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.

 Grimtuff wrote:

 Talys wrote:

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 own a Cyrix, Menoth, and Trollbood armies, but I really don't enjoy the game enough to want to play it. The models are pretty cool to paint one of, and because they're only a couple of parts per model, it's easy to build and paint. Oh, and a Retribution battle box still BNIB, and both the Warmachines and Hordes 2-army starters (unpainted) and loads of random minis that I just liked

I know some people may find this amazing to believe, but I actually had way, way more more fun playing random minis in AoS than WMH using fairly organized armies.

Maybe there's a little bit of bias, because I like the minis better, and I've only said a bazillion times that I'll take better minis over better rules any day. There's no question the AoS rules are simpler, though, and to chaosmarauder's point, really easy rules are FANTASTIC for a secondary game that is more collection / less gameplay, because you feel a bit noobish every time you decide to play it again. I mean, frankly, I don't like WMH enough to ever play it enough to become a skilled or esperienced WMH player, and it's so many months (years?!) between games that I pretty much forget the rules and have to re-read them before I play them anyhow. And I don't like AoS enough that I'll play it more than once every few months.. basically, if I've finished a bunch of models, I'll want to play that army a little bit, but then they'll get retired til there are new models for that army, or I finish another army. Plus it will need to coincide with a buddy ALSO wanting to play AoS.

I'm also not crazy about how with WMH there's a ton of stuff all over the table (and you can't disguise it, for instance, with clever objective markers).

Yet, Privateer Press gets plenty of my money If only I'd paint some of that stuff piling up >.<

 angelofvengeance wrote:

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.

it is, isn't it AoV???
he did give himself an out with, "most people', though...

i am one of those rare folks who the minis matter to, more than any other aspect...
the way the models look on the website is my minimum basic standard of painting, and i can easily bring myself to put in more effort to make my paintjobs look even better than the studio models...
i have bought every edition of the game since 2nd ed. WFB and Rogue Trader (and all of the Specialist Games), but never played the game, as that would just take away from my painting time...
i would rather sit in the shop painting, while watching my friends play...

so, yeah, how awesome the plastic is comes in as the most important thing to me, and i know a bunch of painters who feel the exact same as me...
then there are those who spend the majority of their hobby time building and painting, but also play the game...
oddly enough, they seem to be the ones who are happiest with AoS...

i find the people who only see the minis as 3-D chits baffling, myself...
why even buy high-priced models if you only see them as game tokens???
might as well just be playing Paperhammer, like Battletech before that game had models...

cheers
jah

Yeah the only thing I ever want to do is paint a cool collection of minis. Everything else is secondary. That AoS allows me to compose an army of whatever I want is the biggest plus!

 Bottle wrote:
Yeah the only thing I ever want to do is paint a cool collection of minis. Everything else is secondary. That AoS allows me to compose an army of whatever I want is the biggest plus!

I can't think of a game besides GW games that require you to use certain models...

Any other game the rules don't say "use citadel models" or "use X brand models". Even so ANY game can use any models as long as the base size is correct. AOS has nothing special in this regard. I can use my ww2 models in AOS if I wanted, just like I can fight my Aquans against my ww2 models etc.

So I cannot think of a game besides GW ones that restricts your models in any way. In fact a lot of rules encourage you to use the models you like.

So why does this actually matter for AOS? When AOS will even have a special GW unique blurb specifically mentioning citadel models just like in the 40k book "making all my 40k armies illegal by the way", not that it effects my games.

MadMarkMagee wrote:
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.

Let's just look at 40k. It's already a simple game with the igougo whole army lolol mechanics where you dont have any overwatch, interrupts etc. What keeps it from being a tactical desert imo is the fact that vehicles have facing and it's mostly shooting oriented so flanking gives you solid advantage in a way of getting to vulnerable side of vehicles and negating cover (though it's all a bit spoiled by overly low movement ranges imo) Another thing is reserves which can shake up a lot on the table.

Now Age of Sleep is like 40k with all that removed or significantly limited. Maybe the only thing that you could call advantage from flanking is when you ran out place to charge something from the front but that's not really satisfying tbh. Obviously one can say that special rules interaction gameplay is more important than basic rules based tactics but then why not play Warmachine instead of wasting time on its dumbed down version.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
Yeah the only thing I ever want to do is paint a cool collection of minis. Everything else is secondary. That AoS allows me to compose an army of whatever I want is the biggest plus!

I can't think of a game besides GW games that require you to use certain models...

Any other game the rules don't say "use citadel models" or "use X brand models". Even so ANY game can use any models as long as the base size is correct. AOS has nothing special in this regard. I can use my ww2 models in AOS if I wanted, just like I can fight my Aquans against my ww2 models etc.

So I cannot think of a game besides GW ones that restricts your models in any way. In fact a lot of rules encourage you to use the models you like.

So why does this actually matter for AOS? When AOS will even have a special GW unique blurb specifically mentioning citadel models just like in the 40k book "making all my 40k armies illegal by the way", not that it effects my games.

I don't believe this is true in organized play. For example, if you go to a WMH tournament and bring your space marines on 30mm bases to play as menoth or cyngar, or your imperial knight as a Stormwall or Judicator, you won't be permitted to play. You likewise can't call your Stormwall a Judicator and say, "well, they're about the same size".

In a friendly game, sure: use whatever you want. People pick up Transformers and call them Imperial Knights, for heavens sake. Trust me, when we wanted to try 40 scatterlasesr jetbikes, we didn't have 13 boxes of new jetbikes painted up. We just took bases, stuck a yellow dot on the corner (to indicate direction), and presto. When we wanted to play the 5 Household Knights formation (Terryn?), we didn't have 5 knights handy (we actually own enough, just didn't have them all in one place) -- so for two of them, they were paper round cutouts with a smiley face.

At a GW store, it's reasonable for them not to want people to use their space to play with models (or games) not sold by their company. Just like in some independent stores, they don't want you playing with ForgeWorld models, because they can't sell them. I mean, these things have a cost.

All I can say is, after a few days have passed, many nay sayers in my local area have had a change of heart. Several were ragging on it, claiming it was trash. Then they played...now all the fantasy players except maybe 1 or two have gotten on board.

Anecdotal but, hey. It's a sign of something. Good or bad, who knows!?

 Talys wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
Yeah the only thing I ever want to do is paint a cool collection of minis. Everything else is secondary. That AoS allows me to compose an army of whatever I want is the biggest plus!

I can't think of a game besides GW games that require you to use certain models...

Any other game the rules don't say "use citadel models" or "use X brand models". Even so ANY game can use any models as long as the base size is correct. AOS has nothing special in this regard. I can use my ww2 models in AOS if I wanted, just like I can fight my Aquans against my ww2 models etc.

So I cannot think of a game besides GW ones that restricts your models in any way. In fact a lot of rules encourage you to use the models you like.

So why does this actually matter for AOS? When AOS will even have a special GW unique blurb specifically mentioning citadel models just like in the 40k book "making all my 40k armies illegal by the way", not that it effects my games.

I don't believe this is true in organized play. For example, if you go to a WMH tournament and bring your space marines on 30mm bases to play as menoth or cyngar, or your imperial knight as a Stormwall or Judicator, you won't be permitted to play. You likewise can't call your Stormwall a Judicator and say, "well, they're about the same size".

In a friendly game, sure: use whatever you want. People pick up Transformers and call them Imperial Knights, for heavens sake. Trust me, when we wanted to try 40 scatterlasesr jetbikes, we didn't have 13 boxes of new jetbikes painted up. We just took bases, stuck a yellow dot on the corner (to indicate direction), and presto. When we wanted to play the 5 Household Knights formation (Terryn?), we didn't have 5 knights handy (we actually own enough, just didn't have them all in one place) -- so for two of them, they were paper round cutouts with a smiley face.

At a GW store, it's reasonable for them not to want people to use their space to play with models (or games) not sold by their company. Just like in some independent stores, they don't want you playing with ForgeWorld models, because they can't sell them. I mean, these things have a cost.

Yes my point was though, it is not a good selling point for a game, when you can do it in any game. In fact AOS is WORSE because you also measure from the model, making things difficult in some situations. Ignoring all the external factors for the game, AOS is one of the worst games for using whatever models you want because 1 it's technically against the rules for GW games and 2 measurements are from the model.

But yes ignoring external factors like ignoring the rules (we all do, usually because they are silly) or your game store has weird rules about model usage then you can use whatever you want yes. But that is no different from ANY other game.

@Swastakowey - of all the rules that are in AoS, probably that only one that has met great resistance is measure from model (instead of base). I think the reasons for doing this were noble, but the result is something that's awkward to do, and more to the point, something that people who play wargames are so used to that it's difficult to unlearn.

I think #2 becomes irrelevant, as I haven't heard anyone actually play this measuring from the base.

There are plenty of reasons NOT to like AoS, but I think GW telling you that you should use GW models is a pretty weak one, because, practically, like you said, model usage/enforcement turns out to be like pretty much every other game.

 Talys wrote:
@Swastakowey - of all the rules that are in AoS, probably that only one that has met great resistance is measure from model (instead of base). I think the reasons for doing this were noble, but the result is something that's awkward to do, and more to the point, something that people who play wargames are so used to that it's difficult to unlearn.

I think #2 becomes irrelevant, as I haven't heard anyone actually play this measuring from the base.

There are plenty of reasons NOT to like AoS, but I think GW telling you that you should use GW models is a pretty weak one, because, practically, like you said, model usage/enforcement turns out to be like pretty much every other game.

Ok let me spell it out for you.

X person says "AOS is great for taking whatever model I want and using it in the game"

I say "No for X reasons in AOS and for the fact you can do that with any game"

You reply with something completely different to what I am talking about.

To clarify, AOS is in no way special about model choices since it does not matter what game you play any model is usable, if anything AOS is worse than other games because instead of using base sizes you measure from the model, making it harder to use any model you want etc.

Simply saying that using any model you want is not a selling point in AOS since it is standard and even encouraged in other games.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Talys wrote:
@Swastakowey - of all the rules that are in AoS, probably that only one that has met great resistance is measure from model (instead of base). I think the reasons for doing this were noble, but the result is something that's awkward to do, and more to the point, something that people who play wargames are so used to that it's difficult to unlearn.

I think #2 becomes irrelevant, as I haven't heard anyone actually play this measuring from the base.

There are plenty of reasons NOT to like AoS, but I think GW telling you that you should use GW models is a pretty weak one, because, practically, like you said, model usage/enforcement turns out to be like pretty much every other game.

Ok let me spell it out for you.

X person says "AOS is great for taking whatever model I want and using it in the game"

I say "No for X reasons in AOS and for the fact you can do that with any game"

You reply with something completely different to what I am talking about.

To clarify, AOS is in no way special about model choices since it does not matter what game you play any model is usable, if anything AOS is worse than other games because instead of using base sizes you measure from the model, making it harder to use any model you want etc.

Simply saying that using any model you want is not a selling point in AOS since it is standard and even encouraged in other games.

I am 90% sure that they meant "whatever models they want within the GW range", anyways. Like, they can build an army that uses Empire State Troops and River Trolls side-by-side, 100% legally with the rules associated with those models, where most other games have restrictive allies systems that would prevent that (WHFB wouldn't let you do that at all in 8th, 40k you can go Unbound but then your trolls wouldn't be able to get within X" without going crazy or whatever, I am pretty sure Infinity has rules against taking PanO knights and Nomad Riot Grrls in the same list and WarmaHordes has mercs but I don't think you can take a Menoth WarCaster and an Everblight Warbeast together)

Rihgu wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Talys wrote:
@Swastakowey - of all the rules that are in AoS, probably that only one that has met great resistance is measure from model (instead of base). I think the reasons for doing this were noble, but the result is something that's awkward to do, and more to the point, something that people who play wargames are so used to that it's difficult to unlearn.

I think #2 becomes irrelevant, as I haven't heard anyone actually play this measuring from the base.

There are plenty of reasons NOT to like AoS, but I think GW telling you that you should use GW models is a pretty weak one, because, practically, like you said, model usage/enforcement turns out to be like pretty much every other game.

Ok let me spell it out for you.

X person says "AOS is great for taking whatever model I want and using it in the game"

I say "No for X reasons in AOS and for the fact you can do that with any game"

You reply with something completely different to what I am talking about.

To clarify, AOS is in no way special about model choices since it does not matter what game you play any model is usable, if anything AOS is worse than other games because instead of using base sizes you measure from the model, making it harder to use any model you want etc.

Simply saying that using any model you want is not a selling point in AOS since it is standard and even encouraged in other games.

I am 90% sure that they meant "whatever models they want within the GW range", anyways. Like, they can build an army that uses Empire State Troops and River Trolls side-by-side, 100% legally with the rules associated with those models, where most other games have restrictive allies systems that would prevent that (WHFB wouldn't let you do that at all in 8th, 40k you can go Unbound but then your trolls wouldn't be able to get within X" without going crazy or whatever, I am pretty sure Infinity has rules against taking PanO knights and Nomad Riot Grrls in the same list and WarmaHordes has mercs but I don't think you can take a Menoth WarCaster and an Everblight Warbeast together)

Yea more than likely actually.

I guess even then, is that really a selling point? I mean a lack of base structure is not usually seen as a good thing in rules. However the option to change the structure would be better. In your example of infinity, one could simply say "hey man, I have X model and really like it can I use him in my list?" Or hey this model is not X but is Z this game, that cool?" and bam you have the what "makes AOS good" and also the structure for decent game play.

But yea they probably mean't using their GW range of models with rules as whatever mix they want.

 Swastakowey wrote:

Rihgu wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Talys wrote:
@Swastakowey - of all the rules that are in AoS, probably that only one that has met great resistance is measure from model (instead of base). I think the reasons for doing this were noble, but the result is something that's awkward to do, and more to the point, something that people who play wargames are so used to that it's difficult to unlearn.

I think #2 becomes irrelevant, as I haven't heard anyone actually play this measuring from the base.

There are plenty of reasons NOT to like AoS, but I think GW telling you that you should use GW models is a pretty weak one, because, practically, like you said, model usage/enforcement turns out to be like pretty much every other game.

Ok let me spell it out for you.

X person says "AOS is great for taking whatever model I want and using it in the game"

I say "No for X reasons in AOS and for the fact you can do that with any game"

You reply with something completely different to what I am talking about.

To clarify, AOS is in no way special about model choices since it does not matter what game you play any model is usable, if anything AOS is worse than other games because instead of using base sizes you measure from the model, making it harder to use any model you want etc.

Simply saying that using any model you want is not a selling point in AOS since it is standard and even encouraged in other games.

I am 90% sure that they meant "whatever models they want within the GW range", anyways. Like, they can build an army that uses Empire State Troops and River Trolls side-by-side, 100% legally with the rules associated with those models, where most other games have restrictive allies systems that would prevent that (WHFB wouldn't let you do that at all in 8th, 40k you can go Unbound but then your trolls wouldn't be able to get within X" without going crazy or whatever, I am pretty sure Infinity has rules against taking PanO knights and Nomad Riot Grrls in the same list and WarmaHordes has mercs but I don't think you can take a Menoth WarCaster and an Everblight Warbeast together)

Yea more than likely actually.

I guess even then, is that really a selling point? I mean a lack of base structure is not usually seen as a good thing in rules. However the option to change the structure would be better. In your example of infinity, one could simply say "hey man, I have X model and really like it can I use him in my list?" Or hey this model is not X but is Z this game, that cool?" and bam you have the what "makes AOS good" and also the structure for decent game play.

But yea they probably mean't using their GW range of models with rules as whatever mix they want.

Eh, I don't think it's a bad thing. I mean, it really allows players to have their own, unique forces using whatever models they think are cool. Or they can create whatever fluff reason they want. I mean, having no list building structure can be both bad, and good. I think if they are to give any sort of list structure, it just needs to be limitations on specific unit types or amount of scroll limitations.

Could it be a selling point? Easily. This opens the flood gates to get players new and old to buy whatever they want. No longer are you bound by the faction you play. if you played Orcs and Gobos, you would likely never ever EVER buy anything that wasn't an Orc or Goblin army model. Unless it looked so super cool, you had to have it. But then, you could NEVER play with it. Now, you can buy whatever looks cool, and play it too, no matter what majority faction you happen to be playing.

Edit: As to asking if you could use X in a Y army list, that likely never flies because the rules say otherwise. And in pick up games, people seem to claim no one is capable of allowing rule of cool. So, the rules now support I can play X with Y no matter what.

Melevolence wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Rihgu wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Talys wrote:
@Swastakowey - of all the rules that are in AoS, probably that only one that has met great resistance is measure from model (instead of base). I think the reasons for doing this were noble, but the result is something that's awkward to do, and more to the point, something that people who play wargames are so used to that it's difficult to unlearn.

I think #2 becomes irrelevant, as I haven't heard anyone actually play this measuring from the base.

There are plenty of reasons NOT to like AoS, but I think GW telling you that you should use GW models is a pretty weak one, because, practically, like you said, model usage/enforcement turns out to be like pretty much every other game.

Ok let me spell it out for you.

X person says "AOS is great for taking whatever model I want and using it in the game"

I say "No for X reasons in AOS and for the fact you can do that with any game"

You reply with something completely different to what I am talking about.

To clarify, AOS is in no way special about model choices since it does not matter what game you play any model is usable, if anything AOS is worse than other games because instead of using base sizes you measure from the model, making it harder to use any model you want etc.

Simply saying that using any model you want is not a selling point in AOS since it is standard and even encouraged in other games.

I am 90% sure that they meant "whatever models they want within the GW range", anyways. Like, they can build an army that uses Empire State Troops and River Trolls side-by-side, 100% legally with the rules associated with those models, where most other games have restrictive allies systems that would prevent that (WHFB wouldn't let you do that at all in 8th, 40k you can go Unbound but then your trolls wouldn't be able to get within X" without going crazy or whatever, I am pretty sure Infinity has rules against taking PanO knights and Nomad Riot Grrls in the same list and WarmaHordes has mercs but I don't think you can take a Menoth WarCaster and an Everblight Warbeast together)

Yea more than likely actually.

I guess even then, is that really a selling point? I mean a lack of base structure is not usually seen as a good thing in rules. However the option to change the structure would be better. In your example of infinity, one could simply say "hey man, I have X model and really like it can I use him in my list?" Or hey this model is not X but is Z this game, that cool?" and bam you have the what "makes AOS good" and also the structure for decent game play.

But yea they probably mean't using their GW range of models with rules as whatever mix they want.

Eh, I don't think it's a bad thing. I mean, it really allows players to have their own, unique forces using whatever models they think are cool. Or they can create whatever fluff reason they want. I mean, having no list building structure can be both bad, and good. I think if they are to give any sort of list structure, it just needs to be limitations on specific unit types or amount of scroll limitations.

Could it be a selling point? Easily. This opens the flood gates to get players new and old to buy whatever they want. No longer are you bound by the faction you play. if you played Orcs and Gobos, you would likely never ever EVER buy anything that wasn't an Orc or Goblin army model. Unless it looked so super cool, you had to have it. But then, you could NEVER play with it. Now, you can buy whatever looks cool, and play it too, no matter what majority faction you happen to be playing.

Edit: As to asking if you could use X in a Y army list, that likely never flies because the rules say otherwise. And in pick up games, people seem to claim no one is capable of allowing rule of cool. So, the rules now support I can play X with Y no matter what.

The thing is you never had to stick to a faction. 8 years ago I had Guard conscripts in my Tau army. We never needed a mess of a game to do that. For the Orcs I could easily get some humans, give them Orc warpaint and pretend they are like the diggers from Gorka Morka (Humans trying to be like orcs). That is fun, has fluff behind it and allows me to use other models. They are models, you can for all games simply buy whats cool and use it without breaking the game or having no structure.

Now yes you can still do that, but all the restrictions are also gone on everything and its just a mess. How is it a selling point?

I would understand if we had endless supplies of detailed and published books on Age of Sigmar's history, units, battles and so on and if the rules reflected these details (like in historical games) but giving us hundreds of units with randomly chosen gear and stats and saying use whatever is not a selling point to most people.

As to your edit the not allowed rule of cool is you may have experienced is a problem with players not rules. Just like in AOS I can say no Nagash and you could comply or leave. It's a player thing not a rules thing.

 Swastakowey wrote:

Melevolence wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Rihgu wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Talys wrote:
@Swastakowey - of all the rules that are in AoS, probably that only one that has met great resistance is measure from model (instead of base). I think the reasons for doing this were noble, but the result is something that's awkward to do, and more to the point, something that people who play wargames are so used to that it's difficult to unlearn.

I think #2 becomes irrelevant, as I haven't heard anyone actually play this measuring from the base.

There are plenty of reasons NOT to like AoS, but I think GW telling you that you should use GW models is a pretty weak one, because, practically, like you said, model usage/enforcement turns out to be like pretty much every other game.

Ok let me spell it out for you.

X person says "AOS is great for taking whatever model I want and using it in the game"

I say "No for X reasons in AOS and for the fact you can do that with any game"

You reply with something completely different to what I am talking about.

To clarify, AOS is in no way special about model choices since it does not matter what game you play any model is usable, if anything AOS is worse than other games because instead of using base sizes you measure from the model, making it harder to use any model you want etc.

Simply saying that using any model you want is not a selling point in AOS since it is standard and even encouraged in other games.

I am 90% sure that they meant "whatever models they want within the GW range", anyways. Like, they can build an army that uses Empire State Troops and River Trolls side-by-side, 100% legally with the rules associated with those models, where most other games have restrictive allies systems that would prevent that (WHFB wouldn't let you do that at all in 8th, 40k you can go Unbound but then your trolls wouldn't be able to get within X" without going crazy or whatever, I am pretty sure Infinity has rules against taking PanO knights and Nomad Riot Grrls in the same list and WarmaHordes has mercs but I don't think you can take a Menoth WarCaster and an Everblight Warbeast together)

Yea more than likely actually.

I guess even then, is that really a selling point? I mean a lack of base structure is not usually seen as a good thing in rules. However the option to change the structure would be better. In your example of infinity, one could simply say "hey man, I have X model and really like it can I use him in my list?" Or hey this model is not X but is Z this game, that cool?" and bam you have the what "makes AOS good" and also the structure for decent game play.

But yea they probably mean't using their GW range of models with rules as whatever mix they want.

Eh, I don't think it's a bad thing. I mean, it really allows players to have their own, unique forces using whatever models they think are cool. Or they can create whatever fluff reason they want. I mean, having no list building structure can be both bad, and good. I think if they are to give any sort of list structure, it just needs to be limitations on specific unit types or amount of scroll limitations.

Could it be a selling point? Easily. This opens the flood gates to get players new and old to buy whatever they want. No longer are you bound by the faction you play. if you played Orcs and Gobos, you would likely never ever EVER buy anything that wasn't an Orc or Goblin army model. Unless it looked so super cool, you had to have it. But then, you could NEVER play with it. Now, you can buy whatever looks cool, and play it too, no matter what majority faction you happen to be playing.

Edit: As to asking if you could use X in a Y army list, that likely never flies because the rules say otherwise. And in pick up games, people seem to claim no one is capable of allowing rule of cool. So, the rules now support I can play X with Y no matter what.

The thing is you never had to stick to a faction. 8 years ago I had Guard conscripts in my Tau army. We never needed a mess of a game to do that. For the Orcs I could easily get some humans, give them Orc warpaint and pretend they are like the diggers from Gorka Morka (Humans trying to be like orcs). That is fun, has fluff behind it and allows me to use other models. They are models, you can for all games simply buy whats cool and use it without breaking the game or having no structure.

Now yes you can still do that, but all the restrictions are also gone on everything and its just a mess. How is it a selling point?

I would understand if we had endless supplies of detailed and published books on Age of Sigmar's history, units, battles and so on and if the rules reflected these details (like in historical games) but giving us hundreds of units with randomly chosen gear and stats and saying use whatever is not a selling point to most people.

As to your edit the not allowed rule of cool is you may have experienced is a problem with players not rules. Just like in AOS I can say no Nagash and you could comply or leave. It's a player thing not a rules thing.

True, but the difference between now and then is, for people who are very much rules sticklers is, it makes players 'that guy' for turning it down. When before, rules were in place for why you could or couldn't use something. Of course, playing with friends you, if they agree and aren't uptight, you could mix and match units. Sure. Have them be 'counts as'. It's fun to do so. BUT, the issue then comes in...try bringing that 'counts as' army ANYWHERE out of your usual play zone, and that likely won't fly. Having it defined by the rules what you can actually use in your army is important to just as many. Especially when it comes to players who live and die by WYSIWYG. So, using humans as 'diggers' would be fine for you, Steve, and Sally who play together every week. But if you went somewhere else for some reason (moved, traveling, etc) suddenly you're fluffy and fun army...may not get any games.

I see both sides of the coin here. I get what you're saying when it comes to 'you don't need to use X models to represent Y models', but a player SHOULD (unless your only intent is playing with the same specific people who know what your stuff is by heart). It makes it clear what is what at a glance. At least by what the model actually is. Like, sometimes I sub a few slugga boyz for shoota boyz, but at least it's clear those are BOYZ. Having humans sub in as Orc models makes things complicated. When you have to stop and ask "What's THAT unit of humans supposed to be again?"

Sorry if my thoughts are scattered. At work, sort of typing quickly whenever I have a chance.

Basically: AoS is a strong selling point to sell whatever for whomever. You can play Skavin with Orcs, or Brets with Elves, and now there's nothing to tell you no. Before, it was nothing but a house rule that didn't have any real ground to stand on and relied totally on the good will of your opponents to let you field it. Armies of old required a lot of thought and dedication. Because if you got into Elves, but also kinda wanted to play Brets...you had to start a new army entirely. Sure, you could sub those Brets in for a few Elf units if your friends say so...but you aren't USING Brets. Just Bret models. Which isn't the same. Now, you can mix and mash.

Yes unit rules are no longer limited at all, but you could still easily do this in the old system (or any system). Models have always been allowed to be changed as no rules can force models upon you.

But saying use whatever you want is not the place you should start. It should be an OPTION. Take 40k (easy example) we can play it with the AOS rules (take whatever and full up board). It is easy. But for AOS we cannot say lets play X style game. AOS limits your options as every possibility has to be discussed if you want a certain type of game.

AOS doesn't supply a base rule set to make changes on. This is why it is incorrect to say it is awesome because of this. You could always play games "AOS style", but it was and rightfully so an option. AOS would be far deeper and maybe worth playing if it had a "god mode" where players could pit their collections against each other and then had a normal game mode as well.

Simply put, the AOS system is backwards.

For example is it easier to add balancing factors, or remove unbalancing factors?

One is doing to work, the other is tweaking already done work. It is obvious which one is easier.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Talys wrote:
@Swastakowey - of all the rules that are in AoS, probably that only one that has met great resistance is measure from model (instead of base). I think the reasons for doing this were noble, but the result is something that's awkward to do, and more to the point, something that people who play wargames are so used to that it's difficult to unlearn.

I think #2 becomes irrelevant, as I haven't heard anyone actually play this measuring from the base.

There are plenty of reasons NOT to like AoS, but I think GW telling you that you should use GW models is a pretty weak one, because, practically, like you said, model usage/enforcement turns out to be like pretty much every other game.

Ok let me spell it out for you.

X person says "AOS is great for taking whatever model I want and using it in the game"

I say "No for X reasons in AOS and for the fact you can do that with any game"

You reply with something completely different to what I am talking about.

To clarify, AOS is in no way special about model choices since it does not matter what game you play any model is usable, if anything AOS is worse than other games because instead of using base sizes you measure from the model, making it harder to use any model you want etc.

Simply saying that using any model you want is not a selling point in AOS since it is standard and even encouraged in other games.

Okay, first of all, I never said that AoS is anything special. In fact, I said it is like mist other games with respect to model substitution.

There are SOME games that explicitly allow model substitution, KoW being probably one of the best known. But 3 very popular games, X-Wing, Warmachines/Hordes, and Malifaux are exactly the same as AoS with respect to model substitution. I think Infinity too -- I have the N3, have read t, and do nit recall anything about substituting models.

But I can assure you that if you go in a Malifaux, Infinity, or WM/H night with GW models, people would think you had lost your mind. Even of someone is conceptually ok with it, they would have no idea what a wood elf or bretonian was supposed to be as Circle. To take the reverse, many models in the GW universe have nothing comparable: What looks like Nagash, a Necrosphinx, or a Putrid Blightking?

This isn't a reason to play AoS, but it's not a reason NOT to, either, because like it or not, most popular game wants to sell its own miniatures, and therefore creates unique miniatures without equivalence.

Now, if you want to champion generic systems, that's fine. But you also can't use those with Colossals and Warjacks, any more than you could with Riptides and Dreadnoughts.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Yes unit rules are no longer limited at all, but you could still easily do this in the old system (or any system). Models have always been allowed to be changed as no rules can force models upon you.

But saying use whatever you want is not the place you should start. It should be an OPTION. Take 40k (easy example) we can play it with the AOS rules (take whatever and full up board). It is easy. But for AOS we cannot say lets play X style game. AOS limits your options as every possibility has to be discussed if you want a certain type of game.

AOS doesn't supply a base rule set to make changes on. This is why it is incorrect to say it is awesome because of this. You could always play games "AOS style", but it was and rightfully so an option. AOS would be far deeper and maybe worth playing if it had a "god mode" where players could pit their collections against each other and then had a normal game mode as well.

Simply put, the AOS system is backwards.

For example is it easier to add balancing factors, or remove unbalancing factors?

One is doing to work, the other is tweaking already done work. It is obvious which one is easier.

And yet, many people on this thread (nit me!) have expressed that this is a step FORWARD, because it forces the players to have a conversation and work cooperatively to improve the game experience. To these people, getting rid of the list-to-win crowd is a blessing, because they hate that.

As many people have said, points are a very imprecise instrument of balance, and I've argued that often points give the illusion of fairness, when in fact there's nothing fair about the battle at all. It's just that I'm ok with that, and I like making lists.

So YOU find it hard to remember X = X during a game, but that is the fault of the player not the rules.

If you feel that you need a rule saying you can use whatever you want to be able to use with no limits, and not have an option of limiting a game, then thats fine, but is a backward way of doing it and that is undeniable. You cannot say it is easier for players to discuss a fun game beforehand with no method of measuring units (tweaked or not) than it is for people to take units with points and slightly tweak them for a good game.

Points are better than no points, even if some of the points are wrong.

Is it easier to tweak points, or tweak an entire game of units? Be honest dude it is easier to tweak points and takes less time than adding in your own balancing system.

That is undeniable, to say that going backwards is an improvement is like saying your business will be fine when you sell a buffet of food with no restriction on plate sizing. Limits are needed. You can of course decide some people can have bigger plates (for special occasions) but with the no plate size limit you are stuck with the constant issue of people bringing in plates that are only limited by the doors you have on your building. That company will fail because without limits people will do stupid crap.

Just like AOS.

Yes unit rules are no longer limited at all, but you could still easily do this in the old system (or any system). Models have always been allowed to be changed as no rules can force models upon you.

I fail to see what you mean here. Models changing how?

But saying use whatever you want is not the place you should start. It should be an OPTION. Take 40k (easy example) we can play it with the AOS rules (take whatever and full up board). It is easy. But for AOS we cannot say lets play X style game. AOS limits your options as every possibility has to be discussed if you want a certain type of game.

This isn't relevant to being a selling point. It might be a slight deterrent if you think about it. Negotiation has ALWAYS been a big factor for GW games. The idea now, whether or not its a good one is to be seen, is that you bring as much of your collection as possible. Both players take turns putting models down until they decide "Ok, that's enough" and then play. You have to 'eyeball it' now. Is it good? Is it bad? This is entirely subjective.

AOS doesn't supply a base rule set to make changes on. This is why it is incorrect to say it is awesome because of this. You could always play games "AOS style", but it was and rightfully so an option. AOS would be far deeper and maybe worth playing if it had a "god mode" where players could pit their collections against each other and then had a normal game mode as well.

Not being awesome is, again, subjective. The system is so barebones, the only thing one can do to it IS change it. As to playing an AoS style game before, yeah, you always could. But, to some it matters that it wasn't an officially backed form of playing. It wasn't until Unbound in 40k that people could play 'AoS style' in 40k, with only points being a limiting factor. But honestly, even then, points didn't mean the unbound side or bound side was more balanced, or even fair. I know many more bound army lists that are disgustingly less fair than unbound. But, that's a different argument.

Simply put, the AOS system is backwards.

For example is it easier to add balancing factors, or remove unbalancing factors?

One is doing to work, the other is tweaking already done work. It is obvious which one is easier.

I don't think the system is all that 'backwards'. In a sense to what we know and are familiar with...yes. It is 'backwards'. Having the restraints lifted off of us makes us feel like suddenly we don't know what to do. That doing something we were told previously was bad, is suddenly still bad. Maybe that thing wasn't bad after all, but we always THOUGHT it was bad, because we were repeatedly told it was bad.

Brainwashed, if you think about it.

This system, while at first glance is 'unbalanced', but only because we no longer have a check list of 'cans and cants'. This is 'scary'. It's 'unbalanced'. And because of that, people want to push it away. it's too unfamiliar. it's like people can't trust themselves or the people they've been playing with to be in control. In the world of the internet, no one can be trusted, so hyperbole is EVERYWHERE. All of a sudden, everyone lives in an area where everyone is TFG and the game is going to cause all the TFG from every other game system to come swooping into the game and continue to ruin the fun.

All I can really say is: If you don't like the game, that's fine. No one is going to try to force you to like it. What the game is trying to do is not for everyone. It's selling point of 'buy anything, play anything' may resonate with others, and may not do a thing for the rest. The basic rule set and lack of army construction will be a make or break for some, but may be the best thing ever for others ('die hard' or 'causal' alike).

What some feel is an unbalanced mess, to others is a creative wet dream.

What some feel is lazy game design, others might feel is rather genius in its simplicity.

All I can say is, from my perspective, I feel AoS allows me to do what Fantasy didn't. I can play it. The first thing AoS does it instantly lower the cost of entry. I can buy a single hero, and a box of dudes, put em together and play with my friend who already plays, or maybe play with a dude who did the same thing as me. And the match would likely be very close. Later on, as I buy more stuff, because I'm no longer bound to just one army, all the rules are free for them. I can go back later and play with those guys against another guy who came.

If he has more stuff...I talk with him about it. Yeah, we have no 'list', but honestly, looking at unit profiles, it's not that hard to figure out what your army can and can't handle, or to just figure out a model count. If the game feels lopsided right away, it's easier now to 'reset' the match, readjust lists, and try again without having to redeploy an entire damn army.

AoS isn't perfect. Not by a long shot. But to me, it looks fun and I can feel free to buy what I want, when I want, and play what I want. Even if I want to play 2 trolls, a unit of Elf archers and a unit of skelemen with some Daemonettes, because why the hell not?

Creative people aren't creative if they can't do it without a rule telling them they HAVE to. This game does not give you tools, it forces you to do it yourself.

As for cost of entry, you could always play a game of any size. Easy, just tweak the base rules to do it. See you can't say AOS is great because you can now do X when you always could with any decent ruleset. Hence why it is backward.

You see AOS does nothing special but FORCE you to do GW job and fix it. Instead of tweaking a somewhat ok ruleset you have to fix a bad ruleset from the ground up. Any game has a base game then you can tweak it to do what you want. AOS has no base game meaning you have to change everything yourself. How is that better than tweaking already made games? Why not simply make your own game instead?

 Swastakowey wrote:
Creative people aren't creative if they can't do it without a rule telling them they HAVE to. This game does not give you tools, it forces you to do it yourself.

As for cost of entry, you could always play a game of any size. Easy, just tweak the base rules to do it. See you can't say AOS is great because you can now do X when you always could with any decent ruleset. Hence why it is backward.

You see AOS does nothing special but FORCE you to do GW job and fix it. Instead of tweaking a somewhat ok ruleset you have to fix a bad ruleset from the ground up. Any game has a base game then you can tweak it to do what you want. AOS has no base game meaning you have to change everything yourself. How is that better than tweaking already made games? Why not simply make your own game instead?

No, you can't say it's great because of those reasons. It's not great for you. You can't speak for me, or anyone else.

Edit: After seeign what GW has attempted to do for a completed rule set, I'd rather them give me the bare bones, and I take it from there. The core of the rules work well enough, the universal stat lines and other changes all work well enough. The only thing that needs 'tweaking' from the core rules is how to measure, and that's really it. Maybe how to determine 'visibility' of a model. There's a refreshingly low chance for redundant rules, or overly vague rules that relied on us to do judgement calls (or outright rewrite or revise) and do GW's job to begin with.

As for what to bring to the table, if you have a good group, that shouldn't be hard. If you have a bad group, I can see why this game isn't for you.

Melevolence wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Creative people aren't creative if they can't do it without a rule telling them they HAVE to. This game does not give you tools, it forces you to do it yourself.

As for cost of entry, you could always play a game of any size. Easy, just tweak the base rules to do it. See you can't say AOS is great because you can now do X when you always could with any decent ruleset. Hence why it is backward.

You see AOS does nothing special but FORCE you to do GW job and fix it. Instead of tweaking a somewhat ok ruleset you have to fix a bad ruleset from the ground up. Any game has a base game then you can tweak it to do what you want. AOS has no base game meaning you have to change everything yourself. How is that better than tweaking already made games? Why not simply make your own game instead?

No, you can't say it's great because of those reasons. It's not great for you. You can't speak for me, or anyone else.

Well say why? Every reason you guys say it is awesome you can do EASIER with another rule set, so why is AOS awesome?

Unless you can give me a reason AOS is worth playing over another game (where you can do the same and more, with the same models even) then stop saying its an awesome game. Because there is nothing to make it better than anything else out there.

 Swastakowey wrote:

Melevolence wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Creative people aren't creative if they can't do it without a rule telling them they HAVE to. This game does not give you tools, it forces you to do it yourself.

As for cost of entry, you could always play a game of any size. Easy, just tweak the base rules to do it. See you can't say AOS is great because you can now do X when you always could with any decent ruleset. Hence why it is backward.

You see AOS does nothing special but FORCE you to do GW job and fix it. Instead of tweaking a somewhat ok ruleset you have to fix a bad ruleset from the ground up. Any game has a base game then you can tweak it to do what you want. AOS has no base game meaning you have to change everything yourself. How is that better than tweaking already made games? Why not simply make your own game instead?

No, you can't say it's great because of those reasons. It's not great for you. You can't speak for me, or anyone else.

Well say why? Every reason you guys say it is awesome you can do EASIER with another rule set, so why is AOS awesome?

Unless you can give me a reason AOS is worth playing over another game (where you can do the same and more, with the same models even) then stop saying its an awesome game. Because there is nothing to make it better than anything else out there.

The funny thing is, I never said it was awesome. To be honest, I don't understand why you want me to try to justify my reasons for giving the game any attention. i have nothing to prove to you. You have nothing to prove to me. It's not like your opinions are more valid than my own. I don't think anyone here has made the claim that AoS is better or TRYING to be better than any other game. You're just spiraling in your own dislike for the game you are only reading/hearing what you want to read/hear.

Melevolence wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Melevolence wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Creative people aren't creative if they can't do it without a rule telling them they HAVE to. This game does not give you tools, it forces you to do it yourself.

As for cost of entry, you could always play a game of any size. Easy, just tweak the base rules to do it. See you can't say AOS is great because you can now do X when you always could with any decent ruleset. Hence why it is backward.

You see AOS does nothing special but FORCE you to do GW job and fix it. Instead of tweaking a somewhat ok ruleset you have to fix a bad ruleset from the ground up. Any game has a base game then you can tweak it to do what you want. AOS has no base game meaning you have to change everything yourself. How is that better than tweaking already made games? Why not simply make your own game instead?

No, you can't say it's great because of those reasons. It's not great for you. You can't speak for me, or anyone else.

Well say why? Every reason you guys say it is awesome you can do EASIER with another rule set, so why is AOS awesome?

Unless you can give me a reason AOS is worth playing over another game (where you can do the same and more, with the same models even) then stop saying its an awesome game. Because there is nothing to make it better than anything else out there.

The funny thing is, I never said it was awesome. To be honest, I don't understand why you want me to try to justify my reasons for giving the game any attention. i have nothing to prove to you. You have nothing to prove to me. It's not like your opinions are more valid than my own. I don't think anyone here has made the claim that AoS is better or TRYING to be better than any other game. You're just spiraling in your own dislike for the game you are only reading/hearing what you want to read/hear.

Except the people who said the game is a step forward...

This discussion started (when I joined) because someone siad they love to paint minis and AOS allows them to use anything they please. I simply (note simply) stated that any game allows this even with minor tweaks, how is AOS good for this?

Instead of people saying what you just said (admitting it isn't really good for this, but we will play it anyway) people started saying how AOS is different because X and that it is even a step forward.

I am not spiraling, you guys are simply quoting me with random (I hesitate here) excuses for this game so I answer.

This game offers nothing new or different to any other game besides the fact it has less. Nobody has said otherwise yet the discussion continues... If nobody is trying to say it is better then why reply?

See below:

The basic rule set and lack of army construction will be a make or break for some, but may be the best thing ever for others ('die hard' or 'causal' alike).

You replied with this at one point for example. But as stated earlier you can always do this with minor tweaks without destroying a foundation for a game. It is easy to have a normal ruleset then slightly change it (seconds of work) to do the anything goes style. The opposite does not work so well (AOS).

What some feel is an unbalanced mess, to others is a creative wet dream.

How so? When you can always have a creative wet dream with any ruleset? AOS is no different here either except it forces you to do more than tweak rules.

Just 2 examples of you defending AOS. But everyone who defends the game is merely saying what all games have and do better.

If you don't disagree with that then why reply with disagreements?

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

Car racing, because unless there's an aspect of snail racing I'm not familiar with, you have no control over your snails, for the humans it's gambling rather than competition and for the snails I doubt they even know they are "racing"

But I'm not sure what that has to do with the price of fish. I was simply pointing out that complaining about a car not being "competitive" is not an apt parallel compared to wargaming. Whether or not a car is "competitive" depends on the racing series you are entering more than the car itself. A Chevy Volt is competitive when raced against other Chevy Volts, an Ferrari Enzo is not competitive when raced against formula 1 cars.... in that sense cars are more like the miniatures that make up the wargame rather than the wargame itself, the wargame is more similar to the racing series in which you enter the car.

Xeno went off on a long ranting metaphor which is rendered useless by the fact the situations are not parallels of each other.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
Yeah the only thing I ever want to do is paint a cool collection of minis. Everything else is secondary. That AoS allows me to compose an army of whatever I want is the biggest plus!

I can't think of a game besides GW games that require you to use certain models...

Any other game the rules don't say "use citadel models" or "use X brand models". Even so ANY game can use any models as long as the base size is correct. AOS has nothing special in this regard. I can use my ww2 models in AOS if I wanted, just like I can fight my Aquans against my ww2 models etc.

So I cannot think of a game besides GW ones that restricts your models in any way. In fact a lot of rules encourage you to use the models you like.

So why does this actually matter for AOS? When AOS will even have a special GW unique blurb specifically mentioning citadel models just like in the 40k book "making all my 40k armies illegal by the way", not that it effects my games.

Yeah you missed my point completely as further discussed. When I say AoS is great for letting me take whatever I want it is in regards to:

1. Being able to mix factions
2. Small units being viable
3. No rules on composition, such as limits on Heroes or Monsters.

I'm sure it's possible in other games. But it wasn't really possible in 8th without house ruling. And I don't play other games or buy non GW minis, so I don't really care what's possible in other games.

And my response was to the poster who said people buy models only as gaming pieces. I buy them to paint and create a beautiful collection of primarily.

AoS - the equivalent of dog turds sneakily mixed in your favorite cake. Sure, it may look good from afar, but the closer you get, the more you wonder where the smell is coming from until the sobering reality sets in, and you realize what you just consumed. Some pallets may be desensitized to this (because of a progressive history in eating fecal-game-matter), so it may take a few good heaping mouthfuls to catch on.

The thing is, there are some who probably won't admit they were fooled into eating it too. Some of these same people are more inclined to cover (or convince themselves) with the line 'you know, its actually pretty good!'.

As for me, I figured it out before it was too late. Perhaps I'm closed minded on it when it comes to dog turds, which is fine. /shrug

Just my .02¢

Talys wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Yes unit rules are no longer limited at all, but you could still easily do this in the old system (or any system). Models have always been allowed to be changed as no rules can force models upon you.

But saying use whatever you want is not the place you should start. It should be an OPTION. Take 40k (easy example) we can play it with the AOS rules (take whatever and full up board). It is easy. But for AOS we cannot say lets play X style game. AOS limits your options as every possibility has to be discussed if you want a certain type of game.

AOS doesn't supply a base rule set to make changes on. This is why it is incorrect to say it is awesome because of this. You could always play games "AOS style", but it was and rightfully so an option. AOS would be far deeper and maybe worth playing if it had a "god mode" where players could pit their collections against each other and then had a normal game mode as well.

Simply put, the AOS system is backwards.

For example is it easier to add balancing factors, or remove unbalancing factors?

One is doing to work, the other is tweaking already done work. It is obvious which one is easier.

And yet, many people on this thread (nit me!) have expressed that this is a step FORWARD, because it forces the players to have a conversation and work cooperatively to improve the game experience.

Those people are wrong. It's as forward as selling you a broken car claiming you should be grateful for an opportunity to fix it and learn mechanics or gain insight into people's hard work. Also there is enough negotiating in wargames especialy gw ones and we don't need to be forced to start with basic balancing instead of just discussing missions or terrain.

Talys wrote:
To these people, getting rid of the list-to-win crowd is a blessing, because they hate that.

I will never believe that anyone from our noble social oriented narrative fun brigade could post anything like that. It would not only be hypocrytical ro 11 but also expose one as a whiny facist special snowflake scrub, a narrative tfg of sorts. Even the black hearted bullies rampaging the community for years with their balance and winning dont post about getting rid of half the community. Though they do dare to suggest that a good balanced ruleset helps narrative play, fething douches.

 Bottle wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
Yeah the only thing I ever want to do is paint a cool collection of minis. Everything else is secondary. That AoS allows me to compose an army of whatever I want is the biggest plus!

I can't think of a game besides GW games that require you to use certain models...

Any other game the rules don't say "use citadel models" or "use X brand models". Even so ANY game can use any models as long as the base size is correct. AOS has nothing special in this regard. I can use my ww2 models in AOS if I wanted, just like I can fight my Aquans against my ww2 models etc.

So I cannot think of a game besides GW ones that restricts your models in any way. In fact a lot of rules encourage you to use the models you like.

So why does this actually matter for AOS? When AOS will even have a special GW unique blurb specifically mentioning citadel models just like in the 40k book "making all my 40k armies illegal by the way", not that it effects my games.

Yeah you missed my point completely as further discussed. When I say AoS is great for letting me take whatever I want it is in regards to:

1. Being able to mix factions
2. Small units being viable
3. No rules on composition, such as limits on Heroes or Monsters.

I'm sure it's possible in other games. But it wasn't really possible in 8th without house ruling. And I don't play other games or buy non GW minis, so I don't really care what's possible in other games.

And my response was to the poster who said people buy models only as gaming pieces. I buy them to paint and create a beautiful collection of primarily.

This is all fine and dandy, at a house rule level. Wargaming with toy soldiers has always been, and will be, a niche for people with a propensity for the little details. Going against this tendency is sort of like swimming upstream -as a company.

 kveldulf wrote:

 Bottle wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
Yeah the only thing I ever want to do is paint a cool collection of minis. Everything else is secondary. That AoS allows me to compose an army of whatever I want is the biggest plus!

I can't think of a game besides GW games that require you to use certain models...

Any other game the rules don't say "use citadel models" or "use X brand models". Even so ANY game can use any models as long as the base size is correct. AOS has nothing special in this regard. I can use my ww2 models in AOS if I wanted, just like I can fight my Aquans against my ww2 models etc.

So I cannot think of a game besides GW ones that restricts your models in any way. In fact a lot of rules encourage you to use the models you like.

So why does this actually matter for AOS? When AOS will even have a special GW unique blurb specifically mentioning citadel models just like in the 40k book "making all my 40k armies illegal by the way", not that it effects my games.

Yeah you missed my point completely as further discussed. When I say AoS is great for letting me take whatever I want it is in regards to:

1. Being able to mix factions
2. Small units being viable
3. No rules on composition, such as limits on Heroes or Monsters.

I'm sure it's possible in other games. But it wasn't really possible in 8th without house ruling. And I don't play other games or buy non GW minis, so I don't really care what's possible in other games.

And my response was to the poster who said people buy models only as gaming pieces. I buy them to paint and create a beautiful collection of primarily.

This is all fine and dandy, at a house rule level. Wargaming with toy soldiers has always been, and will be, a niche for people with a propensity for the little details. Going against this tendency is sort of like swimming upstream -as a company.

What? I don't understand your point.