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.

 Manchu wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:
I don't think that's a very good measurement of the quality of AoS as a game. I think you're just looking at the wrong type of people to play miniature wargames.

(1) I did not argue that its concision makes AoS a good game.

(2) People put off by giant rulebooks are not necessarily "the wrong type of people." What we might call the 'heavy rulebook games' are the subject of most conversation on Dakka but are far from the only games out there. And comparing AoS to tag is really weak. The truth is, AoS has tons of rules just like 40k or WM/H, even if the core rules are pretty light, because most of the rules are actually on the war scrolls. So really it is a matter of perception, i.e., marketing.

Sorry, I suppose I shouldn't have made it seem that wargames rules that aren't hundreds of pages long are bad. I just that that at their core, AoS are a bad set of rules, and shouldn't be what we introduce new gamers into the hobby with.

I've had a bunch of fun using 40k models with the One Page 40k ruleset - although the name is sort of deceptive. The base rules do make up one page, and the advance rules (advanced psykery, mysterious terrain, additional missions, bigger games) are a second page. And each faction gets their own page of a few army specific rules and unit profiles. But a "large" unit in 1p40k is 10 guys, and a large game will never have more than two "special units," meaning a combination of Monster, Vehicle, and Walker types. Before KoW2 came along, I was planning on using One Page Fantasy to play Warhammer Fantasy with because, again, unit sizes don't get above 10 models. And that ruleset still manages to get tactical movement, despite only having a single page of basic rules. They also have rules for One Page Killteam and Mordheim, along with rules for campaign in which units can gain experience and get new skills (which put them solidly above AoS in the "narrative" category).

So I've nothing against small, easy to comprehend rulesets. I just like them to be quality small, easy to comprehend rulesets that are developed as a way to actually play games.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
What seems less apparent to some posters is the well-established market for more casual (I am now loathe to use that word) miniatures games: if the rulebook isn't 100+ pages, it's just tag?

Epic is one of the best wargames that I have played, it has maybe 20 pages of rules and the entire game (rules, fluff, modelling guides, tournament rules, scenarios and army lists) fits into a book only slightly thicker than a 40K codex. Mordheim is another example of a very simple game, I seem to manage a full game in about 30-40 minutes, yet it provides some interesting and genuinely tactical games, granted the campaign rules are a little bit shakey but hey ho.

GW can do 'casual' games right, or rather they used to be able to do it.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
I really liked the Old World. However, I'm not considering AoS as a replacement for it, but as a third thing unique to itself. .

Given that it follows directly on from the utter travesty that was the End Times and that GW apparently has no plans to release WHFB 9th, I don't see another alternative than to consider WHFB a dead game until such times as GW (or hopefully somebody competent) resurrects it properly.

I am not disagreeing with that. WHFB is dead. AOS is here. But AOS is not trying to be WHFB. To me, it is not a replacement, so much as something GW developed to fill the slot where WHFB used to be, the same way the show that followed Firefly after its cancellation was not a replacement for Firefly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Anpu42 wrote:
I do think the Game has become cheaper even though the models are more expensive.
How much does a playable army cost to to plat 8th Edition?
How much does an playable army cost in AoS?

I personally dislike this argument. I don't buy games by the army. I buy minis.

For dedicated gamers it seems like a powerful argument. Too bad Age of Sigmar killed their dogs and burnt down their homes.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I don't think there is much in it that is objectively bad. The thing that stands out for me is the Initiaiive roll. This can easily lead to one side getting two turns on the run, which can give a huge tactical advantage if it happens at the right time, probably the second or third turn.

I personally don't like the alternating unit placement, but it is an interesting mechanism that isn't bad in itself, and does give some opportunity for players to balance a game out of their collections.

The Sudden Death rule is fairly bad because it clearly is not well thought out.

The rest of it all works OK. I would prefer more sophistication in tactical factors, fewer special rules, a proper game balance system, and a more streamlined movement and combat system.

But overall it all works as a game.

AoS definitely works as a game, and it's actually better balanced than one might guess. GW is going with non-traditional, non-numerical balancing, and that is throwing pepole like you for a loop. GW is also going for a "looser", more dynamic game, with the historical constraints of a Igo-Ugo system to allow for large multi-player per sides.

The Initiative roll is good because it gives a certain compensation to the player that last lost the roll and had to go second. The only way a player gets a double turn is if the opponent had the initialtive in that round. That is, B has a potential double turn, after the previous round went A-B, resulting in A-B-B-A. From a game theory standpoint, ABBA is far more fair than ABAB when we consider that ABAB allows A to always have an initiative at attritting B's forces. Furthermore, that ABBA sequence is likely to end up reversing to AB-BA-AB or AB-BA-BA-AB at some point, giving A a double turn after B takes a double turn. Tactically, players aren't used to this mechanic, so they need to consider the 50% chance that the opponent Steals the Initiative.

The alternating unit deployment couples with First Turn and Sudden Death as a pair of balancing mechanics. As a group, it's quite good, as players balance their forces (or not), and the First Turn compensates for potentially not having as many models on the board. Similarly, Sudden Death for the opponent going overboard with units.

There are more layers of strategy during the game compared to what we had before, precisely due to the deployment, First Turn, Sudden Death and Turn Initiative mechanics. Over the next several months, this will become a lot clearer as people actually play the game, versus thinking it needs to be WFB8+.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
Mordheim is another example of a very simple game, I seem to manage a full game in about 30-40 minutes, yet it provides some interesting and genuinely tactical games, granted the campaign rules are a little bit shakey but hey ho.

You're aware that Mordheim is actually the Campaign, and that the Battle is relatively unimportant, right?

If you talk of playing a "full game" of Mordheim, you have to do the injuries and exploration, not just the fight - the treasure hunting is the best part of the game!

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

AoS definitely works as a game, and it's actually better balanced than one might guess. GW is going with non-traditional, non-numerical balancing, and that is throwing pepole like you for a loop. GW is also going for a "looser", more dynamic game, with the historical constraints of a Igo-Ugo system to allow for large multi-player per sides..

And you people like you don't get is some of us play game with no point value. GW failed at this concept, it not hard to see.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Silent Puffin? wrote:
Mordheim is another example of a very simple game, I seem to manage a full game in about 30-40 minutes, yet it provides some interesting and genuinely tactical games, granted the campaign rules are a little bit shakey but hey ho.

You're aware that Mordheim is actually the Campaign, and that the Battle is relatively unimportant, right?

If you talk of playing a "full game" of Mordheim, you have to do the injuries and exploration, not just the fight - the treasure hunting is the best part of the game!

I like the game itself but I wish that it was developed along side WFB instead of replacing it.

As it is I think the lack of points is its main weakness, But not a crippling one. My friend and I have become very adept at deploying even armies without consulting the other player about "fairness"

What I would like to see is more rules and scenarios for the game to add depth. I understand that it is a skirmish game now but I think it would hugely benifit from a formation system. What i mean by that is a way to reform your soldiers to give them specific buffs or abilities. Example being a phalanx, Arrow head, firing lines, or marching formations.

Noir wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

AoS definitely works as a game, and it's actually better balanced than one might guess. GW is going with non-traditional, non-numerical balancing, and that is throwing pepole like you for a loop. GW is also going for a "looser", more dynamic game, with the historical constraints of a Igo-Ugo system to allow for large multi-player per sides..

And you people like you don't get is some of us play game with no point value.

Can you translate that broken English into standard English, using shorter sentences that actually makes some sense to someone who natively reads English? Thanks.

That was pretty epic broken English. Even my usually adept Universal Translator can't make sense of what Noir is *trying* to say

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
I do think the Game has become cheaper even though the models are more expensive.
How much does a playable army cost to to play 8th Edition?
How much does an playable army cost in AoS?

I personally dislike this argument. I don't buy games by the army. I buy minis.

For dedicated gamers it seems like a powerful argument. Too bad Age of Sigmar killed their dogs and burnt down their homes.

That is you.
One of the reason I never started WHFB is the start up cost. I do not have the hundreds of dollars laying around to not play a game that was 90% dead in my area. I am not sure I would if it was a healthy WHFB environment.

Like I have stated elsewhere, the thing I like the most is I and my buddy can play it for under $100 and that is of we only use GW models. 3 1/2 decades worth of miniatures out there to play AoS with if I want to [and I do want to]. I am sure there are a lot of others out there that feel the same way.

 Anpu42 wrote:
One of the reason I never started WHFB is the start up cost. I do not have the hundreds of dollars laying around to not play a game that was 90% dead in my area. I am not sure I would if it was a healthy WHFB environment.

Like I have stated elsewhere, the thing I like the most is I and my buddy can play it for under $100 and that is of we only use GW models. 3 1/2 decades worth of miniatures out there to play AoS with if I want to [and I do want to]. I am sure there are a lot of others out there that feel the same way.

Note that AoS supports ALL GW Fantasy product ever produced, precisely because "points" don't have to be assigned. If you have de-supported Chaos Dorfs, Dogs of War, Fimir, and/or other ancient stuff predating WFB6, you can play AoS without worrying about the details of points costing.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

AoS definitely works as a game, and it's actually better balanced than one might guess.

AoS is not really balanced. It is scenarized. That's not the same.

Beside, the rules do have a particular vision - the GW vision of what is a game. They do not really change from WFB, honestly, because the core idea of the game is still here; you still roll to hit, to wound and the opponent can roll to save, you play your whole turn before your opponent do the same, you roll plenty of dice because it's fun in itself (and it seems like random tables will not disappear soon from the rules)...

GW is going with non-traditional, non-numerical balancing, and that is throwing pepole like you for a loop.

Well, yes, it's quite a change. At least for those who didn't see what GW made in the very beginning.

I can see that "old spirit" behind AoS, and I understand why they try to get rid of the "point cost". But I also understand people (who are usually fond of the WFB rules for a very long time) who get upset by that change. We'll see in the future if that was a good idea...or not. Depends from how well AoS will really sell worldwide,as a whole.

GW is also going for a "looser", more dynamic game, with the historical constraints of a Igo-Ugo system to allow for large multi-player per sides.

I think you are fooling yourself on that point. Why? Because an "Igo-Ugo" isn't really dynamic. You have to wait for your turn to really play, otherwise you only react to your opponent's actions. And it can still take longer, as before in WFB. A bad habit some of my fellow players used to GW games is that they are "going out for a smoke" while I'm playing my turn. That says a lot in itself. When I play another game who alternate activations rather than playing a whole turn, the waiting time is much smaller and thus, they can't "go out for a smoke" because it will be their turn much sooner than they were used to.

Beside, AoS isn't great for multi-player, especially the "free for all" version. Mainly because of that old "Igo-Ugo" system - you have to wait everyone else has played their turn before you do. And that takes a lot longer because there are a lot more people. Waiting to play is usually not fun.

The Initiative roll is good because it gives a certain compensation to the player that last lost the roll and had to go second. The only way a player gets a double turn is if the opponent had the initialtive in that round. That is, B has a potential double turn, after the previous round went A-B, resulting in A-B-B-A. From a game theory standpoint, ABBA is far more fair than ABAB when we consider that ABAB allows A to always have an initiative at attritting B's forces. Furthermore, that ABBA sequence is likely to end up reversing to AB-BA-AB or AB-BA-BA-AB at some point, giving A a double turn after B takes a double turn. Tactically, players aren't used to this mechanic, so they need to consider the 50% chance that the opponent Steals the Initiative.

The Initiative roll is a bad mechanism in AoS because of the "Igo-Ugo" system - it is something meant for a game that uses alternation in a faster fashion (on activations or even on phases). Here, it is not about fairness ; it is about waiting time before actually playing (and not just reacting to your opponent's play). Having the opponent playing twice his turn in a row just because he got lucky on a single dice roll at the beginning of the turn is not fun; it's just frustrating.

On the other hand, that means you have more time to smoke if that happens.

The alternating unit deployment couples with First Turn and Sudden Death as a pair of balancing mechanics. As a group, it's quite good, as players balance their forces (or not), and the First Turn compensates for potentially not having as many models on the board. Similarly, Sudden Death for the opponent going overboard with units.

There are more layers of strategy during the game compared to what we had before, precisely due to the deployment, First Turn, Sudden Death and Turn Initiative mechanics. Over the next several months, this will become a lot clearer as people actually play the game, versus thinking it needs to be WFB8+.

There are strategies to play, of course. But honestly...the Sudden Death is barely working on the long term. It's just something very basic and not really thought that much - mainly because it's really easy to abuse. Basing everything on the number of figurines while being aware a Bloddthirster is the same as a goblin in that statement isn't a great idea to make a challenging and balanced game. In fact, the ball is in the hands of the players - the question is to see if the players will use it or just throw it away to take another ball more suited to them (or better in their eyes).

You're aware that Mordheim is actually the Campaign, and that the Battle is relatively unimportant, right?

If you talk of playing a "full game" of Mordheim, you have to do the injuries and exploration, not just the fight - the treasure hunting is the best part of the game!

Mordheim is just a game full of random tables. A true GW game, thus.

It was great because you could really write a story about your small warband and see it gaining experience from their fights.

The rules in themselves weren't that extraordinary (some were really bad, IMHO). But players weren't really bothered because they usually made their own rules/scenarios in their own campaign. Like a RPG.

I think AoS is similar in that spirit; use the rules you like and change the others, so that it can fits your own story with your army. I wouldn't be surprised if a true campaign mode with experience and skills to gain appear in the future for that; honestly. That could be interesting.

I'm sure GW will do a scenario book for AoS,with restrictions and requirements for each force, along with scenario objectives. That's the only way this game works.

I'm also sure GW will have a campaign book, because, as you note, GW loves campaigns and tables. Plus, it lets them run off another round of those hexagons with a book.

And it's great that AoS is flexible to allow the player to do something with the game. I'm just not convinced that the things people are complaining about are actual problems. Aside from the terrain rules, which is non-obvious and scales poorly.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
GW loves campaigns

Storm of Chaos disagrees.

Huh? Storm of Chaos was great! Dogs of War were still a faction and they did their part.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'm sure GW will do a scenario book for AoS,with restrictions and requirements for each force, along with scenario objectives. That's the only way this game works.

Totally. So far, we don't really have that, but the game is still young. Since GW has a fast schedule (a bit too fast for me, but that's because I'm a bit "old school" I guess ), they can quickly fill the gap - even with the White Dwarf, using it as it was in the old times with new scenarios and special rules attached to them.

And yeah, GW like campaigns as much as random tables. Or should I say the Studio. Who makes the best campaigns? The players, obviously, because they make what suits them the best. So, giving them tools to do that is certainly a good way to do it.

And it's great that AoS is flexible to allow the player to do something with the game. I'm just not convinced that the things people are complaining about are actual problems. Aside from the terrain rules, which is non-obvious and scales poorly.

I think most people complain because they don't recognize themselves anymore in what they were used to play before. I can totally understand that...a lot of WFB players were convinced AoS would be WFB 9th edition. They didn't believe it could be something completely different. They didn't want to believe the End Times series was here to put an end to the WFB "old universe" as we knew it. And GW didn't clearly say it that way before, so they just had this false hope until now.

Some still try to say AoS is the "continuation" of WFB. I say it's not; this is a whole new game, with a new universe and new factions/models. So far, there are a few winks to the "old times" and there are rules to play your sweet old figurines, and everything is made so that the changes can happen smoothly.

But I'm pretty sure it's temporary, just the time so that players get used to AoS. Things will disappear, that's for sure - some maybe completely. The future will tell how much, in good or bad. We'll see in the following months.

So far, the main advantage of AoS is its simplicity - and thus, it's easy to change the rules or make your own. It can bring a whole lot of different experiences because of that spirit it tries to give to the players. Some will like it, others will not. I wasn't sure at the beginning but now...I'm taking the game as it is, and not as it "should be". A lot of things become clearer that way, IMHO.

text removed.


Reds8n

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Huh? Storm of Chaos was great! Dogs of War were still a faction and they did their part.

Storm of Chaos was awesome - until GW retconned everything and spat on everyone's face :(

 Sigvatr wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Huh? Storm of Chaos was great! Dogs of War were still a faction and they did their part.

Storm of Chaos was awesome - until GW retconned everything and spat on everyone's face :(

some people like to be spat on...

bitethythumb wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Huh? Storm of Chaos was great! Dogs of War were still a faction and they did their part.

Storm of Chaos was awesome - until GW retconned everything and spat on everyone's face :(

some people like to be spat on...

I'm sorry, did your post have a point? Sigvatr pointed out what GW did with Storm of Chaos (ie rest on away the entire story when the results didn't go the way they wanted), and you responded how?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'm sure GW will do a scenario book for AoS, ...
That's the only way this game works.

...

And it's great that AoS is flexible to allow the player to do something with the game.

....

Ahem.

A friend is playing Age of Sigmar today.

He wouldn't touch 40k/Warhammer previous with a barge pole.

He does play MTG.

The simplied rules and warscrolls caught his attention.

Will see what he says later on today. Not convinced by how much £££ an audience such as that would bring in. Unless GW are aiming for a £50-80 drop every quarter from the main players (as MTG does).

 Accolade wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Huh? Storm of Chaos was great! Dogs of War were still a faction and they did their part.

Storm of Chaos was awesome - until GW retconned everything and spat on everyone's face :(

some people like to be spat on...

I'm sorry, did your post have a point? Sigvatr pointed out what GW did with Storm of Chaos (ie rest on away the entire story when the results didn't go the way they wanted), and you responded how?

does yours?

and yes.. some people enjoy having sudden changes in lore and stories, I liked end times... deal with it.

bitethythumb wrote:

 Accolade wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Huh? Storm of Chaos was great! Dogs of War were still a faction and they did their part.

Storm of Chaos was awesome - until GW retconned everything and spat on everyone's face :(

some people like to be spat on...

I'm sorry, did your post have a point? Sigvatr pointed out what GW did with Storm of Chaos (ie rest on away the entire story when the results didn't go the way they wanted), and you responded how?

does yours?

and yes.. some people enjoy having sudden changes in lore and stories, I liked end times... deal with it.

What does any of that have to do with Storm of Chaos?...Do you even know what we're talking about?

(FYI: it has nothing to do with the End Times.)

ShaneTB wrote:
A friend is playing Age of Sigmar today.

He wouldn't touch 40k/Warhammer previous with a barge pole.

He does play MTG.

The simplied rules and warscrolls caught his attention.

Will see what he says later on today. Not convinced by how much £££ an audience such as that would bring in. Unless GW are aiming for a £50-80 drop every quarter from the main players (as MTG does).

well that would be better than what WHFB has been bringing in before AoS...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Accolade wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Accolade wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Huh? Storm of Chaos was great! Dogs of War were still a faction and they did their part.

Storm of Chaos was awesome - until GW retconned everything and spat on everyone's face :(

some people like to be spat on...

I'm sorry, did your post have a point? Sigvatr pointed out what GW did with Storm of Chaos (ie rest on away the entire story when the results didn't go the way they wanted), and you responded how?

does yours?

and yes.. some people enjoy having sudden changes in lore and stories, I liked end times... deal with it.

What does any of that have to do with Storm of Chaos?...Do you even know what we're talking about?

(FYI: it has nothing to do with the End Times.)

I believe the "spat" in their face comment is in regards to end times and how storm of chaos was great and end times was not... hence my comment, seriously do you have anything to contribute or are you just going to critique what I type... its ok, if you enjoy that sort of thing go for it... I am cleaning my classic metal minis for fantasy because AoS is awesome as we type so its no dandruff off my shoulders... and if I am mistaken on the storm of chaos/end times I apologies to the person I quoted in question, but not to you, you are very petty and have wasted 3 posts attacking me instead of correcting me like a gentleman would, sad really... as sad a nurgling in a tub of disinfectant .

bitethythumb wrote:

I believe the "spat" in their face comment is in regards to end times and how storm of chaos was great and end times was not... hence my comment, seriously do you have anything to contribute or are you just going to critique what I type... its ok, if you enjoy that sort of thing go for it... I am cleaning my classic metal minis for fantasy because AoS is awesome as we type so its no dandruff off my shoulders.

So you read the post totally wrong, and then get offended when someone points out you read it wrong?

I think it's hilarious you say I have nothing to contribute when all you've been doing is gakking on people for making comments about GW that don't fit with your little dogma.

I am pretty positive all that was said was the Storm of Chaos was retconned away at the conclusion of the campaign, and that was lousy for ALL the work people put into that global campaign. Had nothing to do with End TImes or AOS, but you seem to think this is about that game. I find it strange seeing these diehard AOS fans who seem to know nothing about what WHFB was before the game came around, short of parroting "WHFB had no future, AOS was the only way forward."

 infinite_array wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

I believe the "spat" in their face comment is in regards to end times and how storm of chaos was great and end times was not... hence my comment, seriously do you have anything to contribute or are you just going to critique what I type... its ok, if you enjoy that sort of thing go for it... I am cleaning my classic metal minis for fantasy because AoS is awesome as we type so its no dandruff off my shoulders.

So you read the post totally wrong, and then get offended when someone points out you read it wrong?

no, I am not offended, not in the slightest but instead of humping my posts and wasting posts the dude could have corrected me and explained my error instead of just being a douche, like you are... instead of correcting me you are being a douche... good job, by the way.

peace and love


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Accolade wrote:
I think it's hilarious you say I have nothing to contribute when all you've been doing is gakking on people for making comments about GW that don't fit with your little dogma.

I am pretty positive all that was said was the Storm of Chaos was retconned away at the conclusion of the campaign, and that was lousy for ALL the work people put into that global campaign. Had nothing to do with End TImes or AOS, but you seem to think this is about that game. I find it strange seeing these diehard AOS fans who seem to know nothing about what WHFB was before the game came around, short of parroting "WHFB had no future, AOS was the only way forward."

now was that hard to do the first time? and next time try sounding less like a douche... just because you do not like AoS just does mean I cannot state my opinion... good luck in life... ps - you can understand my mistake, its a discussion on AoS and people are talking about an old campaign, either way, my apologies to the person I quoted, but not you..

bitethythumb wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

I believe the "spat" in their face comment is in regards to end times and how storm of chaos was great and end times was not... hence my comment, seriously do you have anything to contribute or are you just going to critique what I type... its ok, if you enjoy that sort of thing go for it... I am cleaning my classic metal minis for fantasy because AoS is awesome as we type so its no dandruff off my shoulders.

So you read the post totally wrong, and then get offended when someone points out you read it wrong?

no, I am not offended, not in the slightest but instead of humping my posts and wasting posts the dude could have corrected me and explained my error instead of just being a douche, like you are... instead of correcting me you are being a douche... good job, by the way.

peace and love

OR you could have just started at the very beginning by not making douchey comments about Sigvatr's point about Storm of Chaos. I don't know why you would expect people to respond kindly when your posts are typically condescending, and worse, often uninformed.

EDIT: eh whatever, it's not really worth carrying this conversation on.

 Accolade wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

I believe the "spat" in their face comment is in regards to end times and how storm of chaos was great and end times was not... hence my comment, seriously do you have anything to contribute or are you just going to critique what I type... its ok, if you enjoy that sort of thing go for it... I am cleaning my classic metal minis for fantasy because AoS is awesome as we type so its no dandruff off my shoulders.

So you read the post totally wrong, and then get offended when someone points out you read it wrong?

no, I am not offended, not in the slightest but instead of humping my posts and wasting posts the dude could have corrected me and explained my error instead of just being a douche, like you are... instead of correcting me you are being a douche... good job, by the way.

peace and love

OR you could have just started at the very beginning by not making douchey comments about Sigvatr's point about Storm of Chaos. I don't know why you would expect people to respond kindly when your posts are typically condescending, and worse, often uninformed.

EDIT: eh whatever, it's not really worth carrying this conversation on.

all I said is that some people like to be spat on NOT being douche or trying to destroy his comment, just joining the conversation, which was a mistake, if I knew that you would hump my posts like so I would have not... either way it was my mistake and I apologies to him for a third time and not in any way a douche comment not unlike you have been giving me simply because I enjoy AoS and you do not...

storm of chaos, heard about it... I guess it was the valten one, GW did something after it, I guess the spat in their face which does not make sense, GW can do whatever it wants with its lore... .still if we want to be pedantic like you are, what does storm of chaos have to do with AoS and our opinions, impressions, reviews of it? or do you just like to throw sand in GWs face every chance you get.

ps - I think I have a valten mini somewhere? have to dig in storage again :/ found my necromancer though

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'm sure GW will do a scenario book for AoS,with restrictions and requirements for each force, along with scenario objectives. That's the only way this game works.

I'm also sure GW will have a campaign book, because, as you note, GW loves campaigns and tables.

The first campaign book they've released has these scenarios but there's no restrictions or requirements for each force.
The only thing is says in some cases is that if you're the larger force you have to take role X (attacker/defender) in this scenario.

bitethythumb wrote:
still if we want to be pedantic like you are, what does storm of chaos have to do with AoS and our opinions, impressions, reviews of it? or do you just like to throw sand in GWs face every chance you get.

The quote was originally confronting a claim that GW "loves campaigns and tables." While they certainly love tables - especially when populated with GW battleboards and terrain - their only campaign didn't end they way they wanted it to, so instead of following through with the results as promised, it was completely scrapped and thrown out. So hoping for GW to run another campaign seems like a poor place to put one's confidence.