that taking away points makes it impossible for two people to just meet and play without writing a peace accord. Not to mention it totally kills the best part of the game.. BUILDING AN EFFECTIVE ARMY!!

What is the point of playing a tabletop wargame, if you can't build an army within certain parameters? You might as well just go play chess or checkers, where all the models are preset, and both sides have the same thing. Perfect balance and it takes a minute to set up the board and it doesn't cost hundreds of dollars.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I explained how I feel. I demonstrated that there are players (at least one ) out there who don't care about pick up games, don't care for balance, don't like list building, and don't play to win (at least not as the primary point of the game). It's like you just can't conceive of any other reason to play a game.

Besides, the real danger is that a lively conversation might break out.

List building isn't the ONLY reason to play a game, but it IS part of a wargame. GW is gonna go broke trying to sell to gamers who don't care about pickup games don't care for balance, don't like list building and don't like list building, and don't play to win. If you don't like all that... go read a book or watch a movie or play Wii?

What you're playing sounds like Monopoly where nobody buys any of the properties but you roll dice to run around the board in circles.

Marlov wrote:

 Xenocidal Maniac wrote:
Hopefully this will serve as a useful metaphor for those of us who think the idea of playing GW games "competitively" is a bit silly.

Speed Demon: I just spent $300,000 on this brand new Rolls Royce Phantom, and I am mad as HELL that it doesn't go 200mph! How am I supposed to win drag races??
...

What a perfect analogy for Games Workshop and AoS.

A pile of crap selling on an old name that has a ridiculous set of "features" that makes it super overpriced, but totally nonfunctional for what its primary purpose should be. And both are made for people who don't care about money!

For you a car is nonfunctional because it can't hit 200mph? Please tell me you take public transportation!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
That's a bit of a stretch. I've never jumped into any discussion on wargames to complain about people using points or playing competitively. In this thread, it came up that there could possibly be a game that comes from an entirely different perspective, a game without points, and that it could be a valid form of gaming. However, this point needs to be defended because apparently a lack of points makes the game garbage, or incomplete, or the worst thing ever. Clearly it is not the same kind of game as...almost every other wargame/tabletop game. If people want to play a game with points, there are already a ton of options. Some of them even sound good to me. I'm interested in playing KoW because it seems simple, easy to learn, quick to play, and has a potentially thriving community that will keep it expanding. Granted, I still won't play it with my competitive friends, but no game is so perfect that they won't find a way to try to make victory bitter or loss humiliating.

You want a game with points, fine. Go play one. You can even homebrew points for AoS easy-peasy. Just please stop pretending points are the only way to play and that there is something wrong or lacking from people who want to enjoy a (hopefully) fun game on its own terms.

I don't know why people like you don't understand that taking away points makes it impossible for two people to just meet and play without writing a peace accord. Not to mention it totally kills the best part of the game.. BUILDING AN EFFECTIVE ARMY!!

Take away points? When did AoS have points for them to be taken away?

Pretty sure the best part of a miniatures game is not the part that involves a pencil, paper, a calculator, and no minis. Besides, you must have meant DOWNLOADING AN EFFECTIVE LIST!!!

A peace accord? You mean a conversation? Heaven forbid.

You would probably be happier if you didn't try to play pick up games that aren't designed for it. There are plenty of existing, supported games where you don't even have to acknowledge the other player exists if you are willing to pretend his or her pieces are moving on their own. Have you tried Warmahordes? I hear that works.

What is the point of playing a tabletop wargame, if you can't build an army within certain parameters? You might as well just go play chess or checkers, where all the models are preset, and both sides have the same thing. Perfect balance and it takes a minute to set up the board and it doesn't cost hundreds of dollars.

This is hilarious because my advice to you was to play chess. You want a competitive game where victory means something and you can crush another player? That's chess. GW games are the kind where you spend more money or time than your opponent to ensure you never have to play a fair game and then go through the motions.

PS: AoS has parameters. They are just wildly different from the parameters WHFB used...well, except that in both cases the parameters come out of your wallet in the end.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I explained how I feel. I demonstrated that there are players (at least one ) out there who don't care about pick up games, don't care for balance, don't like list building, and don't play to win (at least not as the primary point of the game). It's like you just can't conceive of any other reason to play a game.

Besides, the real danger is that a lively conversation might break out.

List building isn't the ONLY reason to play a game, but it IS part of a wargame.

Except for the wargame Age of Sigmar. It's not part of that wargame.

GW is gonna go broke trying to sell to gamers who don't care about pickup games don't care for balance, don't like list building and don't like list building, and don't play to win.

GW is going to go broke anyway. When GW writes games with points, they still lose money! People who care about pickup games, balance and list building all hate GW. People who play to win play other games already.

I get that AoS isn't for you. Maybe GW isn't trying to sell to you any more. Maybe they never were.

If you don't like all that... go read a book or watch a movie or play Wii?

What you're playing sounds like Monopoly where nobody buys any of the properties but you roll dice to run around the board in circles.

That's as silly as playing AoS with points. It's almost like you are suggesting playing a game on it's own terms...but then you hate that when those terms don't include points.


And I would much prefer to read a book than actually play a game most of the time. But I do have these minis. And there is finally a rule set that appeals to my unprofitable niche.

@Marlov. I don't see how you can criticise someone else's enjoyment if a game when you think list building is the best part of a wargame?!? That's not even playing a game just an ancillary task you might do before a game.

And no list building isn't a requirement of wargaming, to suggest it is just daft. Some games do some games don't. Broaden your horizons.

We had our big playtest yesterday.
Chaos versus (my) Lizardmen, around 80 wounds each.

It was something between a demo (given by me) and a game.

In regard to the result of the battle: The Slann can summon more Lizardmen than any Chaos can chew. Not that i did summon anything by the way, but i showed what i could do.

The game proved indeed easy to learn.
We found alternating (close) combat a good detail. Alternate activation of 1 unit per player would have been better. But WHFB (sadly) never had that.
Magic easy and streamlined, like Warmaster.

But the longer we played, the more we knew that for veteran gamers like us (25+ years) there is nothing to master, no tactics or the kind of depth that we need.
Absence of anything to think (much) about, above all how to move your units; no closed formations, so no flanking or rear-charges.

The most important conclusion was that we will have to hope and see if there will be rules for the player that wants depth.
Furthermore we agree that WHFB 8th (without the 6th spell) was the best edition we had, so worse case scenario is that that is what we will play in the future with our collections.
Or play Kings of War; rules seem allright, allthough that does not include some WHFB armies and many models we have and we all don't care much for most Mantic models, so that is just the same problem the other way around.

Final conclusion: AoS can be fun if you play scenario's, stories and just like to play a fast-paced game to have fun.
It might work, but this does not work for us, so we REALLY hope for a future ruleset for the veteran gamer...

Marlov wrote:


What a perfect analogy for Games Workshop and AoS.

A pile of crap selling on an old name that has a ridiculous set of "features" that makes it super overpriced, but totally nonfunctional for what its primary purpose should be. And both are made for people who don't care about money!

Ok, so we have established that your subjective opinion regarding GW and its product is as follows:

- It is "a pile of crap" (which generally carries negative connotations - I am assuming you are not a fan of crap, correct?)
- It has ridiculous features
- It is super overpriced
- Totally non-functional for what its primary purpose "should" be ("should" according to your 100% subjective opinion)
- Made for people who don't care about money

It's clear from your comments that GW's products do not meet your desires for competitive gaming. You are majorly dissatisfied. Or, to use my metaphor, their car doesn't go nearly fast enough for your liking. However, you feel that their car "should" go fast. Yet it doesn't and never has.

Going further, would it be fair to say that they have been pretty clear about their lack of intent to tailor their games for competitive play? They've always been very upfront about all this "forge the narrative" and "the most important rule is to have fun" and "sportsmanship" nonsense. Additionally, their rules and points systems have always been slipshod. Going back to my metaphor, we will liken this to saying that their car breaks down a lot and that they also have clearly stated that their cars are not designed for racing. But they don't care because they're not selling speed and reliability. They're selling to an entirely different market that doesn't care about those things.

In spite of your clear statements that their products do not meet your needs and in spite of clear overtures that they never intend to meet your needs, you continue to buy. You also continue to complain. You also continue to state that you are entitled to GW's absolute accommodation of your desires.

In light of all this, I would like you to explain to me why the Speed Demon in my analogy does not describe you exactly. Please tell me. And I will warn you; any further attempts at obfuscation won't work with me. I want you to answer the question I have posed to you and I want you to answer it directly. Give me a convincing argument that you are not the Speed Demon I describe.

I'll give you a gold star if you manage to come up with one.

I played my VC counts against empire and force of destruction. The game is boring. That's all.

What makes it boring, in your experience?

Did you find it always turns into a big scrum in the middle?

Lack of tactical factors?

 Xenocidal Maniac wrote:

Marlov wrote:


What a perfect analogy for Games Workshop and AoS.

A pile of crap selling on an old name that has a ridiculous set of "features" that makes it super overpriced, but totally nonfunctional for what its primary purpose should be. And both are made for people who don't care about money!

Ok, so we have established that your subjective opinion regarding GW and its product is as follows:

- It is "a pile of crap" (which generally carries negative connotations - I am assuming you are not a fan of crap, correct?)
- It has ridiculous features
- It is super overpriced
- Totally non-functional for what its primary purpose "should" be ("should" according to your 100% subjective opinion)
- Made for people who don't care about money

It's clear from your comments that GW's products do not meet your desires for competitive gaming. You are majorly dissatisfied. Or, to use my metaphor, their car doesn't go nearly fast enough for your liking. However, you feel that their car "should" go fast. Yet it doesn't and never has.

Going further, would it be fair to say that they have been pretty clear about their lack of intent to tailor their games for competitive play? They've always been very upfront about all this "forge the narrative" and "the most important rule is to have fun" and "sportsmanship" nonsense. Additionally, their rules and points systems have always been slipshod. Going back to my metaphor, we will liken this to saying that their car breaks down a lot and that they also have clearly stated that their cars are not designed for racing. But they don't care because they're not selling speed and reliability. They're selling to an entirely different market that doesn't care about those things.

In spite of your clear statements that their products do not meet your needs and in spite of clear overtures that they never intend to meet your needs, you continue to buy. You also continue to complain. You also continue to state that you are entitled to GW's absolute accommodation of your desires.

In light of all this, I would like you to explain to me why the Speed Demon in my analogy does not describe you exactly. Please tell me. And I will warn you; any further attempts at obfuscation won't work with me. I want you to answer the question I have posed to you and I want you to answer it directly. Give me a convincing argument that you are not the Speed Demon I describe.

I'll give you a gold star if you manage to come up with one.

Awrite, I explain. We use your analogies for fun.

The problem with the Rolls Royce isn't that I want to run it at 200mph. It's got the same problem as the Ferrarri. The problem is that I the main thing I wanna do is drive it as a car and get from point a to point b, and it's totally impractical for that. Forget about driving at 200mph, both cars are more likely to break down than anything else. Unless your stupid rich you can't afford it, and even if you buy one you can't afford to keep it in good order. Your just better off buying a Chevy, but ok, you have 300k to blow, so you get a car that is totally impractical.

Same thing with the way they picture gw games. even if you can afford to buy the models unless you have more time than god you wont be able to paint models that look anything like what is on the website, so what does it matter how awesome you think the plastic is. most people can't paint them worth gak anyhow. be honest, the main reason most people buy the game is to play the game. And as a game it's a terrible game at the basic thing a wargame is supposed to accomplish... 2 people duking it out to determine a victor.

and I'm not the only person in the world who wants thinks the whole idea of singing kumbaya with your opponent before every game is ridiculous. I'm not saying you can't be friends. Invite them to your bbq, go to have burgers after, whatever, but when you play, you play to win. Yes some people care more than others, but everyone cares, or you would not play a game that has a winner or loser.

By the way, I am a WM/H player, which is the real gem. Yes, its also expensive, but at least it makes a good game. Just pick the number of points, two strangers can sit down and enjoy a game. No pregame treaty. Of course one list can destroy another list, so what? Do your research first and that wont happen. Or don't and learn as you go, but don't cry about it when you lose. But most WM/H players aren't like this. It's only the GW crowd where you have a part who want to be non-competitive... like conflict free war games.

Which is like the guy who buys a car, but doesn't want to drive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
What makes it boring, in your experience?

Did you find it always turns into a big scrum in the middle?

Lack of tactical factors?

The worst part about the game is that it assumes that 2 sides should start out equal. If forces you to negotiate with your opponent before the game starts, which is totally counter to killing your opponent after. So basically the honest person punished and the person who argues for their advantage is rewarded. I mean how dumb is that?

The game only works at all if the two people are totally .. and equally .. honest. And I just don't think that happens much because at the end of the day, ok maybe not EVERYONE, but almost everyone wants to win, so they will have some kind of bias. So you're better off with a GOOD point system. Yah, there is netlisting, but so what, that's just doing your homework. If the French had done their homework, the Germans wouldn't have rolled all over them, rite? Life ain't fair, don't do your prep, you lose.

It shouldn't be your opponents job to go, "Hey, your army sucks, so I'll dumb down mine." It should be your opponents job to show you that your army sucks by beating you to a wet noodle so that you smarten up.

Marlov wrote:
Same thing with the way they picture gw games. even if you can afford to buy the models unless you have more time than god you wont be able to paint models that look anything like what is on the website, so what does it matter how awesome you think the plastic is. most people can't paint them worth gak anyhow. be honest, the main reason most people buy the game is to play the game.

I think that's a pretty broad assumption to make lol.

 Xenocidal Maniac wrote:
Hopefully this will serve as a useful metaphor for those of us who think the idea of playing GW games "competitively" is a bit silly.

Speed Demon: I just spent $300,000 on this brand new Rolls Royce Phantom, and I am mad as HELL that it doesn't go 200mph! How am I supposed to win drag races??

Friend: Well, that's not really what a Rolls Royce Phantom is about. It's a 3 ton tank designed for comfort and status.

Speed Demon: But I paid $300,000 for it and I want it to go fast. I want to drive competitively!

Friend: Well, that's not what it does. Maybe next time you should look at any number of other fine high-end cars that will do exactly what you're looking for.

Speed Demon: But I like how it looks! I don't like how the other cars look! I like this one! I want it to go fast! I paid good money! They owe me!

Friend: They have, in the past, made "sport" editions as a half-hearted nod to sport driving enthusiasts, but they've always still been plush leather tanks. It's been pretty obvious for the past 20 years that going fast is not what giant Rolls Royce luxury cars are about. I really think you should look elsewhere.

Speed Demon: No! I paid good money for this thing! I am going to tear around the streets like it's a sports car anyway and no one better get in my way! And when I buy the next model as soon as it comes out, it damn well better be fast! If not, I am going to howl about it to the ends of the earth!

You are not at all a jerk for wanting to go fast and even win races against other like minded drivers. But you might be a jerk for racing on surface streets with people who aren't interested in racing.

And if going fast and winning races is what you want to do, you may want to reconsider your choice of car. Now that the ultra-plush luxury 4 ton edition is the only car that Rolls seems to be making, might be time to buy a Ferrari and Drive Like You've Got a Pair(TM).

Just a thought!

(Notice to our friends with Asperger's - no need to hop on Google to research whether I have my car facts accurate. It's very likely I don't. The point of the metaphor should still be apparent)

Your analogy is totally inappropriate though.

You buy a game, 2 people play the game, the game can be competitive (if it's written well enough).

If you bought a <insert car here> and your friend also bought <insert similar car here> then you COULD race them competitively against each other. Or you could buy one car and do some hot seat racing.

Buying a car and complaining it's not competitive has no parallel in wargaming.

The car is more like the miniatures that make up the wargame, not the wargame itself.

I began this hobby 25+ years ago for the combination of creativity and gaming (which is social interaction, challenging and IMO fun).

I buy models and whole armies because i like the models and because i have an idea of how i want them to look.
And i for one can make them look how i want them to look.


And that does not mean that i paint every model "Golden Daemon" quality, i don't have time for that indeed, more importantly i paint them at the level i want them to be, which varies per game, army and model.

I actively advise people that do NOT like creative part NOT to get into this hobby. They should rather get into specific types of computer games and/or boardgames.

 Emicrania wrote:
I played my VC counts against empire and force of destruction. The game is boring. That's all.

try a scenario... make a story, create a goal, have a destination... create the fun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Xenocidal Maniac wrote:
Hopefully this will serve as a useful metaphor for those of us who think the idea of playing GW games "competitively" is a bit silly.

Speed Demon: I just spent $300,000 on this brand new Rolls Royce Phantom, and I am mad as HELL that it doesn't go 200mph! How am I supposed to win drag races??

Friend: Well, that's not really what a Rolls Royce Phantom is about. It's a 3 ton tank designed for comfort and status.

Speed Demon: But I paid $300,000 for it and I want it to go fast. I want to drive competitively!

Friend: Well, that's not what it does. Maybe next time you should look at any number of other fine high-end cars that will do exactly what you're looking for.

Speed Demon: But I like how it looks! I don't like how the other cars look! I like this one! I want it to go fast! I paid good money! They owe me!

Friend: They have, in the past, made "sport" editions as a half-hearted nod to sport driving enthusiasts, but they've always still been plush leather tanks. It's been pretty obvious for the past 20 years that going fast is not what giant Rolls Royce luxury cars are about. I really think you should look elsewhere.

Speed Demon: No! I paid good money for this thing! I am going to tear around the streets like it's a sports car anyway and no one better get in my way! And when I buy the next model as soon as it comes out, it damn well better be fast! If not, I am going to howl about it to the ends of the earth!

You are not at all a jerk for wanting to go fast and even win races against other like minded drivers. But you might be a jerk for racing on surface streets with people who aren't interested in racing.

And if going fast and winning races is what you want to do, you may want to reconsider your choice of car. Now that the ultra-plush luxury 4 ton edition is the only car that Rolls seems to be making, might be time to buy a Ferrari and Drive Like You've Got a Pair(TM).

Just a thought!

(Notice to our friends with Asperger's - no need to hop on Google to research whether I have my car facts accurate. It's very likely I don't. The point of the metaphor should still be apparent)

Your analogy is totally inappropriate though.

You buy a game, 2 people play the game, the game can be competitive (if it's written well enough).

If you bought a <insert car here> and your friend also bought <insert similar car here> then you COULD race them competitively against each other. Or you could buy one car and do some hot seat racing.

Buying a car and complaining it's not competitive has no parallel in wargaming.

The car is more like the miniatures that make up the wargame, not the wargame itself.

rock, paper, scissors can be a highly competitive game, its not exactly Shakespeare... GW made a game, AoS it can be played competitively if you so wish... but apparently its not the "style" of competitiveness that you wanted and therefore you complain (not you, but people in general) that the game is not the type of competitive game that YOU wanted.

easier example, which is more competitive, car racing or snail racing?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ORicK wrote:
I began this hobby 25+ years ago for the combination of creativity and gaming (which is social interaction, challenging and IMO fun).

I buy models and whole armies because i like the models and because i have an idea of how i want them to look.
And i for one can make them look how i want them to look.


And that does not mean that i paint every model "Golden Daemon" quality, i don't have time for that indeed, more importantly i paint them at the level i want them to be, which varies per game, army and model.

I actively advise people that do NOT like creative part to get into this hobby. They should rather get into specific types of computer games and/or boardgames.

its funny, I know a person at my GW store who spent a YEAR painting a model yet has only used it 3-4 times that year alone... seems to me the hobby is all about building and painting miniatures, everything else is just an added bonus...

If I wanted a competitive game with dice I would play backgammon and I do but whenever I ask the people at the GW for a game they all look at me like I am crazy... I guess if you cannot use your built/painted toys what is the point right

One thing that is absolutely clear is that AOS has polarised community opinion in a similar way to 6th/7th edition 40K (that introduced Unbound, formations, variable charge distance.)

@Marlov - the car example works in the context of, you buy a car made for X features, and complain that it's lousy for Y features. It's not meant to compare the price of a Rolls Royce (or a Camry) with plastic models. Obviously more people can afford AoS than quarter-million dollar cars


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ORicK wrote:I actively advise people that do NOT like creative part to get into this hobby. They should rather get into specific types of computer games and/or boardgames.

I couldn't agree more. I think that tabletop wargames are the world's crappiest replacement for StarCraft, if that's your thing. Your competitor pool is likely less than a hundred people (certainly less than a thousand), versus millions or tens of millions of other players that can be electronically matched instantly to you.

The awesomeness that is tabletop wargames is entirely in the creative part, IMO. Without the great miniatures and the creative work done on them, all you have is a bad computer game. I mean, you can even play computer games with your friends in person, if you want them more social.

Kilkrazy wrote:One thing that is absolutely clear is that AOS has polarised community opinion in a similar way to 6th/7th edition 40K (that introduced Unbound, formations, variable charge distance.)

Amen!

I don't think that it's a bad thing that AoS seeks to carve out a niche not currently served by WM/H (I'm talking about gameplay, not models). If it were "like WM/H but with different models" and tried to grab the same eyeballs, GW would be attempting to pry happy customers away from a game that they're satisfied with. So why not go after customers who don't have a happy hobby home?

At least, nobody can say AoS is a ripoff of another product, right?

bitethythumb wrote:
.......create the fun.

By playing a game that wasn't knocked out by the work experience kid in an afternoon.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:
.......create the fun.

By playing a game that wasn't knocked out by the work experience kid in an afternoon.

No, by playing a game that is concise, easy to learn, with great unit depth, has beautiful models, and most importantly, fun.

 Talys wrote:

No, by playing a game that is concise, easy to learn, with great unit depth, has beautiful models, and most importantly, fun.

Which is why I'm not going to be playing AOS

bitethythumb wrote:

 Emicrania wrote:
I played my VC counts against empire and force of destruction. The game is boring. That's all.

try a scenario... make a story, create a goal, have a destination... create the fun.

Not speaking for him/her but creating a scenario in a game where you dont like the gameplay will not change anything. If I hate Starcraft, the campaign story and objective based missions dont help a bit and on the other hand, I dont need a script or a scenario for Close Combat, Combat Mission Shock Force, Wargame AB or Empire Total War, I can just play pitched battles for hours.

It's just like "fix the game yourself" suggestions for me. Age of Scrubs is so bad at its core that nothing there is worth salvaging, if they brought me that little streamlined tactical gem of a game without points then hell, I could sit down and create a point system.

From a model perspective alone I'm real impressed with AoS. these are some of the best minis I've gotten in a long time. I've been having lots of fun building and painting up the starter minis though, and that's 99% of the hobby for me anyway. I'm planning to paint up both armies, and then see which one I'd rather collect more of and then probably sell the other one. Right now I'm leaning toward SigMarines, but that might just be ShineyNew Syndrome.

I haven't played it yet, and don't know when I will since I hardly get to play anything but my own games lately.. I do appreciate the small amount of rules and what seems like a more laid back style of play rather than a game for tourneys, since I'm a laid back kinda gamer.

Mostly a lurker here, but I want to chime in with my impressions. As a quick background, I used to play Warhammer Fantasy in the early days. I wanted to get into 8th, but when I saw what they did to the game (the huge model count required to make gigantic blocks of unwieldy infantry), I lost interest. I just play with my friends, I don't go to stores, play pick up games, etc. We mainly have fun through creating a campaign, but at the same time, we want a balanced and fair game.

That begin said, I really wanted Games Workshop to succeed here. I love the Old World, but I wasn't exactly attached to the fluff, so blowing it up doesn't bother me (though I can definitely understand why it bothers others). The new fluff was kind of intriguing, and I always love the concepts of planes, so I was interested. I don't have any concerns with being able to use old models. While the idea of Sigmarines (Seriously, I tried to type Sigmarites into my phone when texting my friend and it autocorrected it to Sigmarines), is completely unoriginal, I can't deny that all of the models are gorgeous and look like they'd be fun to paint.

Then I started to read about the game before I bought anything, because the direction Games Workshop has been going in isn't one I've liked. And what I read sounds horrific. Four pages of rule, most of the depth stripped out and replaced by utter randomness disguising itself as strategy. I watched several video battle reports (Using the figures from the boxed set, I'm not interested in legacy armies), and battles all ended up with a huge melee in the center, completely dependent on luck. Maneuvering didn't seem to matter. There's a little decision making. In some cases, it was critical to choose what order to activate models in, but its so limited as to be a non-factor. There's simply no game here in my eyes. It's just rolling massive amounts of dice and hoping for the best.

So I haven't bought it. I'll keep reading and see how the game develops. I'm hoping there's something else here, cause I'd love to play an awesome new game. But so far, this isn't it for me.


*** That being said, I know many people here are arguing about what this game's intended audience is, what style of game is it, etc. I think these arguments are missing the point. Games Workshop believes it can make whatever it wants to and people will buy it. This game wasn't designed for a certain aspect of the wargaming crowd, for casual players, etc. It was designed to extract as much money as possible from the ground up from its player base. While there are people here arguing that you can somehow create a fair game out of the skeleton frame GW has given us, I would hope that most people realize its simply impossible. There's no way to have a balanced battle, and most games are going to result in slaughters in which players try to balance it themselves, which gets tiring.

But wait! There's an answer. GW scenarios. Those will be balanced and give an opportunity for fair fights more than likely. And you'll only have to buy a $74 book to do it! Not only that, but do you think there are going to be scenarios that balance out legacy forces? Probably not. The first book will likely have general scenarios that provide no balance and scenarios that use the Sigmarite and Khorne forces. Meaning if you do want some balance, you're going to have to buy the new models.

Then GW can release new, successive campaign books as quickly as they desire, each one either escalating the model count of existing armies (Sigmarites and Khorne), or being exclusively for the release of new armies (Duardin for example) forcing you to purchase more and more models if you want to play fresh scenarios that have actually gone through some form of play testing. This ensures, at least they think, a steady stream of income while phasing out the use of old, unsupported models as opposed to their old model, which they think people just bought an army or a few models and then stopped. Who knows actually, cause there's no market research going on.

Then you have the summoning mechanic, which to me is, is clearly a very cynical way for GW to sell even more models. More and more armies are able to summon (in some cases infinitely), and as more rules are released, we find out some of them can summon as well (I recall rules for a Sigmarite or a formation that allowed you to summon Stormcast Eternals). It's impossible to balance, and if both players don't have the option to summon, I feel sorry for the player without it, but it sure is a great way to sell a ton of models. At least in GW's eyes.

I know the answer some will give to a lot of what I've written is, "You have to house rule it! Create your own rules, ignore what you don't like!" My answer is - If I'm spending this much money on a game, I shouldn't have to essentially create the game for the designers and put in all of the time and effort to play test it that they're supposed to be doing to make it fun. It's just insulting to me as a customer, and speaks to how little GW respects me. And if that's the case, I'll vote with my wallet and buy Infinity instead. I'll just have to dream that one day GW will want me as a customer to spend money on their products again.

Plumbumbarum wrote:Not speaking for him/her but creating a scenario in a game where you dont like the gameplay will not change anything. If I hate Starcraft, the campaign story and objective based missions dont help a bit and on the other hand, I dont need a script or a scenario for Close Combat, Combat Mission Shock Force, Wargame AB or Empire Total War, I can just play pitched battles for hours.

It's just like "fix the game yourself" suggestions for me. Age of Scrubs is so bad at its core that nothing there is worth salvaging, if they brought me that little streamlined tactical gem of a game without points then hell, I could sit down and create a point system.

Yeah, if a game isn't fun, a scenario probably won't change much. On the subject of 'fix it yourself', there are varying degrees of this, and a lot of it depends on how much you like a game.

I think that if you love a fame but it doesn't work well for a particular purpose, it's worth changing up (like 40k tournaments). If it's a game you enjoy, but not love, it still might be worthwhile to just change the rules you don't like, if it's not a lot of them (like measuring from bases). Some games just differ too much from what you're looking for to make sense to fix, and I think this is where AoS is for some people.

Plus, like any other miniature game, if you don't love the miniatures, it's pretty hard to I've the game.

OTOH, it's very hard to find the perfect game with the perfect miniatures!

Necros wrote:From a model perspective alone I'm real impressed with AoS. these are some of the best minis I've gotten in a long time. I've been having lots of fun building and painting up the starter minis though, and that's 99% of the hobby for me anyway. I'm planning to paint up both armies, and then see which one I'd rather collect more of and then probably sell the other one. Right now I'm leaning toward SigMarines, but that might just be ShineyNew Syndrome.

I haven't played it yet, and don't know when I will since I hardly get to play anything but my own games lately.. I do appreciate the small amount of rules and what seems like a more laid back style of play rather than a game for tourneys, since I'm a laid back kinda gamer.

For me right now, it is also 95% models, even though the game was fun enough. It's nothig against AoS, but just like you, I'm constrained for game time, and 40k remains my first choice.

 Talys wrote:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:
.......create the fun.

By playing a game that wasn't knocked out by the work experience kid in an afternoon.

No, by playing a game that is concise, easy to learn, with great unit depth, has beautiful models, and most importantly, fun.

Um? Um? I know I know the answer! You're referring to Warmahordes aren't you?

I think there's something here with the simplified rules people aren't considering - being able to play a pickup game with someone who hasn't analyzed the rules for a week prior.

I loved collecting/painting fantasy armies in 5th - 8th but played so rarely that every time I'd finally get to have a game I was a noob again who couldn't remember any of the basic rules. (I play way more 40k than fantasy)

Whats great about the new rules is I could play an hour game with a buddy who drops by and doesn't normally play Warhammer - I could even get my wife to try a game or 2 and she could pickup on the rules pretty fast. And if I don't play for a year I could read the rules in 15 min and be able to play.

To me this is gold.

Now for competative gaming, there will eventually, and probobly in the near future, develop a standardized way of list building.

Think of magic the gathering (which I haven't played in 15 years so bear with me) - there was no rule in the starting rulebook that you had to play with atleast 60 cards, maximum 4 of any kind, a restricted list where you could only have 1 of each and a banned list of cards that weren't allowed - this came with time.

But did people kick and scream that magic was completely unfair and broken and designed for children? No. Did they make stupid lists that said take 20 black lotuses, timetwisters and djinns and say just say I win, good game? No - Players were always driven to make fun decks and have fun games.

In AOS without competative rules, people will gravitate towards building fun lists.

Ok, The issues of contention/outrage:

1. NO POINTS! - I understand the serious problems this raises for pickup games. However RE, list building and competitive players I think that going out and buying all the broken units for a game that was never really balanced so you can steam roll your opponents is well- pretty lame- and not particularly "tactical" or "interesting". How possible it is to get some sort of balance by friendly agreement/scenario is the real issue here.

That said I'm a pretty big player of Flames of War, and I play with a competitive game group (though not insane WAAC) and do the occasional tournament (plenty of insane WAAC). List building is a pretty big part of the game, and if you bring a stupid list you get crushed. Sure there is "over powered" in the game, but it doesn't seem to be as a big of an issue. List building is more about synergy and being able to deal with different situations. (For example, do I have enough good AT to take out heavy Armour or do I have enough shots to stop a blob of russian conscripts.


2. GAME IS TO SIMPLE/BORING- this is a more valid criticism/topic for debate. I guess we will have to look at this rumoured "big rulebook" and scenarios etc Also guess whether its "boring" is in the eyes of the players.

Okay my starter set came in. WOW , very impressed. Great boxed set and can't complain about the price. For rules I will be using the point system proposed by Attila of Dakka. I'm very excited to start up my army! Very pleased.

Somebody wake up JERVIS JOHNSON from his self indulgent rankings on compititve gamers and tournaments. WAKE UP they are customers too!!! He is killing GW ....... Bring back Priesely and hire Cavatore (I'm a big fan of BA).

We as a community can do a much better job with rules and making the game fun anyway! Maybe GW should hire Attilla from Dakka!