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.

 Vaktathi wrote:

You're being a bit disingenuous here, the unit you're referring to is just "Retaliator", which is largely fine, "Medium Crawler" is the unit type.

Sure, whatever. That's also the same for the Liberator Prime - he's part of the Stormcast Eternals but belong to the Liberator warrior chamber. I don't see that particularly intended for kids. Still, it sounds similar to my lovely tank.

Names however do mean something, billions of dollars are spent on research into product names, mottos, etc and absolutely do point at a target audience.

You're talking about GW, here. You know, the society who does no market research because they know what their customers are.

 Rune Stonegrinder wrote:

As I read Jarvis press release or whatever it is. I feel confident that these bozos feel they have nothing to play test. Everything they write and publish at GW is unicorns and rainbows. the whole world will love whatever we do.

Honestly, I believe they're so used to play within their small game circle than they actually can't see another way to play than their own. For them, I can perfectly believe these rules are enough - and they use house rules for their games, anyway.

No real playtest by the community - us, their customers -, that's for sure. And that's the danger. By staying too much in their ivory tower, they can't see the flaws they have made themselves.

Or they don't care. Your choice.

 Vaktathi wrote:
I think the audience is fairly easily betrayed by the naming conventions GW is using at this point.

Stuff like "Stormcast Eternal Liberator Prime" and "Bloodsecrator" are aimed at a particular audience. And that audience is not typically older. That sort of stuff would have thrilled the 14 year nascent metalhead I was back in 9th grade. As someone with a job, two degrees, and other priorities in life, I'm not at all getting the impression this is aimed at someone my age or interests.

You are not giving children enough credit. Even the wee ones likely find those names lame. GW probably came up with those names to appeal to their lawyers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:
The fluff might appeal to me because I'm done with the Darker and Edgier fluff that has dominated every single wargame I've seen in years. Mighty heroes appeal directly to the types of minis I buy.

Mighty Heroes? Have you considered Malifaux, Warmachine or Hordes? Those are all warband-oriented games that build around a named hero as its leader.
____

I own a lot of the plastic Malifaux minis and many of the restic WMH minis. I tried getting into the Malifaux background before Through the Breach, but it just didn't appeal to me. I'm not a fan of that time period or its trappings, and the story line didn't seem to go places I liked. WMH I started getting into, and I could see myself as a fan of Khador, Menoth or Cygnar. Some of the other factions don't appeal to me or even annoy me. I bought the paperbacks by Martell and Correia, but haven't gotten into a steam-punkish state of mind that would actually get me to read them. When the time is right, I'll take the plunge.

But I have absolutely no intention of ever playing WMH. There is nothing, nothing at all, I've heard about that game that sounds enjoyable to me.

 odinsgrandson wrote:
How about try out Relic Knights or Endless Fantasy Tactics then? I mean RK is all about the heroic types, and it certainly isn't all darker.

Heck, if you're into the miniatures games that use a board, you could try out Super Dungeon Explore (possibly the farthest from Grimdark you can get).

Relic Knights is a good choice, also being hero-oriented. But the thing is, RK is more of a card game with minis, so it plays very differently from things like 40k. The print & play demo is good. Models look great, but assembly is a huge pain, though!

I played a LOT of Super Dungeon Explore (1E) after I stopped playing Warhammer Fantasy Battles. The models were (are) cutesy, and the strategic balance was incredibly tight. I went practically all-in on SDE Forgotten King (2E), but it's very different, and players are trying to "fix" the gameplay with an eye toward speed and balance. In a couple months, SDE 2E will be great.

I agree that AoS still has a lot of grimdark (tm) to it. Visually, I think Anima Tactics might be a good alternative - the models are pretty, but I don't know the game well enough to say for sure. For what it is, the AoS game engine is pretty good, and highly adaptable. It would not be hard to create AoS-based games for other ranges of models.

Yeah, I'm not into game mechanics or game engines or any of that. I might enjoy how a board game plays, or how AoS plays, but I have to be into the theme and setting in order to want to play it at all these days. Too many games are just about the mechanics, which are not the part I find fun. The mechanics are mechanism that allow the fun parts to be more fun for me. Simple mechanics are therefore the best mechanics for me.

Posters have put forth good arguments to support both the notion that AoS is for oldsters and that AoS is for juves. Perhaps it turns out that AoS has broad appeal?

 Sarouan wrote:

 Vaktathi wrote:

You're being a bit disingenuous here, the unit you're referring to is just "Retaliator", which is largely fine, "Medium Crawler" is the unit type.

Sure, whatever. That's also the same for the Liberator Prime - he's part of the Stormcast Eternals but belong to the Liberator warrior chamber.

As far as I was aware, the whole thing was it's actual proper model name, at least from what I remember reading on the box

I don't see that particularly intended for kids.

they're increasingly "flashy" and adolescent, again, like the "Bloodsecrator" which sounds like a song title from a bad small-time metal band

You're talking about GW, here. You know, the society who does no market research because they know what their customers are.

It's not something they'd really need to research, just pointing out that names very much do point to a target audience and that there's a reason lots of effort is often put into such.

 Talys wrote:
@Killcrazy - I think most of the points you made also make the game attractive for more mature gamers, specifically ubercasual Magic types.

The SRs are really no different than effects MtG cards ) there are a bazillion, but you only need to worry about the ones in the game, if you're not trying to optimize a list.

It is an optimal system for people who don't consider the rules in their army building, and instead think, "l would like some elven archers, dwarven warriors, a wizard, two angels and this hero", selecting the models purely based on preconceived notions, photos on the website, and perhaps Grand Alliance.

That doesn't mean the game isn't aimed at kids. The kind of oldsters you are talking about are not experienced players and naturally would be more amenable to simple rules, even if they might think the fluff is juvenile rubbish

People can play rules without taking any notice of the fluff.

So...why don't we need points again?

because most if not all the examples people put forward why AoS is better without could be remedied literally by deciding to play casual with a points based game anyway. This its more freedom, I can have what I want, field what I want and narrative play are all possible with a points system anyway. They could have made AoS with all that take what you want and still have a had a points system in place. Points aren't what was stopping you from fielding one unit from one army and another from another.

So instead of it been:

Heres AoS its rules have a points system but the rules also state you can play it this way if you and your opponent wants (what AoS is now) thus allowing for both types of play and everyone gets what they want and tournaments have an easier time of things whilst casual play is still completely intact and just how you like it is now. Only difference is you'd have the option.

Its instead:

Heres AoS there is no points system what so ever, we only give you one choice style of play.

Seems more restrictive to me and can we please stop with this idea that narrative play is the results of AoS and it just wasn't viable before. GW didn't design AoS around this idea, they gave you base rules and the community has come up with the narrative idea fitting it around the blank slate rules. It wasn't designed on purpose to offer narrative games you as a community have just decided that narrative games are now the most viable thing to fit the system, not the other way around. It also helps cover any holes in the system.

Theres a reason we have a lot of users even those who support the system trying to make up there own balancing rules or tournament rules because they want some kind of points system in place that will work. Ive seen players trying to work out systems for balancing and tournaments. Everyone's still trying to make it work, which was GW's job in the first place. The fact that many people are just trying to make up a fair balanced tourniment ruleset for AoS should show the need for an official one in the first place. Every club is self modding and implimenting universal rules they have just made up to replace the loss of the points system and how is that in any way helping people play more. It means each club is running on their own version of the rules, with a universal official points system any club can meet any other or player and get a match. Theres no swapping of made up rules and deciding whats the best, which groups to use in that moment. This is not something nobody is asking for or will be a detriment, people should have the option of an official base points system.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Talys wrote:
@Killcrazy - I think most of the points you made also make the game attractive for more mature gamers, specifically ubercasual Magic types.

That doesn't mean the game isn't aimed at kids. The kind of oldsters you are talking about are not experienced players and naturally would be more amenable to simple rules, even if they might think the fluff is juvenile rubbish

Not so, not at all. I'm such an oldster, and I've got a "Best General" award sitting in my closet. I've simply moved away from overcomplicated in favor of simpler. Overcompliation for the sake of complication screams juvenile and amateur more than continuing with the sort of goofy names that GW has used for the past 20+ years.

I find it funny how people are arguing the age this game is aimed at, look at any miniature game, there is a clear "age X" and above on the box... that is it, anyone can play any game no matter what age... as long as its above the age that the game has set for safety reasons :/ anyone saying that the names are aimed at children are really pulling out of the air if you ask... blood secrator is literally someone who spits blood more or less :/ its most probably GW trying to get a unique name as possible for khorne.

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
So...why don't we need points again?

because most if not all the examples people put forward why AoS is better without could be remedied literally by deciding to play casual with a points based game anyway. This its more freedom, I can have what I want, field what I want and narrative play are all possible with a points system anyway. They could have made AoS with all that take what you want and still have a had a points system in place. Points aren't what was stopping you from fielding one unit from one army and another from another.

So instead of it been:

Heres AoS its rules have a points system but the rules also state you can play it this way if you and your opponent wants (what AoS is now) thus allowing for both types of play and everyone gets what they want and tournaments have an easier time of things whilst casual play is still completely intact and just how you like it is now. Only difference is you'd have the option.

Its instead:

Heres AoS there is no points system what so ever, we only give you one choice style of play.

Seems more restrictive to me and can we please stop with this idea that narrative play is the results of AoS and it just wasn't viable before. GW didn't design AoS around this idea, they gave you base rules and the community has come up with the narrative idea fitting it around the blank slate rules. It wasn't designed on purpose to offer narrative games you as a community have just decided that narrative games are now the most viable thing to fit the system, not the other way around. It also helps cover any holes in the system.

Theres a reason we have a lot of users even those who support the system trying to make up there own balancing rules or tournament rules because they want some kind of points system in place that will work. Ive seen players trying to work out systems for balancing and tournaments. Everyone's still trying to make it work, which was GW's job in the first place. The fact that many people are just trying to make up a fair balanced tourniment ruleset for AoS should show the need for an official one in the first place. Every club is self modding and implimenting universal rules they have just made up to replace the loss of the points system and how is that in any way helping people play more. It means each club is running on their own version of the rules, with a universal official points system any club can meet any other or player and get a match. Theres no swapping of made up rules and deciding whats the best, which groups to use in that moment. This is not something nobody is asking for or will be a detriment, people should have the option of an official base points system.

My thoughts exactly. Points didn't actively detract from those of us who wish to run the game as a scenario game. GW starting to put out a bunch of formations and data slates could have actually been a neat way to do this. However like Pollos said above, does having points actively detract from those of us who want the scenario play? I don't believe points are perfect, hell most games always have those units that are stupidly good for their points cost. But it was something, and maybe that's why the internet's been up in arms over AOS.

In my mind I think the reason that many people take this as laziness or messiness over a new direction is that the move seems a tad schizophrenic. On one hand, 4 pages of rules and an obviously simplified system seems to lean more towards pick up and play. I threw down 30 dollars for a single box... and bam I'm in the game and the rule set is pretty easy to grasp. But in my mind points actually favor the small model count, simple rules and the idea of a quick and easy game. If the game's so simple then I can drive on down to my local hobby shop and get in a quick game or two. Without quite the hastle of hauling around 2000 pts + of warhammer, same reason why I've been enjoying the smaller games such as infinity and malifaux, even smaller scale warmahordes. It's really easy to get a game in if someone happens to have the same game as you when you go to your hobby shop. No points only takes away from pickup and tournament games in mind, as pickup games with random people at a hobby shop are extremely complicated as you have to reach an gentleman agreement as to not cheese the game out. The no points and scenarios favor gaming groups, but a lot of people pickup games are how most of their AOS would have been played. Probably why the game got so much bile, there's a chunk of the customer base that's been left out to dry.

This isn't an "age of sigmar sucks!" but I'm actually willing to argue that as a designed game the gameplay and format favors one school of gaming, but the no points favors the other. So to answer your question, us pickup gamers not in a concrete group... yeah points really do help with the idea of a simple game.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Talys wrote:
@Killcrazy - I think most of the points you made also make the game attractive for more mature gamers, specifically ubercasual Magic types.

That doesn't mean the game isn't aimed at kids. The kind of oldsters you are talking about are not experienced players and naturally would be more amenable to simple rules, even if they might think the fluff is juvenile rubbish

Not so, not at all. I'm such an oldster, and I've got a "Best General" award sitting in my closet. I've simply moved away from overcomplicated in favor of simpler. Overcompliation for the sake of complication screams juvenile and amateur more than continuing with the sort of goofy names that GW has used for the past 20+ years.

I tend to agree with the comment earlier that kids in general are more competitive. I can't say for other people; when I was young, I was WAY more competitive than I am now. To an extent, there's a need to prove oneself and there's the thrill of a win (when one hasn't experienced it often before). I'm pretty sure when I was a teenager I was today's definition of a WAAC sorta guy, at least from the perspective of doing whatever I could to build the best army I could to achieve the highest win ratio, and valuing the win above all else.

For myself, at some point, I just chilled out when it came to tabletop as I got older. I think competitive MtG around 93 or so, and playing casual MtG with non-competitive types actually got it out of me, because I just enjoyed the latter more, and eventually,when I got more back into wargaming, I adopted that same attitude. It just didn't matter as much, the repetitiveness of competitive games took away the exceitement, and building the more interesting battleforces and scenario was just more important.

Not that I don't like points as a rough framework to guide me through that, though.

Eh, the lack of points/structure in Age of Sigmar reminds of what an infamous leader once said:

"If you like your current insurance, you keep that insurance"

In place of insurance it's:

"If you like playing Warhammer, you can keep playing Warhammer".

Wonderwolf wrote:
Again, read Jervis Johnsons "Points? Who needs em?" from 2002 (?). He outlines how the cultural changes wrought by "tournament players" overwhelmed the design-studio in ways they hadn't thought possible when they started doing tournaments.

This is EXACTLY the point I've been making even before AoS came out.

I've always blamed the tournament players for the decline in GW's popularity and success; they just don't seem to "get it", they're playing to win and need every competitive advantage, they don't seem to give a flying feth about actually enjoying themselves.

I am, and will always be, on the GW's side in this kind of debate. I am by no means saying all tournament players are sent by Tzeentch to bugger up their own games systems and alienate themselves from the GW. But I'd far rather play a member of the WD team than any tournament player, because I'm there to have fun, not whine about the rules.

And yes - I have put my money where my mouth is - my biggest example is taking the maligned special weapons in Necromunda. Everyone seems to take heavy stubbers. Sod that - I used flamers, meltaguns and plasma guns, even a lascannon, weapons I've never seen used in Necromunda before or since. Flamers were terrific fun to use and generated terror every time I got my specialist near the opposition (even though he risked being shot and charged by multiple enemies, which is why a competitive gamer would never take one). The plasma gun was so effective everyone ended up using them. The meltagun and lascannon were a bit crap, but imagine the strain on my opponent's bowel muscles when it came to the shooting phase.

Some things cannot be quantified by points and do not seem to be acknowledged by competitive players.

 NoPoet wrote:

I've always blamed the tournament players for the decline in GW's popularity and success; they just don't seem to "get it", they're playing to win and need every competitive advantage, they don't seem to give a flying feth about actually enjoying themselves.

You're going fast to this conclusion, honestly.

To me, reason of the decline is more like GW games were eventually the same, no matter the edition; randomness rules everything, you keep playing your whole turn while your opponent watch you destroying his army without doing anything (or go out for a smoke to wait for his turn), wacky rules not known for being really well written, no communication with the fan base and arrogant attitude that gets on the nerves,...

And honestly, AoS isn't really that different from GW's way to see a game; still random because it's fun, still playing your whole turn, still rolling to hit/to wound/to save and so on.

Sure, the models are still sweet and their plastic is one of the best on the market and you have enough background to read for quite a few years ahead, but GW games aren't that great in comparison with the competition. And the competition is everywhere, nowadays; this is truly a golden age for tabletop games using plastic/metal/resin models.

So there are plenty of alternatives for those who have just enough of GW's ways/rules. That's the same with gaming community.

There is a new for you; you can enjoy yourself with rules other than those made by GW. And you can have fun with clear, complex rules using a point system.

That has nothing to do with "tournament mentality". But then again, GW fanboys will just judge without knowing, like always.

 NoPoet wrote:


I've always blamed the tournament players for the decline in GW's popularity and success; they just don't seem to "get it", they're playing to win and need every competitive advantage, they don't seem to give a flying feth about actually enjoying themselves.

Funny, but I've always blamed GW for their decline. They made something people didn't want to buy.

 NoPoet wrote:

Some things cannot be quantified by points and do not seem to be acknowledged by competitive players.

So warhammers better off without points because? seriously nobody here beyond little personal stories of one off games has any reason yet to say that AoS not having the options of a points system is good.

As for your post are you actually saying, not having points is good because it kills off tournament play and therefor you don't have to run into tournament players anymore because you don't personally like them? thats an incredibly selfish opinion. Instead of I don't like tournament players so I will choose not to play them its im so happy tournament players have had their toys taken from them, serves them right for playing the game their way and wanting to be good at something!

Jesus some AoS supporters are border psychopathic towards other players whose only crimes are playing a way they don't like. Ive heard people saying AoS has given the players more options but all I see are a bunch of players happy others who play differently to them have had their options taken away. What a sorry type of attitude to have.

 Manchu wrote:
Posters have put forth good arguments to support both the notion that AoS is for oldsters and that AoS is for juves. Perhaps it turns out that AoS has broad appeal?

As to how appealing it really is, I think time will tell. I imagine it'll turn out that it isn't broad enough - to keep the same momentum WFB once had (without resorting to WFB mechanics).

I remember reading a thing about 40k here once. It was a really cute conspiracy theory about the bloated 40k ruleset. It went - kids don't have fully developed brains yet and they have trouble strategising properly, which presents a problem if you're trying to get them to enjoy a strategy game. They have really awesome memories for minutiae, though. So instead of making a game where their strategic skill is tested, you make a game with incredibly convoluted rules, so that even if they can't improve their strategic mastery they can still get better at the game by increasing their mastery of the rules.

On Bloodsecrators and Slaughterpriests. It's easy to decide on the conclusion (the names are targeted at kids) and from there see it clearly in the evidence (any adult obviously would find these names ridiculous). That's not great science, though. I would like to present an alternative theory: you are taking the setting more seriously than the writers and if the names were any more tongue in cheek they'd need corrective surgery.

And finally, on points costs: if, as has been suggested, points costs are toxic to other styles of play, it makes perfect sense that many players would want point costs, because the players who don't stop playing the game.

I agree there is a kind of tournament gamer whose objective is to win by finding the exploits in the rules. In some ways it is a valid approach to the game. People can approach the same game in different ways. But look at the historical context...

GW ran tournaments from the mid-80s to the early 2010s. GW never got their rules balanced, not because it is impossible but because they never took the trouble to do so. Even worse, every edition and new army book or codex they published created possibilities for new exploits. Thus GW encouraged this style of exploit based play.

The way to win by exploits is based more on careful reading of the rules, rather than tactics, so list writing and rules lawyering came to be the focus of this style of play.

This never happened in WRG Ancients, or DBA. Thousands of players have played any number of games in hundreds of competitions over the past 45+ years without this kind of problem.

It doesn't meant that getting rid of points will get rid of exploits. AoS has created exploits already, like the air only army, the turn one losing army, and the infinite summoning army. More will come with every new war scroll, because GW are writing the kind of special rules that create these situations.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I agree there is a kind of tournament gamer whose objective is to win by finding the exploits in the rules. In some ways it is a valid approach to the game. People can approach the same game in different ways. But look at the historical context...

GW ran tournaments from the mid-80s to the early 2010s. GW never got their rules balanced, not because it is impossible but because they never took the trouble to do so. Even worse, every edition and new army book or codex they published created possibilities for new exploits. Thus GW encouraged this style of exploit based play.

The way to win by exploits is based more on careful reading of the rules, rather than tactics, so list writing and rules lawyering came to be the focus of this style of play.

This never happened in WRG Ancients, or DBA. Thousands of players have played any number of games in hundreds of competitions over the past 45+ years without this kind of problem.

It doesn't meant that getting rid of points will get rid of exploits. AoS has created exploits already, like the air only army, the turn one losing army, and the infinite summoning army. More will come with every new war scroll, because GW are writing the kind of special rules that create these situations.

Well, said.

I love tournaments. Its an excuse to travel play 3 people I've never meet before and have fun, but don't approach them with I must crush everyone, WAAC attitude. With the poor state of the rules that ship has sailed and I've stopped going to them except at my FLGS and adepticon where I will now go to play non GW tournaments.

All game designers should approach thier product in the same manner:

Something is broken or is not working >>Play test solutions >> adjust points (or equilevent) or rules to compensate >> rinse and repeat

It doesn't meant that getting rid of points will get rid of exploits. AoS has created exploits already, like the air only army, the turn one losing army, and the infinite summoning army. More will come with every new war scroll, because GW are writing the kind of special rules that create these situations.

well I am not sure those are exploits, more like double edged swords.. the all summoning army means you will auto lose since summons all count as dead the more you summon the more you lose (so you gotta summon smartly), the turn one losing army I still do not get (explain that and please do not say the skaven bell thing, that has been debunked plenty of times, you cannot get 13 from 2 d6) and the air only army (or carrion) is not an exploit, its an automatic draw :/ since no one gets damaged... but if by all air you mean the army just tries to run away, well that only works against certain armies, if I take all engineers and steam tanks, you are not GOING anywhere :/

they are all just really weird ways to play and this is why we have scenarios and such

No idea how it sells in other countries, but I check the polish e-stores I know off, all cut the initial price on all AoS stuff. So at least here it does not sell well. Oddly enough tournament players have no problems with AoS. They still have the ETC rules pack, people have their armies, only thing that people worry about is the lack of new players.

but if by all air you mean the army just tries to run away, well that only works against certain armies, if I take all engineers and steam tanks, you are not GOING anywhere :/

only what is the chance that someone has an army made out of steam tanks, compering to an undead player having two units of corrions? That is like having a bad or counter match up vs FW models or a FW army. Sure maybe somewhere people have those, but the chance anyone will play them is very low.

the all summoning army means you will auto lose since summons all count as dead the more you summon the more you lose

Not playing a summoning army, but a few people here do. Where in the rules do it say that summond units count as dead?

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I remember reading a thing about 40k here once. It was a really cute conspiracy theory about the bloated 40k ruleset. It went - kids don't have fully developed brains yet and they have trouble strategising properly, which presents a problem if you're trying to get them to enjoy a strategy game. They have really awesome memories for minutiae, though. So instead of making a game where their strategic skill is tested, you make a game with incredibly convoluted rules, so that even if they can't improve their strategic mastery they can still get better at the game by increasing their mastery of the rules.

On Bloodsecrators and Slaughterpriests. It's easy to decide on the conclusion (the names are targeted at kids) and from there see it clearly in the evidence (any adult obviously would find these names ridiculous). That's not great science, though. I would like to present an alternative theory: you are taking the setting more seriously than the writers and if the names were any more tongue in cheek they'd need corrective surgery.

And finally, on points costs: if, as has been suggested, points costs are toxic to other styles of play, it makes perfect sense that many players would want point costs, because the players who don't stop playing the game.

1. Sure but there's no serious strategising in AoS to speak of and GW didn't make a game where your strategic skills are tested.

2. They took Slaneesh out. It's either to not scare mums out of the store or because they got scared of political corectness police. So either a game is for kids or politicaly censored, both crap.

3. No point costs are toxic to other types of players, and those will stop playing as well. The difference is that previously it took only saying "let's ignore points" for fluffbunies to play their way, now it takes tons of work to come up with anything resembling balance for competitve players. But the former seem to nothing but rejoice about getting rid of "toxic black hearted jocks rampaging tbrouth the community" which kind of shows how hypocrytical the whole bunch is.

How can AoS be censored. You have dudes wearing other dudes skins, horrible deformations and diseases in it. they would have to put everyon in power armor like eternals to make it kid friendly.

Makumba wrote:
No idea how it sells in other countries, but I check the polish e-stores I know off, all cut the initial price on all AoS stuff. So at least here it does not sell well. Oddly enough tournament players have no problems with AoS. They still have the ETC rules pack, people have their armies, only thing that people worry about is the lack of new players.

but if by all air you mean the army just tries to run away, well that only works against certain armies, if I take all engineers and steam tanks, you are not GOING anywhere :/

only what is the chance that someone has an army made out of steam tanks, compering to an undead player having two units of corrions? That is like having a bad or counter match up vs FW models or a FW army. Sure maybe somewhere people have those, but the chance anyone will play them is very low.

the all summoning army means you will auto lose since summons all count as dead the more you summon the more you lose

Not playing a summoning army, but a few people here do. Where in the rules do it say that summond units count as dead?

page 2 of the rules leaflet..."models added to your army during the game(for example through summoning, reinforcements, reincarnations and so on) do not count towards the number of models in the army, but must be counted among the casualties an army suffers"... This is of course if you are trying to figure out who won if you have not won outright.. Obviously scenarios are all different but I would assume the summoning rules applies in most situations as you could take necromancers and just summon yourself to victory.


Regarding your first comment, if someone takes a SINGLES carrion unit against some else he will clearly not play and you can just put you minis away and if he does you will kill him quickly.. If he takes ONLY carrion units then the same steam tank rule applies, who exactly has multiple carrions? by the way I am aiming to get 12 steamtanks and an all flying army... And a casket of souls liche priest horde with skellies.. AND a gargant army for destruction... I am just buying the minis I like now and waiting for new releases... Hoping for better eagle models or I might have to get lotr eagles.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I remember reading a thing about 40k here once. It was a really cute conspiracy theory about the bloated 40k ruleset. It went - kids don't have fully developed brains yet and they have trouble strategising properly, which presents a problem if you're trying to get them to enjoy a strategy game. They have really awesome memories for minutiae, though. So instead of making a game where their strategic skill is tested, you make a game with incredibly convoluted rules, so that even if they can't improve their strategic mastery they can still get better at the game by increasing their mastery of the rules.

On Bloodsecrators and Slaughterpriests. It's easy to decide on the conclusion (the names are targeted at kids) and from there see it clearly in the evidence (any adult obviously would find these names ridiculous). That's not great science, though. I would like to present an alternative theory: you are taking the setting more seriously than the writers and if the names were any more tongue in cheek they'd need corrective surgery.

And finally, on points costs: if, as has been suggested, points costs are toxic to other styles of play, it makes perfect sense that many players would want point costs, because the players who don't stop playing the game.

1. Sure but there's no serious strategising in AoS to speak of and GW didn't make a game where your strategic skills are tested.

Ah. I don't have a lot of experience with the ruleset yet, so you could be right.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
2. They took Slaneesh out. It's either to not scare mums out of the store or because they got scared of political corectness police. So either a game is for kids or politicaly censored, both crap.

Have... have you actually read the story? Slaanesh is missing, apparently captured. The story specifically says that Slaanesh's followers are active and looking for him. The book features photographs of daemonettes.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
3. No point costs are toxic to other types of players, and those will stop playing as well. The difference is that previously it took only saying "let's ignore points" for fluffbunies to play their way, now it takes tons of work to come up with anything resembling balance for competitve players. But the former seem to nothing but rejoice about getting rid of "toxic black hearted jocks rampaging tbrouth the community" which kind of shows how hypocrytical the whole bunch is.

I have replied to the small part of this that is not an attack on people who disagree with you before, but to sum up: points have created a culture where the default way to play is to use points, even though they have huge issues with balance due to not taking into account your army's composition, your enemy's army's composition, the scenario or the terrain. Removing points altogether may be the only way to actually get people to use their heads to create balance instead of leaning on points. That's part of why I find it interesting.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I remember reading a thing about 40k here once. It was a really cute conspiracy theory about the bloated 40k ruleset. It went - kids don't have fully developed brains yet and they have trouble strategising properly, which presents a problem if you're trying to get them to enjoy a strategy game. They have really awesome memories for minutiae, though. So instead of making a game where their strategic skill is tested, you make a game with incredibly convoluted rules, so that even if they can't improve their strategic mastery they can still get better at the game by increasing their mastery of the rules.

On Bloodsecrators and Slaughterpriests. It's easy to decide on the conclusion (the names are targeted at kids) and from there see it clearly in the evidence (any adult obviously would find these names ridiculous). That's not great science, though. I would like to present an alternative theory: you are taking the setting more seriously than the writers and if the names were any more tongue in cheek they'd need corrective surgery.

And finally, on points costs: if, as has been suggested, points costs are toxic to other styles of play, it makes perfect sense that many players would want point costs, because the players who don't stop playing the game.

1. Sure but there's no serious strategising in AoS to speak of and GW didn't make a game where your strategic skills are tested.

2. They took Slaneesh out. It's either to not scare mums out of the store or because they got scared of political corectness police. So either a game is for kids or politicaly censored, both crap.

3. No point costs are toxic to other types of players, and those will stop playing as well. The difference is that previously it took only saying "let's ignore points" for fluffbunies to play their way, now it takes tons of work to come up with anything resembling balance for competitve players. But the former seem to nothing but rejoice about getting rid of "toxic black hearted jocks rampaging tbrouth the community" which kind of shows how hypocrytical the whole bunch is.

gw is a business not a SJW warrior hub, blood and gore and murder is ok, sex is not, blame society for that and not GW and slaneesh has not been removed, just changed from the overly sexual nature which SOCIETY does not like... From I get he has been either captured or mix with malerion to make a new god..

GW is not supposed to be leading the charge for social change, they need to make money, if they made lore and models that would offend they would get sued daily, sex sells for adults, murdergoredeath is for the whole family and that is societies fault not GW

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

I have replied to the small part of this that is not an attack on people who disagree with you before, but to sum up: points have created a culture where the default way to play is to use points, even though they have huge issues with balance due to not taking into account your army's composition, your enemy's army's composition, the scenario or the terrain. Removing points altogether may be the only way to actually get people to use their heads to create balance instead of leaning on points. That's part of why I find it interesting.

But it's been pointed out that this problem with points is generally restricted to games and companies that try to use points without effective playtesting and listening to community feedback, not through any inherent flaws in the usage of points themselves.

 infinite_array wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

I have replied to the small part of this that is not an attack on people who disagree with you before, but to sum up: points have created a culture where the default way to play is to use points, even though they have huge issues with balance due to not taking into account your army's composition, your enemy's army's composition, the scenario or the terrain. Removing points altogether may be the only way to actually get people to use their heads to create balance instead of leaning on points. That's part of why I find it interesting.

But it's been pointed out that this problem with points is generally restricted to games and companies that try to use points without effective playtesting and listening to community feedback, not through any inherent flaws in the usage of points themselves.

It has nothing to do with being an unbalanced game, just that certain lists beat certain other lists, or have conditional functionality. Points by their nature can't reasonably take the opposing list, the terrain or the scenario into account (and it's stretching "reasonably" to say they can even fully take the composition of your own army into account). It does not require that the company be apathetic towards correctly costing units, only that it be impossible to do so due to the nature of the game system.

Points are a system for quantifying the power of an army, to allow players to create engaging games. When they fail to correctly quantify the power of an army they lead to bad games. In sufficiently complex systems, this failure becomes commonplace due to the factors the points cannot take into account.

People who say that points can't take the opposing list, the nature of the terrain into account, and so on, are quite right but they have misunderstood the purpose of points.

It is the player's job to take account of scenarios, terrain and so on. That is called Using Tactics.

The purpose of points is to ensure that comparable units are balanced. For example, in 40K 200 points of Tau infantry should be equal in combat value to 200 points of SMs. If you choose an army with no infantry, you can't expect your extra tanks to do the jobs that infantry are supposed to do, like capturing objectives.

There are no points amendments in WRG Ancients for terrain, opposing lists and so on but the game still works.

Points do not work in GW's games because GW made mistakes assigning the levels, failed to take special rules into account, and have never settled down and made them work.

Any wargame is a mathematical system that is solvable., even a system like 40K that has a large number of factors.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
I remember reading a thing about 40k here once. It was a really cute conspiracy theory about the bloated 40k ruleset. It went - kids don't have fully developed brains yet and they have trouble strategising properly, which presents a problem if you're trying to get them to enjoy a strategy game. They have really awesome memories for minutiae, though. So instead of making a game where their strategic skill is tested, you make a game with incredibly convoluted rules, so that even if they can't improve their strategic mastery they can still get better at the game by increasing their mastery of the rules.

On Bloodsecrators and Slaughterpriests. It's easy to decide on the conclusion (the names are targeted at kids) and from there see it clearly in the evidence (any adult obviously would find these names ridiculous). That's not great science, though. I would like to present an alternative theory: you are taking the setting more seriously than the writers and if the names were any more tongue in cheek they'd need corrective surgery.

And finally, on points costs: if, as has been suggested, points costs are toxic to other styles of play, it makes perfect sense that many players would want point costs, because the players who don't stop playing the game.

1. Sure but there's no serious strategising in AoS to speak of and GW didn't make a game where your strategic skills are tested.

Ah. I don't have a lot of experience with the ruleset yet, so you could be right.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
2. They took Slaneesh out. It's either to not scare mums out of the store or because they got scared of political corectness police. So either a game is for kids or politicaly censored, both crap.

Have... have you actually read the story? Slaanesh is missing, apparently captured. The story specifically says that Slaanesh's followers are active and looking for him. The book features photographs of daemonettes.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
3. No point costs are toxic to other types of players, and those will stop playing as well. The difference is that previously it took only saying "let's ignore points" for fluffbunies to play their way, now it takes tons of work to come up with anything resembling balance for competitve players. But the former seem to nothing but rejoice about getting rid of "toxic black hearted jocks rampaging tbrouth the community" which kind of shows how hypocrytical the whole bunch is.

I have replied to the small part of this that is not an attack on people who disagree with you before, but to sum up: points have created a culture where the default way to play is to use points, even though they have huge issues with balance due to not taking into account your army's composition, your enemy's army's composition, the scenario or the terrain. Removing points altogether may be the only way to actually get people to use their heads to create balance instead of leaning on points. That's part of why I find it interesting.

I haven't read the story yet and tbh I have no plans to do so and indeed posting second hand info. Count me corrected for the time being, maybe our demonic shemale will be back in full glory. One less negative about AoS, 200 to go heh.

As for points culture, it's better than no points culture. And people used their heads since forever to create balance, setting up terrain missions handicaps etc. It's just harder now, there's no revolution only some misguided lesson from GW at best and laziness at worst
It's just backwards imo.