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.

 kveldulf wrote:

 bitethythumb wrote:


AoS seems to be inspired by ancient heroism lore like Greece or Ramayana (and heman is bloody awesome)etc and rules are simplified not barneyfied, people are saying it has rekindled their hobby love, warhammer is just a setting a lot of people very much love and nothing wrong with that, no matter what style or theme warhammer takes... AoS is new, its a fresh start, its a great place to start from the beginning...

Whatever mythos it is inspired from, Greek hero etc, has as much substance as Heman, which is to say, not very much.

The rules have been oversimplified due to some over polished idea - in the pursuit of simplifying things. A good ruleset has enough going on to appease many types of players, not just the finding the lowest common denominator. Simple to play, and complex in design have been fouled up in AoS, to where its now simple and simple. That makes for a very shallow set of rules.

I understand a lot of people like the warhammer world, but again, they are not coming back to it with AoS; they're not even looking at the same substance that was Warhammer, other than the miniatures themselves. It's the equivalent of using Warhammer miniatures to play in a different universe (a very common thing). It's a fresh start I guess, but it isn't a fresh start within the Warhammer Fantasy World - its even a different name now.

of course its a whole different game and I expect more people to realise that, heck I expect the legacy armies to be phased out for more balanced release's, if you simply use the starter box stuff you get a very balanced scenario based game that is pretty good and fair... The only problem right now for AoS is the older armies... Still has not stopped me buying the minis I love the look off..like a steamtank or hellpit.... Some legacy armies fit in rather well like sylvaneth but they are rather small and easy to work with.... Slow and steady wins the race AoS will start getting into its theme sooner or later especially when they release more things that are designed for it specifically because I maintain that the legacy armies were not designed for AoS and cause most of weird experiences... Age of sigmar, age of heroism.. and everyone is invited to grow with it free of charge.


Heck I am not even that much of a sigmsrine fan but I am thinking of just taking the plunge with them... I am holding back right now just to see what's coming next, a tzeentch update would be wonderful.

 bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 bitethythumb wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
I agree, how can people come back only to play the worst miniatures game I have ever seen in my time is beyond me too.

I feel like there is some exaggeration on their part or something. I am very certain unless the game changes over the next year that very few people will play this.

I agree OP, how can anyone be rekindled by this? At best maybe they mean they are giving it a try because it is free? No idea, can't understand personally.

or maybe its not the worst gaming system and people are not exaggerating their stated opinions? And they have every right to enjoy something even if you do not like it or play it.

Am I removing anyone's right? Or doing anything bad?

The game is objectively the worst game around, you may enjoy it... but that does not stop it from being a bad game. I would be shocked to find someone who does not house rule this game to make it playable.

How about not getting upset that people think its odd you play a certain game?

hows about not stating your subjective opinion as an objective fact?

It is not Opinion that this game is the worst rule set out there. "I like a game" is not proof a game is not bad.

but saying "this game is the worst gaming system because I do not like it" is evidence, gotcha... You clearly went full CSI and proved me wrong.

Everything is not a matter of opinion, thus some things are actually bad/suck. For example, if you play a miniature game that ignores the principle of its own definition - it goes off the reservation of being the idea of a miniature game. In the case of AoS, it has gone in that direction - being more deluded to its own sense of existence. Sure people can say its fun/great but in relation to what? A miniature game has a certain level of objective meaning that isn't purely tied to the notion of subjective thought (otherwise it would be a contradiction).

People who want to play a miniature game do so not for any reason that sounds good to them, but for mutual understanding in an objective sense - they are playing an external game, not solely an internal/mental one. This implies a certain expectation of rules and the adherence to follow these rules before you become destructive to the reason why everyone is there in the first place. Naturally, playing a miniature game logically infers detail at different degrees, and to find a level of this that can meet brevity and complexity is the balance every miniature game ought to strive for. AoS abandoned this notion, and went toward the mantra of selling an innovation in essence, than selling a miniature game.

Um... f you actually read the game, AoS does have complexity - found largely in the rules on the battlescrolls, their interaction with the base rules, and the fact that the base rules allows for a wide breadth of army composition, unit formation, and the like.

Your post actually didn't say very much, but you wrote it like a college essay to help obscure the lack of content. I actually can't figure out what you're even trying to say at points, except 'some things are demonstrably bad', which itself is a disprovable statement.

overtninja wrote:
Um... f you actually read the game, AoS does have complexity - found largely in the rules on the battlescrolls, their interaction with the base rules, and the fact that the base rules allows for a wide breadth of army composition, unit formation, and the like.

Your post actually didn't say very much, but you wrote it like a college essay to help obscure the lack of content. I actually can't figure out what you're even trying to say at points, except 'some things are demonstrably bad', which itself is a disprovable statement.

I'm sorry you don't understand my sentiments. I can clarify it for you:

A 4 page rulebook that looks nothing like warhammer, and has gone off in a direction that I question is at all congruent with mini wargaming - particularly a ruleset once classically known for rank and file.

As far as the content in my message, I think its clear, and apparently other people understood my statement as well due to their responses.

And please, instruct me how disprovable the bad is in whatever statement you are referencing.

I sense your angle is a bit on the passive aggressive side here. If you're referencing my previous post, please understand, there is a context there. If you have a question about a certain statement I made, then please, quote me and point it out what doesn't make sense.

My interest has most certainly been kindled.

I can pick a few models, take them straight to the battlefield and learn to play on the fly. I don't need to sit down for days learning a hundred pages of complex rules, then flipping between army books.

I don't care what other people say, GW makes by far the best miniatures. Other companies can produce epic quality stuff, but I guess any halfway talented company can produce something brilliant and then charge sixty quid for it. I'd be more impressed if they were half the price of GW models. Now I get to actually USE my models instead of leaving them in my cupboard because the complexity of Warhammer has put me off.

The sheer number of special rules involved in using a Daemons of Chaos army in Warhammer and (especially) 40K is just ridiculous. Look at the rules for Bloodthirsters and Great Unclean Ones in 40K - not only do they have Codex-specific rules, they use universal rules and the GUO can also chuck grenades (or their mouldy equivalents). I'm flipping between three sections of the 40K rulebook for the GUO (monstrous creatures, universal rules, wargear). I actually wrote the rules for Nurgle daemons down and filled a page of my notebook.

With AoS I've got everything I need in front of me, clearly explained, I don't need to rank units up and build or buy movement trays, I don't need eighty daemons plus four bigger monsters, I don't need to worry about the masses and masses of text.

It's just me and my daemons against the enemy, with nothing to stop our armies from ripping each other to shreds.

 NoPoet wrote:
My interest has most certainly been kindled.

I can pick a few models, take them straight to the battlefield and learn to play on the fly. I don't need to sit down for days learning a hundred pages of complex rules, then flipping between army books.

I don't care what other people say, GW makes by far the best miniatures. Other companies can produce epic quality stuff, but I guess any halfway talented company can produce something brilliant and then charge sixty quid for it. I'd be more impressed if they were half the price of GW models. Now I get to actually USE my models instead of leaving them in my cupboard because the complexity of Warhammer has put me off.

The sheer number of special rules involved in using a Daemons of Chaos army in Warhammer and (especially) 40K is just ridiculous. Look at the rules for Bloodthirsters and Great Unclean Ones in 40K - not only do they have Codex-specific rules, they use universal rules and the GUO can also chuck grenades (or their mouldy equivalents). I'm flipping between three sections of the 40K rulebook for the GUO (monstrous creatures, universal rules, wargear). I actually wrote the rules for Nurgle daemons down and filled a page of my notebook.

With AoS I've got everything I need in front of me, clearly explained, I don't need to rank units up and build or buy movement trays, I don't need eighty daemons plus four bigger monsters, I don't need to worry about the masses and masses of text.

It's just me and my daemons against the enemy, with nothing to stop our armies from ripping each other to shreds.

I agree, GW is perhaps the best miniature company in my book as well - there are some smaller companies that make some good stuff, but quality control can be iffy imo.

I understand the issue with the bloating in the rules for WFB/40k - its pretty ridiculous compared to what it use to be. I'm looking to play around with 3rd edition WFB myself. My copy will be coming in later this month

 Swastakowey wrote:
The game is objectively the worst game around, you may enjoy it...

Good to know that your opinion is an objective truth, bro..!

Seriously, go check what "objectively" means, mate. :-)

Edit: I'm sorry, I know I was douchey with this, but I really, really hate when people toss their opinion and act like it's a fact. Assessing the value of anything is purely subjective and no amount of arguing is going to change that. Of course if enough people think that it becomes socially accepted that this opinion is official, but it's still not a fact, so I try to discourage spewing gak like that.

I understand why people may be disgruntled by the fact that their beloved rank&file game was replaced with something outright different, though. People invested and now are not interested in playing it anymore, that's understandable. Same goes for transition to no point system... system. All in all it's a matter of preferences.

 Klerych wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
The game is objectively the worst game around, you may enjoy it...

Good to know that your opinion is an objective truth, bro..!

Seriously, go check what "objectively" means, mate. :-)

You are saying the game is good from a design point of view...?

Because I am very certain it is not. How does summoning work? All measurements from models for both line of site and movement is definitely not a good rule. What about how to even get summoning spells?

There are a lot more issues as well. How come single models are immune to battle shock? One rat with 2 wounds can beat 200 men as long as the rat only suffers 1 wound.

No real Scenarios, nothing to promote any sort of game. The rules are barely adequate for 2 people to plomp down models and attempt to play the game. I wonder how many people even play the game by the book?... probably no one. Especially since some rules NEED you to make up rules (summoning).

The rules ARE bad.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Klerych wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
The game is objectively the worst game around, you may enjoy it...

Good to know that your opinion is an objective truth, bro..!

Seriously, go check what "objectively" means, mate. :-)

You are saying the game is good from a design point of view...?

Because I am very certain it is not. How does summoning work? All measurements from models for both line of site and movement is definitely not a good rule. What about how to even get summoning spells?

There are a lot more issues as well. How come single models are immune to battle shock? One rat with 2 wounds can beat 200 men as long as the rat only suffers 1 wound.

No real Scenarios, nothing to promote any sort of game. The rules are barely adequate for 2 people to plomp down models and attempt to play the game. I wonder how many people even play the game by the book?... probably no one. Especially since some rules NEED you to make up rules (summoning).

The rules ARE bad.

Really it sounds more like a card game the more I think about it

 kveldulf wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Klerych wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
The game is objectively the worst game around, you may enjoy it...

Good to know that your opinion is an objective truth, bro..!

Seriously, go check what "objectively" means, mate. :-)

You are saying the game is good from a design point of view...?

Because I am very certain it is not. How does summoning work? All measurements from models for both line of site and movement is definitely not a good rule. What about how to even get summoning spells?

There are a lot more issues as well. How come single models are immune to battle shock? One rat with 2 wounds can beat 200 men as long as the rat only suffers 1 wound.

No real Scenarios, nothing to promote any sort of game. The rules are barely adequate for 2 people to plomp down models and attempt to play the game. I wonder how many people even play the game by the book?... probably no one. Especially since some rules NEED you to make up rules (summoning).

The rules ARE bad.

Really it sounds more like a card game the more I think about it

Yea, like Last card except even last card has more structure and balance, there are only so many cards in a card game, players can add another deck if needed, but ultimately there is more structure and the rules are more clear in your average card game than in Age of Sigmar.

I would say most card games are more well thought out and fair than Age of Sigmar is without players finishing the rules.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Klerych wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
The game is objectively the worst game around, you may enjoy it...

Good to know that your opinion is an objective truth, bro..!

Seriously, go check what "objectively" means, mate. :-)

You are saying the game is good from a design point of view...?

Because I am very certain it is not. How does summoning work? All measurements from models for both line of site and movement is definitely not a good rule. What about how to even get summoning spells?

There are a lot more issues as well. How come single models are immune to battle shock? One rat with 2 wounds can beat 200 men as long as the rat only suffers 1 wound.

No real Scenarios, nothing to promote any sort of game. The rules are barely adequate for 2 people to plomp down models and attempt to play the game. I wonder how many people even play the game by the book?... probably no one. Especially since some rules NEED you to make up rules (summoning).

The rules ARE bad.

I've edited my earlier post to amend for sounding too douchy, just wanted to put it out.

I did not say the game is good from a design point of view - this is the very example of lazy designing and I never disagreed with that. I am a part of a studio that's currently developing a tabletop game and I can easily list all the terrible choices that GW has made. That being said I understand what they did. I see what they were aiming for and I have no problem saying that they achieved that. Obviously AoS is aimed at particular type of players, not everyone, and apparently those people -do- enjoy it, so they have achieved their odd goal. Could they have made a better system? Of course! If they read forums and took the best ideas to improve it, they'd be gold. But it's their decision not to.

In some interview or letter or article they said that they only gave basic, raw rules because they want people to adjust them to their own liking. Dubious, unusual, weird idea, but understandable. Again - could've just better designed the game, but this is still understandable. I personally play only using the store tournament comp and I must admit that with it the game seems to do what they wanted it to be. The only houserule we might ever -need- to come up with is how summoning works (preferably all models summoned at the end of the game count as dead and that you can't summon over 50% more than your starting size or something).

And yes, battleshock is not combat resolution - it can clearly be seen as the shock that comes with seeing guys in your squad die around you. If noone dies, noone panics. As simple as that. You may not agree with how they designed this rule, you may think it's bad, but, again it's your opinion.

Read the edit, makes more sense But still...

Are you ok with models having long pole arms and then getting shot at because archers can see the pole arm? So the soldiers die from being shot in the spear?

Or a a lone model that is fluff wise average defeating 200 men because only 1 of those 200 men could fight the one model?

See objectively the rules are bad. Doesn't matter the intention, it's still a bad ruleset. To me, it sounds like they are trying to be like Black Powder (which is not popular among a lot of serious players, but among casual gamers it's pretty popular). I too can see what GW tried to do, but with so many examples around of good casual open rules they seemed to have missed the mark hugely.

I understand entirely where you are coming from, I know exactly what GW tried to do, however I think it is very clear they failed (did they try hard? probably not. Look at the beard rules for example) and frankly it doesn't look like they cared.

I am sure people enjoy it, I struggle to think of things people don't enjoy. I mean there is a fetish for being pooped on... yet most people would find that distasteful. The same with AOS.

In short, yes I agree with what you say, but I still stand by my comment about it being objectively bad rules from a design perspective.

How can one model beat unit of 200 in AoS? That was something that happened more in 8th with the overrun rule. I remember one game where my single outrider mowed down 40 Night Goblins when they fled. That wouldn't happen in AoS.

 Bottle wrote:
How can one model beat unit of 200 in AoS? That was something that happened more in 8th with the overrun rule. I remember one game where my single outrider mowed down 40 Night Goblins when they fled. That wouldn't happen in AoS.

If one model fights one model from a 200 man unit (because the other had to chase after the closest enemy models elsewhere or got shot) then the one model in combat was killed, that means the one model fighting the 200 strong unit won and inflicts battle shock yes?

I am not comparing it to fantasy but to games I have played (I played fantasy maybe 4-8 times over the last decade), and in most games this would never happen.

If the above is wrong let me know...

 Swastakowey wrote:

Everything is not a matter of opinion, thus some things are actually bad/suck. For example, if you play a miniature game that ignores the principle of its own definition - it goes off the reservation of being the idea of a miniature game. In the case of AoS, it has gone in that direction - being more deluded to its own sense of existence. Sure people can say its fun/great but in relation to what? A miniature game has a certain level of objective meaning that isn't purely tied to the notion of subjective thought (otherwise it would be a contradiction). WHAT DOES THIS MEAN??

People who want to play a miniature game do so not for any reason that sounds good to them, but for mutual understanding in an objective sense - they are playing an external game, not solely an internal/mental one. This implies a certain expectation of rules and the adherence to follow these rules before you become destructive to the reason why everyone is there in the first place. Naturally, playing a miniature game logically infers detail at different degrees, and to find a level of this that can meet brevity and complexity is the balance every miniature game ought to strive for. AoS abandoned this notion, and went toward the mantra of selling an innovation in essence, than selling a miniature game.

I don't know if you know the meaning of objective meaning but this is not it. Nobody can agree about whether objective meaning exists but a basic example might be that 1+1=2.
A miniature game has no level of objective meaning. And a certain level of objective meaning is a meaningless statement. If I said miniature game to an alien or a remote tribe and then explained it and then showed them AoS then they'd probably say it was a miniature game. If you can provide me with an objective definition, sourced from outside of human experience, that exists separate to any degree of subjectivity and will always hold true in any given hypothetical situation, and everyone agrees on it, then you can talk about objectivity. After you have proven that objectivity exists. So you might want to rephrase this. Its the same thing as humour or morality, try talking about objectives in there with some people that know what they're talking about and they will tear you to pieces over evidential flaws, logical jumps etc.

And what do you mean by purely tied to subjective thought meaning a contradiction?

By this statement do you mean that there are subjective (ie cultural) values that wargamers associate with miniature games. Because our partners clearly don't have the same view of what we do as we do. There might be an expectation of rules etc. but that isn't objective and it is not unimaginable that a certain percentage of gamers do not expect rules to be present all of the time. Just as not all gamers now think that points are necessary.

I shall leave this here to demonstrate what I mean about there being no objectivity.

 IGtR= wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Everything is not a matter of opinion, thus some things are actually bad/suck. For example, if you play a miniature game that ignores the principle of its own definition - it goes off the reservation of being the idea of a miniature game. In the case of AoS, it has gone in that direction - being more deluded to its own sense of existence. Sure people can say its fun/great but in relation to what? A miniature game has a certain level of objective meaning that isn't purely tied to the notion of subjective thought (otherwise it would be a contradiction). WHAT DOES THIS MEAN??

People who want to play a miniature game do so not for any reason that sounds good to them, but for mutual understanding in an objective sense - they are playing an external game, not solely an internal/mental one. This implies a certain expectation of rules and the adherence to follow these rules before you become destructive to the reason why everyone is there in the first place. Naturally, playing a miniature game logically infers detail at different degrees, and to find a level of this that can meet brevity and complexity is the balance every miniature game ought to strive for. AoS abandoned this notion, and went toward the mantra of selling an innovation in essence, than selling a miniature game.

I don't know if you know the meaning of objective meaning but this is not it. Nobody can agree about whether objective meaning exists but a basic example might be that 1+1=2.
A miniature game has no level of objective meaning. And a certain level of objective meaning is a meaningless statement. If I said miniature game to an alien or a remote tribe and then explained it and then showed them AoS then they'd probably say it was a miniature game. If you can provide me with an objective definition, sourced from outside of human experience, that exists separate to any degree of subjectivity and will always hold true in any given hypothetical situation, and everyone agrees on it, then you can talk about objectivity. After you have proven that objectivity exists. So you might want to rephrase this. Its the same thing as humour or morality, try talking about objectives in there with some people that know what they're talking about and they will tear you to pieces over evidential flaws, logical jumps etc.

And what do you mean by purely tied to subjective thought meaning a contradiction?

By this statement do you mean that there are subjective (ie cultural) values that wargamers associate with miniature games. Because our partners clearly don't have the same view of what we do as we do. There might be an expectation of rules etc. but that isn't objective and it is not unimaginable that a certain percentage of gamers do not expect rules to be present all of the time. Just as not all gamers now think that points are necessary.

I shall leave this here to demonstrate what I mean about there being no objectivity.

1: I think you misquoted me.
2: the rules for a game are a method of play? If so AOS fails because (easy example) summoning alone. What does this mean? You have incomplete rules. Does this mean the rules are objectively bad? Well I say yes because they aren't a full set of rules really.

not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion. intent upon or dealing with things external to the mind rather than with thoughts or feelings, as a person or a book.

I am fairly sure a set of rules that are said to be a complete set of rules is objectively bad if it is not a complete set of rules. I am not being biased I think.

I am however being biased when it comes to the beard rules or measuring from the models. But as for a complete set of rules, they are objectively bad I think yes?

Points are not, nor have ever been necessary either. I play many games with no points, but they are still full rule sets.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
How can one model beat unit of 200 in AoS? That was something that happened more in 8th with the overrun rule. I remember one game where my single outrider mowed down 40 Night Goblins when they fled. That wouldn't happen in AoS.

If one model fights one model from a 200 man unit (because the other had to chase after the closest enemy models elsewhere or got shot) then the one model in combat was killed, that means the one model fighting the 200 strong unit won and inflicts battle shock yes?

I am not comparing it to fantasy but to games I have played (I played fantasy maybe 4-8 times over the last decade), and in most games this would never happen.

If the above is wrong let me know...

Yeah it's a litte wrong.

The 200+ strong unit would receive atleast +20 to their bravery. So standard humans (State Troops) would have 25. Meaning the unit would have to lose 20 models and roll a 6 on their bravery before a single one fled (and it would only be 1 that would flee).

In 8th you only had to win the combat and there was a chance you could break the enemy and then run them down killing every single one.

A chance in 8th. Impossible with AoS.

I agree the LoS rules are bad and houserule them.

 Bottle wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
How can one model beat unit of 200 in AoS? That was something that happened more in 8th with the overrun rule. I remember one game where my single outrider mowed down 40 Night Goblins when they fled. That wouldn't happen in AoS.

If one model fights one model from a 200 man unit (because the other had to chase after the closest enemy models elsewhere or got shot) then the one model in combat was killed, that means the one model fighting the 200 strong unit won and inflicts battle shock yes?

I am not comparing it to fantasy but to games I have played (I played fantasy maybe 4-8 times over the last decade), and in most games this would never happen.

If the above is wrong let me know...

Yeah it's a litte wrong.

The 200+ strong unit would receive atleast +20 to their bravery. So standard humans (State Troops) would have 25. Meaning the unit would have to lose 20 models and roll a 6 on their bravery before a single one fled (and it would only be 1 that would flee).

In 8th you only had to win the combat and there was a chance you could break the enemy and then run them down killing every single one.

A chance in 8th. Impossible with AoS.

I agree the LoS rules are bad and houserule them.

I see, fair enough... then reduce the unit of 200 (never played the game with 200 units, I didn't want to play all day), I you can still get many silly situations with battle shock where it scratches your head. But yes you are correct.

Thing is abolut the 'popularity' of AoS is that it is directly and more than matched by its unpopularity, which is never a good thing. The only thing going for it is that in some eyes it compares favourably to 8th. This doesn't say a lot on AoS but says a huge amount about 8th.

In 8th balance was so bad that doing away with balance entirely is considered an improvement.
Rules were so haphazardly written that minimalisation is an improvement.
Magic was so random and overpowered that nerfing it to near non existence is an improvement.

Nice to see that some are enjoying AoS but in reality it just polishes the GW Design turd differently.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
How can one model beat unit of 200 in AoS? That was something that happened more in 8th with the overrun rule. I remember one game where my single outrider mowed down 40 Night Goblins when they fled. That wouldn't happen in AoS.

If one model fights one model from a 200 man unit (because the other had to chase after the closest enemy models elsewhere or got shot) then the one model in combat was killed, that means the one model fighting the 200 strong unit won and inflicts battle shock yes?

If the above is wrong let me know...

If I understand your hypothetical, yes you're wrong. For a start, the 200 man unit gets +19 to its Bravery when the one guy out front dies. I'm pretty sure that even if the BS test roll is a 6, it will pass the Battleshock test.

Edit: Sorry, someone else was responding as I typed

So far I have really liked how battleshock works. Just to clarify from your above post, every unit that loses a model anywhere in the turn takes a battleshock test. So it's usually the case that both units takes battleshock after combat.

The only army that really breaks battleshock are the Stormcast Eternals as you can field every model as a single unit if you wanted to.

Yea my example was exaggerated waaaaaay to much and was wrong from the start. I still stand by my other points though.

Also technically couldn't all armies break battle shock by simply taking all the biggest monsters they can? Like Lizardmen taking a giant cool herd of Stegadons? Technically any army with single model units breaks battle shock.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Yea my example was exaggerated waaaaaay to much and was wrong from the start. I still stand by my other points though.

Also technically couldn't all armies break battle shock by simply taking all the biggest monsters they can? Like Lizardmen taking a giant cool herd of Stegadons? Technically any army with single model units breaks battle shock.

Yep, that's right. Breaking AoS isn't hard to do and that is just one of the many ways! :-)

In general I don't think it needs to be houseruled though. Only LoS and base to base measuring are needed. Everything else works fine for a quick casual game so far for me.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Yea my example was exaggerated waaaaaay to much and was wrong from the start. I still stand by my other points though.

Also technically couldn't all armies break battle shock by simply taking all the biggest monsters they can? Like Lizardmen taking a giant cool herd of Stegadons? Technically any army with single model units breaks battle shock.

Even if they could, who owns a herd of Stegadons? This goes back to one of my points that I keep having to make about AoS: people assume everyone possesses a ridiculous number of expensive models, or will automatically go out and buy them just to win a game. "I'm just off out love, I've got three hundred quid burning a hole in my pocket so I'm gonna buy ten Great Tauruses."

I think I'm one of the "brought me back to play" people, so I could comment here.

I've been into GW since the 1990s, with my first purchase being the 2nd edition 40k starter set. I was more into sci-fi than fantasy back then, but I couldn't deny there was something aesthetically very appealing about Warhammer Fantasy.

As years went by I was bit by the fantasy bug, and bought into Warhammer Fantasy Battles with the purchase of two copies of Battle of Skull Pass, which at the time could be had for $40 each for what looked like two huge armies, complete with terrain and scenario bits. Seriously, one of the best starter boxes of all time there.

But, in the time it took me to assemble those giant forces, I was sucked back into 40k, and my time and money remained there for awhile. Friends who had intended to play Fantasy with me foundered on their armies too, as the sheer volume of painting so many undead or state troops seemed daunting.

By the time I had assembled and begun painting my Night Goblins, an edition had rolled by, and a new, more expensive starter set was on store shelves. I wanted a better idea of what I needed to finish my army in this edition, so I began looking at other people's Night Goblins online. There, I discovered that my "army" would barely constitute two good sized units, and to bring my Goblins to a "playable" level I needed to invest another three or four hundred dollars and spend a lot longer getting them all assembled and painted.

By then, stories abounded of demons and magic being overpowered, and of giant units that were nothing but ablative wounds for heroes, and the allure of the game just seemed to wear off. You never saw anyone playing it in stores, and the Fantasy Battles shelves of those stores became dusty and ignored over time.

Flash forward to now - AoS is out, the forums are alive with the gnashing of teeth and torment of 8th edition fans who have had the rug pulled out from under them. But, for people like me, who already have numerous boxes in the basement of our old miniatures, we just got told "No need to paint 120 goblins sir, just break out what ever you got painted and try out this new ruleset. And get out the Mordheim terrain, because this time infantry can interact with it, rather than slide around it in formation. Oh, and hold on to your wallet, the rules are free."

And, for the first time in five years, Fantasy has my attention even more than 40k. Models I bought just because I liked them, like the Beastmen Minotaurs, I can now stick on round bases and field with those two boxes of Savage Orcs I bought, because they're both from the Destruction Faction. And, best of all from GW's perspective, I'm on their website going "Huh, what else do they make for Warhammer?" and I'm discovering things like the Empire Celestial Hurricanum and going "That's so cool, I'd love to make that!" and contemplating building a small Empire army around the Steam Tank, to play against those generic Khorne forces rampaging across the realms.

I don't care for a number of things in AoS. I currently prefer the old world to the new, as the old one has style and 30 years of history while the new is so vague and massive in scale as to make victory or failure meaningless in the infinite expanse. I find certain parts of the rules unplayable, like measuring models instead of bases. (A decision GW clearly made so people wouldn't panic about re-basing those swollen 8th edition armies) But, the core game, the idea of a "smirmish Fantasy" where you can field small versions of Warhammer armies, with rules so short and instantly understood that I can teach friends to play in a matter of minutes, all of that is pure gold.

Sorry it doesn't work for you though, OP. For what its worth, I'm sure a lot of veterans will feel the same, and there will be opportunities to play old-style mass battles under older rules or in new ones that cater to GW's abandoned player base. Just, please, leave those who are enjoying themselves to their fun. I love sushi, and my wife hates it - but she doesn't waste her dinner trying to convince me that seaweed and raw fish is "objectively bad." All I can say is, it tastes good to me.

 NoPoet wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Yea my example was exaggerated waaaaaay to much and was wrong from the start. I still stand by my other points though.

Also technically couldn't all armies break battle shock by simply taking all the biggest monsters they can? Like Lizardmen taking a giant cool herd of Stegadons? Technically any army with single model units breaks battle shock.

Even if they could, who owns a herd of Stegadons? This goes back to one of my points that I keep having to make about AoS: people assume everyone possesses a ridiculous number of expensive models, or will automatically go out and buy them just to win a game. "I'm just off out love, I've got three hundred quid burning a hole in my pocket so I'm gonna buy ten Great Tauruses."

I play 6mm, I have 4 Triceratops and 6 Ankylosaurus (or in warhammer terms stegadon and bastilidon) all with their lizard howdahs etc. I could field a huge army in AOS or fantasy if I wanted. See you don't need to play with GW models if you don't want to. Most games understand other models are around and so make games that work with any models the players may have available. Hence why measuring from the model is a rare thing in most games. I mean asides from the fact GW prices are a rip off no matter how rich you are, 10 Stegadons aren't that expensive. Especially at British prices on discount.

Also I think you under estimate how wealthy a lot of gamers are... have you seen how many warlord Titans sold...

I mean is it hard to imagine someone buying 5 Stegosaurus? In comparison to buying an army it isn't that bad. I will admit that model is one of the cooler GW models I have owned. If I liked AOS and it was a proper rule set focused on scenarios I would buy a stegadon herd and have a cool stampede scenario game. Or even play a variation of it with Tusk rules. Lizardmen Dino hunt.

 IGtR= wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Everything is not a matter of opinion, thus some things are actually bad/suck. For example, if you play a miniature game that ignores the principle of its own definition - it goes off the reservation of being the idea of a miniature game. In the case of AoS, it has gone in that direction - being more deluded to its own sense of existence. Sure people can say its fun/great but in relation to what? A miniature game has a certain level of objective meaning that isn't purely tied to the notion of subjective thought (otherwise it would be a contradiction). WHAT DOES THIS MEAN??

People who want to play a miniature game do so not for any reason that sounds good to them, but for mutual understanding in an objective sense - they are playing an external game, not solely an internal/mental one. This implies a certain expectation of rules and the adherence to follow these rules before you become destructive to the reason why everyone is there in the first place. Naturally, playing a miniature game logically infers detail at different degrees, and to find a level of this that can meet brevity and complexity is the balance every miniature game ought to strive for. AoS abandoned this notion, and went toward the mantra of selling an innovation in essence, than selling a miniature game.

I don't know if you know the meaning of objective meaning but this is not it. Nobody can agree about whether objective meaning exists but a basic example might be that 1+1=2.
A miniature game has no level of objective meaning. And a certain level of objective meaning is a meaningless statement. If I said miniature game to an alien or a remote tribe and then explained it and then showed them AoS then they'd probably say it was a miniature game. If you can provide me with an objective definition, sourced from outside of human experience, that exists separate to any degree of subjectivity and will always hold true in any given hypothetical situation, and everyone agrees on it, then you can talk about objectivity. After you have proven that objectivity exists. So you might want to rephrase this. Its the same thing as humour or morality, try talking about objectives in there with some people that know what they're talking about and they will tear you to pieces over evidential flaws, logical jumps etc.

And what do you mean by purely tied to subjective thought meaning a contradiction?

By this statement do you mean that there are subjective (ie cultural) values that wargamers associate with miniature games. Because our partners clearly don't have the same view of what we do as we do. There might be an expectation of rules etc. but that isn't objective and it is not unimaginable that a certain percentage of gamers do not expect rules to be present all of the time. Just as not all gamers now think that points are necessary.

I shall leave this here to demonstrate what I mean about there being no objectivity.

"Nobody can agree about whether objective meaning exists but a basic example might be that 1+1=2"

Just FYI, that is an objective statement Just look at what you're saying, and wait for it. It'll emerge.

"A miniature game has no level of objective meaning"

other than the meaning that it has no objective meaning?

"a certain level of objective meaning is a meaningless statement"

And how much would that be? If you are attempting to quantify, there needs to be some sort of measurement.... oh wait

"If you can provide me with an objective definition, sourced from outside of human experience, that exists separate to any degree of subjectivity and will always hold true in any given hypothetical situation, and everyone agrees on it, then you can talk about objectivity"

And what's the purpose of this statement? are you attempting to negate meaning with meaning? That's a tough battle FYI. Meaning is a matter of reference in which the logical course of its ultimate origination is a matter of the Divine, Unmoved Mover, Prime Mover, God, The Lord (and yea, I believe & follow Jesus).

"There might be an expectation of rules etc. but that isn't objective and it is not unimaginable that a certain percentage of gamers do not expect rules to be present all of the time. Just as not all gamers now think that points are necessary."

Every game has rules. Points are not really gone I presume, just converted and made more abstract - which I reckon is more confusing in some ways to play a fair game


I imagine from your relativistic POV you have me plotted/figured somehow? Please just really think about the truth of what I've said.

Another failed summoning example, summon as many models as you want they all count as dead end game and I win.. And regarding mass units of crazy stuff, yes please... the more variety the better we will just use some sudden death rule to make it fairer like kill stegadon prime

Personally, I'm finding the argument against the LOS rules so weak. I get why it might, on the surface, seem dumb that you can fire at someone when all you can see is their spears or something. But most missile weapons are bows in this game. You don't tend to just aim straight with a bow.

Unlike guns, you can arc shots (granted, this doesn't explain pistoleers or whatever, but yeah. This is what happens when you give guns to a race in a setting where it doesn't work so well, outside of warmachines)

I know this explanation doesn't fit every single scenario. I know the rule isn't the best written. But whatever. We get it. The rule is badly written. Harp on it some more please. Because seriously, that seems to be your near repeated complaint about the rules, or at least the one I recall seeing you near copy paste in every AOS thread you've been posting in thus far (Swastakowey).

*yawn* Off to bed. Lurking these threads is really tiring and highly depressing.

Melevolence wrote:
Personally, I'm finding the argument against the LOS rules so weak. I get why it might, on the surface, seem dumb that you can fire at someone when all you can see is their spears or something. But most missile weapons are bows in this game. You don't tend to just aim straight with a bow.

Unlike guns, you can arc shots (granted, this doesn't explain pistoleers or whatever, but yeah. This is what happens when you give guns to a race in a setting where it doesn't work so well, outside of warmachines)

I know this explanation doesn't fit every single scenario. I know the rule isn't the best written. But whatever. We get it. The rule is badly written. Harp on it some more please. Because seriously, that seems to be your near repeated complaint about the rules, or at least the one I recall seeing you near copy paste in every AOS thread you've been posting in thus far (Swastakowey).

*yawn* Off to bed. Lurking these threads is really tiring and highly depressing.

Yep, and I am sick of the people repeating the same stuff about why the rules are good. People repeat the same thing, they generally get the same answer.

See, what I like about your response is that you admit it's bad rules writing, but then you say why it doesn't bother you. That's awesome. Same with bottle. That is what I call reasonable. HOWEVER the people who defend the game like its perfect bother me because, well it is incorrect.

Lets take the spears (I use it because it bothered me a lot in my games), cool you can see how the rule is bad. But then you can still find the fun in it despite the fact it's a bad rule (lets say the spear is acting like a lightning catcher for our lightening of sigmar etc as you said. That's cool. But what gets me is when people say "the rules are great for X reason" when x reason is wrong. However when people say "I like the game despite its flaws" then that's great. And I have said that a lot. After all I do the same with 40k...

There is more to the rules against AOS, Summoning (how do I get spells, is that rules discussion still going?) and so on. All of which have been listed.

Liike I say, enjoy the game, but don't try play it off like it's some streak of genius. Because it isn't. I am sure with the right players and some imagination + effort the game can be fun. But isn't this true with all games?