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.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
AoS totally brought me back to play Warhammer.....with Kings of War.

I only play games if I like the universe first. Rules be damned, I just don't know if AoS is going to have a "world" as engrossing and evocative as the Old World.

Other than the lack of points/force balancing, I could totally have fun playing Old World setting games with the available Warscrolls and the free rules. They aren't the greatest, but they are "ok" for casual gaming with friends who aren't going to be dicks to each other. But this new fluff going forward? It just doesn't grab me at all so far.

the old world lore/fluff was bloody awesome and is going to be hard to beat, personally I liked it less "grimmdark" and remember when "humour" was part of it... I kinda like the new "heroic" setting, seems more mythological which is always good I say, I am kinda annoyed at all the modernized themes going around

They need to bring back Drachenfels. One of my favorite Warhammer stories. However, space marines in Fantasy, just why? The idea behind them isn't that bad, but if the models are going to be so bloody similiar it's just infuriating. Also, they are of course Ultramarine colors. The new fluff is interesting, but if when GW started fianlly advancing it again I had known it was going to lead to this, I would have been a lot less hyped than I was.

I'm actually re-reading all the Gotrek and Felix novels to get my Old World fix. My next project is using Kings of War and recreating some WHFB armies in 15mm scale, starting with Dark Elves and probably Orcs/Gobbos.

I probably should have picked up some cheap WHFB books at Gencon. Even old editions' materials would be good for fluff.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
I'm also puzzled as to how someone can be brought back by something that is basicaly an excrement put on the previous game and world. It has close to nothing of the tone, scale, depth, mood and creative spark of wh but it has space marines. What it has in common is a few names and a forced backstory, where's the grit the grim and the gothic horror.

It's almost as if the people who like AOS didn't care for the previous game at all.........................



As for complaints about the background, all I can say is that I enjoy reading the Dresden Files even though they aren't like Mistborn at all. How dare something that's not trying to be the same be different. Dammit, when companies try something new, I want them to do it just like the last time they tried something new.

As far as I'm concerned, they can try something new every day. The can come up with a game depicting Jersey Shore crew riding winged whales to the orbit of Jupiter and call it Warhammer: Swimflying Morons. They can make 16 additional alternative histories of Old World including Warhammer Alliance vs Adolf Hitler and the other that depicts car racing in quasi 20th century world where chaos and empire fight for votes in the election. As long as whfb and old world are supported and intact, even if it was all mail order only.

But they blew old world and came out with this vomit that is directly connected to the old world through story and it's the only official proposition for fans of the old fluff. There are ways to try something new without pissing all over the old and spitting on the mess.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
I'm also puzzled as to how someone can be brought back by something that is basicaly an excrement put on the previous game and world. It has close to nothing of the tone, scale, depth, mood and creative spark of wh but it has space marines. What it has in common is a few names and a forced backstory, where's the grit the grim and the gothic horror.

It's almost as if the people who like AOS didn't care for the previous game at all.........................



As for complaints about the background, all I can say is that I enjoy reading the Dresden Files even though they aren't like Mistborn at all. How dare something that's not trying to be the same be different. Dammit, when companies try something new, I want them to do it just like the last time they tried something new.

Just noticed this. Okay, you make a good point, but Mistborn and Dresden Files don't share the same characters and background (At least I think they don't haven't found time for Mistborn yet). AoS and Warhammer do however. These are the same characters that we liked from the original fluff, and people have a rght to complain if they feel that the characters are not being portrayad the same as they were previously.

You both have a point. I guess I've been unhappy with some of the directions they've taken WHFB and some of the characters in per tickler since Storm of Chaos was retconned. For me, real Warhammer Fantasy became timeless and frozen years ago, much like 40k, so that I could avoid the terrible new fluff that would make me hate them. AOS and End Times are like What If stories for me, the equivalent of the JJ Abrams Star Trek movies (with 8th Ed WHFB and 6th/5th Ed WH40k as the Enterprise and Voyager series).

I'd almost say that blowing up the Old World was a mercy killing, sparing us the horror of Murderheim and Bloodberg and so on.

 IGtR= wrote:
response below

Please try to PM me instead of derail this post anymore

Green is me


" I am not denying that you can code words to represent them, but you cannot assign mathematical precision to words I never said everyone is always precise with their meaning, but I essentially have been saying that does not equally make it utterly subjective either . There is a huge distinction between the two. Maths can describe the shapes of words and represent them on a screen in binary but it is like a child copying words that they don’t understand by merely tracing the shapes This is not proving anything other than stating you believe this to be true . Computer science is irrelevant in the field of philosophy as it is a physical representation, not philosophical reasoning. philosophy is the pursuit of ultimate meaning/reality? - I think that's textbook. Anything complimenting this objective furthers philosophical thought "


Okay if you can’t get this one I don’t know how to explain it more simply. Fair has no standardized meaning First of all, 'Fair' is better probably best referenced as justice. Furthermore, to say that there is no standardized fair is a very ambiguous statement - and that's assuming you're being figurative. If you're not, then you run into the problem as to what exactly your referencing when it comes to justice, as not all perceptions of justice can be true. . It can mean a variety of things to a variety of people in a variety of circumstances I agree people can have the view, but it doesn't make it true - since some peoples view counter each other. It would be like saying your view on meaning and mine are equal, when they are obviously not Thus your arbitrary use of it means nothing.

I am not seeking to prove absolutely that language is subjective I am merely demonstrating that a practical understanding of the functioning of language shows us that there are numerous situations where we cannot ascribe any objectivity to the phrase. A classic example is the word fair. this approach still applies objectivity to it



Logic is abstract thinking. Reality necessarily involves empirical observation. I am attacking your argument here based solely on its self-contained rationality without reference to any specific factual situations Logically it isn't self contained when its responding to your assertions. The factual situations have been revolving around your logical fallacies. Really, you're the one who objected to my use of objectivity over something that I was pointing out to be a gross move toward its antithesis. If you don't agree with it, then you could have gone a different path of discussion, but you chose the path of essentially saying 'I can't legitimately say that objectively because there is no such thing as objectivity in the first place" . This is the difference between challenging a theory of particle physics based upon mathematical mistake as opposed to your own experiments. They do not necessarily go hand in hand.

All dogs have mouths. I have a mouth. I am a dog. yes, I believe you call this a logical fallacy
The argument does not need to be defeated by me having to prove I am not a dog with genetic testing, photographs, witnesses etc.
I can merely demonstrate that the argument is flawed. Using logic You didn't really say anything with this other than assume and erroneously equivocate things in our arguments. I can also make accusations/examples too to cover things but I don't. You seem to do that a lot - by pointing out ad hominems and make statements that ignore the substance of what's being said. I guess you could call this an ad hominem too. It's not a very constructive practice either way, if your actually trying to be constructive yourself. Perhaps we could try to exercise a bit more social grace, eh?

Algebra is logic, maths is logic-based. These two need not be grounded in reality. My example expressing your argument in terms of x is not grounded in reality. Algebra is real. Mathematics is real. These are both in reality.

I see what you did there and it was wrong. Please consider my logic above




So far as we know and so far as we rely on central assumptions to create the numbers that we use. Ask a mathematician to prove that 1 is equal to -1, or get into the field of i or j numbers, or get into a deep discussion with theoretical mathematicians about zero. Maths works lots of the time but there are conceivable scenarios where there are unsolvable logical problems. anything solvable is still associated with assumption - aka faith. The reason being is that there are certain instances where even laws become curious to us (expansion theory for example). We may think we have things figured out, but we are not omniscient.



[color=red] With regards to the first paragraph. More ad hominems? Really? Oh well I guess everyone who doesn’t believe your viewpoint is emotional. I do have see this a lot when I tell someone their belief system is false. What I have sensed in your words is something very emotionally charged, as certain words used and assertions that make it frustrating; its as though the sound of your words carry more weight than the words said In fact the only appeals to emotion have been from you. Sorry. And I have not glossed over the Bible, I have read it critically If you have, then how you arrived to your conclusions about its supposed contradictions I find, I guess, meaningless - without at least some way to convey your view.

I do not judge a religion by its abuse but your slander of some major philosophers required me to demonstrate that Christianity has been just as bad. You just called the Bible full of contradictions. That involves judgement somehow

Then assumption assumption assumption from you. I know these are your beliefs but you cannot logically solve the contradiction of the Trinity. No Christian thinker has satisfactorily demonstrated it I doubt you know all of the Christian thinkers of the world, so please stop with that level of pretense. I don't think that is adding anything here[color=green] . And your argument starts from a position of assuming God exists And yours start with the proposition he does not, right? . Indeed this “argument” is so flawed as to be useless and I will not evaluate.

As for it not just creating to the intellectual, that is fine. But it does not make the argument work No, I just put that in there because I thought it was an interesting observation not commonly said about the trinity - to give some credence from a different angle, granted, a little bit of a tangent. If you don't think so , ok. I understand these are sincere beliefs, but present them as such. Faith is an amazing force but it is not logic other than its logical recognition - which complicates things but yes, it is not the same thing - I agree . To present it as such does it a disservice. You believe in the Trinity as you are a Christian, not because it works Actually, yes, I believe in the trinity because I think it answer matters of the Divine more coherently than anything I'm aware of .
.


Again you are mistaking USUALLY for ALWAYS or NECESSARILY. Price has no connection to anything it is entirely arbitrary price indicates value, and value is again referenced ultimately from an origin. It may be incompressible to us in its entirety, but we can still recognize its degrees . And that last sentence is meaningless language that you think sounds clever. You can assess value but only empirically and subjectively. There is no objective basis for value this will go back to God/ No God argument & the school of grammar + logic proving you otherwise . Do you honestly believe that out there somewhere an omnipotent being is determining the objective value of a box of space marines? No. so price is subjective. Actually, I think the mind of God has determined every value, of everything thing, everywhere, all the time, in all detail, and all possibilities of it.....




Or we are because factually that is our experience. It is subject to change but subjectively, we share enough in commonality to declare that we are sharing something. There is no coherence in that statement. You are not using coherence correctly if you are referring to your own statements there. An incoherent answer is a play on words - you can't do it with it remaining an answer. Does that make sense?


Logic= your argument as a rational construct.
Your argument does not make sense in relation to itself. I have demonstrated this. My analysis does not suffer from such faults I don't know why your bothering reiterating comments like this - it should stand for itself without saying things like that - just saying . Thus my logic works and your does not Again, this does nothing other than flex prowess . We do not need to share anything as understanding you “argument” means understanding that it is flawed. You can disagree with me, but you cannot prove me wrong or yourself right Well, you might be right; Im not going to prove anything with that sort of attitude from you. I do know that there is a righteous Judge you'll answer to. Though, If you believe in Jesus - who is that Judge- your shame/guilt will be irrelevant to Him.

Communities can invent formulations of logic I fundamentally disagree , and can understand them in context. You have not resorted to classical logic. You have tried to use some terms that you do not understand and you have failed to demonstrate anything save the failure of your own argument. Please tell me; please show me my error then

And can you tell me why logic has to follow from nature?

Because nature operates under a set of observable laws in action that we can deduce and reason.


[color=red] Again nice childish ad hominem but generally I would prefer to debate with adults who challenge me on philosophical terms I just really don't thinkers that have advocate some very dark things in human history - I apologize for my brash, hostile response . Nietzsche’s personal life is irrelevant This is true , in the same way yours and mine are . And the advocacy of atheism is unconnected to this debate Actually, I bet it isn't, unless you are saying that you're not an atheist? . In fact the sceptic can choose to hold whatever personal beliefs they choose, they must merely not their irrationality. And being perpetually skeptic I could argue is insane

Then you have more ad hominem and a rather childish view of socialism I personally hate the idea of might makes right /shrug . But hey they were European socialists ! I don’t suppose you actually bothered to read my other examples of Hart, Reuter, Wittgenstein, they weren’t socialists FYI . And then your Sunday school perception of atheism is wrong and clouding it with quasi-religious language doesn’t give it any credibility because you say so? . And atheism is the mantra of Satanism !

“because its subjective thus, 'do what thou wilt' (the mantra of satanism) is the way”
Or not. Do what thou will is hedonism. Not Satanism. Satanism is the worship of satan. Which has nothing to do with seeking pleasure or doing what you want I believe satanisms only commandment is 'Do what that wilt': Here's a quick google reference:
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law" is the Satanic philosophy derived by the founder of modern Satanism Aleister Crowley. In fact, it is the law stated in the Satanic Bible."


And subjectivism is actually one of the biggest justifications this is an oxymoron for ethical liberalism and not interloping on other peoples freedom
Really? So making things subjective will cement the protection of liberty? I hope perfect beings are operating as your governmental agents - oh wait, you don't believe in those, right? . I think you are misguided and I am telling you this but it does not follow that I will interfere with you. This rant is highly illogical and has no place here.

And your justification of imperialism is flawed. My argument is that imperialism was done in the name of objective moral realism by many people again, yes people are imperfect; they are inherently flawed . Nobody has, as far as I am aware ever killed someone in the name of there being no ethical reality and all opposing views being equally legitimate If you're talking about government, your right, because it won't sit there like that, it'll hop onto someones agenda for them to spin it like that - Communism, Socialism, Fascism, Theocracy - really any government is capable of it

And when was this debate about centralised power? There are numerous criticisms of your precious founding fathers but this is not the place. You still haven’t salvaged your terrible argument.




You don’t have to dictate to other people based upon a concept of good. I refer to Raz’s coordination thesis, that many laws exist to coordinate behaviour rather that to moralise about it That sounds like it would lead to mere materialism. That asserts everything is in a box, and that's it. The problem with this is that there is no way to validate this 'truth' since it requires faith - which is not really in the box. . I also refer you to the Hart v Devlin debate, it’s a great introduction to this. I might check it out later

And if people don’t accept it, here in England we send people to prison rather than kill them, but your ideal society might be different I grant. Yep, I believe that restitution should work in the most basic, fundamental way so that society can remain as consistent as possible because justice is consistent: if you steal - you pay it back with interest (due to time lost from the owner), if you murder someone, then your own life is taken. The principle is 'tooth and claw' or 'inviting the law' (more a new testament concept). It's the basis to secure life liberty property happiness - the role of government. S

We can generally subjectively justify law in terms of protections of self interest This will foster 'might makes right', or another way to put it, create categories of people with varying levels of rights - whether Machiavellian ideologues or overtly tyrannical demagogues . That is inherently subjective but most people like laws so nobody kills them or steals their stuff. Subjectively that is good for most people (barring those who might be better off in anarchy due to being cunning, strong, resource rich etc) and involves no morality. Where is the moral value in parking fines I don't agree with them. I further don't even agree with things like building codes.... I think liability is the main theme I advocate - if something happens that causes damage, or you violate some manner of contract (redundant) - you then are subject to the court. ? Or countless other areas of law. Positive law is pretty convoluted from how it sounds They serve peoples self interests not a wider morality. You should consider reading 18th century colonial views about that Or are you claiming that all laws have some element of intrinsic morality Sorta, I believe laws are found not made. Laws of motion for example would be different in a way. ?
.


It is not disgusting, it is wrong I was being figurative but the connotation is still the same with 'wrong' . See misunderstanding of language. And you cannot say that a word is an abuse of the word if it is commonly used as such Then the definition should change or the person clarify, or update my own language - if the dialect was that off. . Unless you are denying the evolution of language Nope . It is undeniable that the English language today is different to that of William Shakespeare, so which one is right for you I prefer the 1827 Websters as I think the definitions are more clear. If I have a difference in meaning with someone that's using a dictionary, as long as its a similar dialect, then reason can engage, and we can average/rule out discrepancies via other words to clarify. The essence of what is being said is the goal, not the literal substance. ? Is cool a temperature of an expression that something is nice?
Does nice mean perfect as it originally did, or just quite good? This is what the subjectivity of language is. I believe those are called idioms, and language is generally not composed of them; they're an exceptional thing within language
.



Thankyou for patronising me, you incorrectly cited that law so you might want to go back and read a bit more on this subject before you get too embarrassed. I'm not an expert in philosophy, but I don't see the error you're somewhat pointing out. I do apologize for patronizing though.

Nothing I have said is subject to this rule.
.


I want examples beyond the verbal expression of maths. Because that is easy and a six year old could do that. You cannot demonstrate that any language that does not exist in mathematics can be mathematically expressed. You need to clarify this, as there are too many negatives for me to understand what you're saying. I will state though, that every little detail in language involves some manner of math, logic, geometry; from the literal to the figurative. Drawing mental images in ones head and the describing it, or calculating something and then writing/saying it, is a process that I see shows that verbal, and written ability from human beings (neuro synapses patterns for example) are prime scientific examples. I won't digress in sentence structure or meaning again - as I think that might be beating a dead horse... or something like that
.

I am saying drawing on something that cannot be proved to try and support something that you have not demonstrated logically I've stated I don't know how many rhetorical questions, as well as statements, to indicate/illustrate that your mere sentence structures contradict, and in kind the figurative allusions they were trying to draw.? is not only an appeal to authority that shows you believe your argument to be weak but does not help your case. I cite the flying spaghetti monster to support my side I can invent something completely outrageous, but that doesn't make it true . And Russel’s teapot. Now I am winning as I have more authorities. See the flaw now? I can invoke xyz authorities on my side.... Do you see the flaw now? Doesn't really add credence does it?

If you cannot prove objectivity without recourse to God, then you need to not only prove the validity of objectivity, but also prove the existence of God
So let me get this straight, you want me to first quantify the divine law giver, then refer to Him in an argument to say, 'prove' that He is not there???
Then on top of that, you're demanding me to provide proof when all you've told me is that there is no such thing as objective truth.... the burden of proof is on you, which you have not satisfied at all other than try to proclaim your it is so 'because' . One woud be a major achievement, both is likely impossible in a lifetime. Oh? and how likely is that? In how much time are we talking about and what is it relative to? You and me? or just you?

I do not claim absolute knowledge, only you contend that you are the expert, able to do what no philosopher has ever done. any yet every good/consistent philosopher alludes to absolute knowledge
.

Only one thing comes to mind.

tl;dr

AoS did 'bring me back'. Real life combined with local meta (or rather, my perception of it) had me disillusioned with WFB. I kept trying to gee myself up to play 40k. I got a small WMH force. I was looking at Guildball. I'd lost interest in playing games.

AoS has not only got me interested in gaming again, it has also got me used to a new feeling; enjoying losing.
For me, the inherent imbalance and the scenarios mean that I don't feel like I'm 'failing' like I used to when playing WFB.
I'm really enjoying gaming again for the first time in a good couple of years.

Others will disagree with my thinking, and that's their prerogative.

But one thing I really, really don't get; all these people going to play Kings of War in (I guess) retaliation?
If you didn't play it before, why would you play it now?
If you dislike the AoS fluff in comparison with WFB, I don't see how KoW is an improvement. (Ooh look, 9 new factions suddenly appeared!)
It can't be for the minis.

RoperPG wrote:
AoS did 'bring me back'. Real life combined with local meta (or rather, my perception of it) had me disillusioned with WFB. I kept trying to gee myself up to play 40k. I got a small WMH force. I was looking at Guildball. I'd lost interest in playing games.

AoS has not only got me interested in gaming again, it has also got me used to a new feeling; enjoying losing.
For me, the inherent imbalance and the scenarios mean that I don't feel like I'm 'failing' like I used to when playing WFB.
I'm really enjoying gaming again for the first time in a good couple of years.

Others will disagree with my thinking, and that's their prerogative.

But one thing I really, really don't get; all these people going to play Kings of War in (I guess) retaliation?
If you didn't play it before, why would you play it now?
If you dislike the AoS fluff in comparison with WFB, I don't see how KoW is an improvement. (Ooh look, 9 new factions suddenly appeared!)
It can't be for the minis.

Because all the AOS news people mentioned Kings of War and even companies here in NZ said since GW destroyed the old world why not try it (which I was surprised at) so we all tried it and loved it, AOS is hardly selling here and kings of war is growing big time. The minis are pretty cool (I especially like the badgers and lion rider) but the rules are far better than fantasy and well... any rule set is better than AOS. Also most people who play multiple games don;t tend to care about a companies models so it doesn't really matter.

I never liked Fantasy or AOS but Kings of War has been a lot of fun.

Yeah, the whole "rekindled interest" is simply people taking the opportunity to use their old WHFB which they did not like using previously. It's not really a rekindled interest in WHFB, or even the WHFB universe, but more a new interest in a GW fantasy game, catalysed by the fact that these people already own models which they can use in the game.

 The Shadow wrote:
Yeah, the whole "rekindled interest" is simply people taking the opportunity to use their old WHFB which they did not like using previously. It's not really a rekindled interest in WHFB, or even the WHFB universe, but more a new interest in a GW fantasy game, catalysed by the fact that these people already own models which they can use in the game.

I don't.. I got back into miniature wargaming because of AoS... Never had a full army in fantasy, had a few models here and there... Still deciding on a theme for a full force in AoS, I did have a necron and dark eldar mini force and black templars before.

1) ON TOPIC

2) AVOID posting huge swathes of text in alternate colors - it is actually more or less against the rules here

3) Seriously - ON TOPIC.

Never played fantasy , not even once. Picked up AOS and having a blast!

Funny thing is AOS DID bring a lot of players in my area back to fantasy, as a lot of people in my gaming store had old fantasy armies that they hadn't played with in a while, and AOS intrigued them enough for them to break out those old armies again.

Now I can finally play with my minis! Yay! 8th was so bad, you needed algebra to count wounds! I never liked 8th because I read on the internet that some neckbeards in Tulsa Oklahoma think magic is OP!

Never mind the fact that we only just learned what OP meant 2 years ago...

All this whining about how crappy 8th was and how awesome AoS is kind of putting me off both games.

Let's complain about steadfast and put off new players. Ya know what else is broken? Hordes! Now people who have been collecting for years have a distinct advantage! Boo! What else sucks? Magic! Yeah that's broken.

Okay, steadfast sucks? Removed. Horde Bonus? Oh damn now you only need 7 models to get that. Magic is OP? Well gak. We can't fix everything can we? Surely you and your mates can agree on not abusing it, right... Right?

But I need a million dollars worth of toys to play WFB! No dude, you don't. Minimum Squad sizes for 10 man units is down to 5 and 5 man units down to 3. Happy?

No... I want different size bases! Movement is hard! How do I wheel?

Come on guys. I think it's great GW is at least trying, but let's not pretend like they saved us from anything. Did this simpler ruleset alleviate the need for amatuer rule writing? Is AoS really going to stand the test of time and keep us entertained for 30+ years? Two pages of locked AoS threads and a completely divided community say no.

Haldir wrote:
Never played fantasy , not even once. Picked up AOS and having a blast!

Good to know I'm not alone. Seems like everyone else has tales to tell of editions past and glories long ago fought for.

I liked 8th, and I like AoS too.

Being able to mix and match units in a way you like is the best part for me. My army is now Empire + High Elves + Dwarves + Vampire Counts :-p (I have a "Death Wizard" (necromancer) who has gone a little rogue in the dark arts).

I also love the lowered model count and interacting with terrain.

There are things I miss from 8th, like the poker style magic phase. But now we get poker deployment phase instead :-p

You know what annoys me? Self-righteous people who claim I shouldn't be having fun with AoS.

 Lou_Cypher wrote:
You know what annoys me? Self-righteous people who claim I shouldn't be having fun with AoS.

Who said that?

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Lou_Cypher wrote:
You know what annoys me? Self-righteous people who claim I shouldn't be having fun with AoS.

Who said that?

Some fella who goes by the nickname Lou_Cypher. Other than him - nobody.

 Lou_Cypher wrote:
You know what annoys me? Self-righteous people who claim I shouldn't be having fun with AoS.

You know what annoys me? Self-righteous people who claim I should n't be having fun with AoS.

I'm not sure why people bang on about no point no balance. Ummm warhammer with points was never balanced for years. GW got rid of them as there never was a point for points.

AoS actually balances very well, how you may ask well with no points shock horror in this social hobby a quick chat to your opponent generally does it for you.

The rules work well apart from measuring model to model. It should be base to base. That's the only house rule that's used as its the only one that needs it. As for summoning being broken not really, if you summon mass units and they die that screws your chance of winning as they would count for your wounds. Summoning will be changed as released come out. Currently the legacy warscrolls are a stop gap for old players that have loads of models as new stuff comes out I see GW capping summoned units to 2D6 worth of models.

If it wasn't for AoS fantasy would still be a dead game. I've never seen fantasy more talked about than it is currently. Yes there are the negative, whining continuous droning of it being "bad" but its working and people are buying. I stopped fantasy about 4th or 5th ed and played loads of other games. AoS has brought me back though and I've not had this much fun for years playing a game.

Not everyone likes it, that's just like any other game but at least the people that don't like those games have the decency to not derail every last thread about it. If you don't like AoS oj but some people do. That's just how it is

 Motograter wrote:
I'm not sure why people bang on about no point no balance. Ummm warhammer with points was never balanced for years. GW got rid of them as there never was a point for points.

...

This isn't the thread for that discussion but it has been well covered elsewhere. If you read the thread about AOS points values it laoys out all the issues.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/658765.page

 Motograter wrote:
I'm not sure why people bang on about no point no balance. Ummm warhammer with points was never balanced for years. GW got rid of them as there never was a point for points.

It has a lot less to do with the 'use of points', and a lot more to do with gw's 'poor use of points'. Thsts where the balance problems come from.

 Motograter wrote:

AoS actually balances very well, how you may ask well with no points shock horror in this social hobby a quick chat to your opponent generally does it for you.

And when both have different opinions on what's fair or what should be played? How does thst 'do it' for me? And let's me fair here; what stopped me talking to my opppnent before?

 Motograter wrote:

If it wasn't for AoS fantasy would still be a dead game. I've never seen fantasy more talked about than it is currently. Yes there are the negative, whining continuous droning of it being "bad" but its working and people are buying. I stopped fantasy about 4th or 5th ed and played loads of other games. AoS has brought me back though and I've not had this much fun for years playing a game.

Not everyone likes it, that's just like any other game but at least the people that don't like those games have the decency to not derail every last thread about it. If you don't like AoS oj but some people do. That's just how it is

Some are buying, plenty left or never hopped on. Whether those now buying constitute enough of a gaming ecosystem for aos to survive is another question.

And let's be clear here: people are just as entitled to post negative opinions as positive. Let's not whitewash the Debate.

 Motograter wrote:
Not everyone likes it, that's just like any other game but at least the people that don't like those games have the decency to not derail every last thread about it. If you don't like AoS oj but some people do. That's just how it is

The reason people have the "decency" to not post lots of negatives about other games is because if another game comes along that you don't like it's easy to ignore. Because AoS has come along and replaced WHFB, people who did like and played WHFB but don't like AoS can't just ignore it.

I'm just gonna chime in. I am excited about AoS because all the 8th edition releases got me excited to play fantasy. Problem was I have piles and piles of models to paint as it is, and the prospect of adding a fantasy force, even though I picked High Elves which was relatively low model count, was a joke.

And then this game comes along with 4 pages of rules and just a super casual way to get playing and add on as you go, without feeling like you need 70 more models for a proper game... i duno. Of course I am now adding to the pile. doh!

Having never played fantasy I can understand if people aren't excited about this but for me its perfect. I still haven't played a game yet, but I'm painting IoB which sat for months. I feel as if there is a *chance in hell* that I could get some friends into this game, where 40k and fantasy have been just impossible for me.

No one I know is keen on 100+ pages of rules. Money and time aside, I guess I'm just an idiot but I just can't wrap my head around such a complex gaming system. When I play 40k I basically just take it on good faith that the rules are what my opponent says they are. I don't have the appetite for mastery of this game system.

But I love the hobby, if not the game, and feel like AoS is giving me a very nice opportunity to have some fun with the models Ive spent so much time on.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, the store I play 40k at has seen AoS really take off. I went in to buy paint last weekend and saw players I knew, and players I didn't playing a HUGE game of AoS with a bunch of models that actually had paint on them. It was exciting.

It has made me excited to build and play things I did not care for before.

Tyrion
Caradyan
Annointed if Asuryan
2x 10x Phoenix Guard

Arielle
Handmaiden of the Everqueen
2x 10x Sisters of Averlorn

I need to add something else but I'm liking the theme of a King and queen guard type army.

The main thing that has amused me with AoS so far - all of the 'credible' comp systems that people seem to be raving about come with caveats on changing the rules - characters joining units, no shooting in combat, etc. - essentially modding the game into WFB lite.

Makes me think that maybe the arguments around GW being 'lazy' for dropping points are wide of the mark if others can't do it without tinkering elsewhere in the system.

AoS never rekindled my love of wargaming, it kindled it. Here I am, a man approaching his 30's, telling a forum centered around wargaming that I've never really been into it until AoS came along, and I don't think I'm going to be alone.

It's not like I've never played wargames, or miniature games. I've dabbled every few years or so and I've loved the idea of it, it's just been so hard to start. First I'd begin picking an army I'd like, then I'd have to start looking towards some kind of points value, for that I'd need an army book or codex, then try and figure out what adds up to 'x' number of points, but how would I know what works at this point when I haven't played a game? This is all before I start even collecting, painting, then finally playing. I'm pretty ADD, chances are that another army would take my fancy and at that point I'm completely overwhelmed.

The AoS starter set is bloody brilliant. I've bought GW starter sets before and they've always felt like "starter" sets, just a small taste of what could be accomplished, never a proper game. Age of Sigmar finally feels like a fully complete game, yes even with a tiny 4-page ruleset, and the models look gorgeous to boot. This is the first time I've had fun painting, and I don't know how to explain why, maybe I'm just more relaxed these days. I love that it's not going to stop at the starter set either, but that I can just grab whatever models take my fancy. I don't need to work out a coherent army centered around a singular theme.

As for the game itself, I've always preferred the more personal combat approach to Warhammer 40k, but I'm a fantasy guy. I've always been more into guys with big swords and armour fighting monsters, but not regiments moving through a battlefield. AoS has what I want in spades. Even in the starter set I love to pit a unit of Liberators against that Khorgaroth. Sure, both units look over-the-top, but that's fantasy!

I also have to shoutout to Ash Barker whose videos have really opened me up to what can be achieved in miniature gaming.

I can see why WHFB people are upset. I feel the same way about my favourite videogame series Legacy of Kain pretty much ended and more recently we got Nosgoth which wasn't as hoped. But the guys enjoying Nosgoth don't want to hear me complain about the same complaints they've heard time and time again. I'd much rather be positive and encouraging of more narrative focused games that have been releasing.

Of course, this is the internet, and people like complaining, but that's why I'm here rather than at Warseer or Reddit. I love that there's some positivity coming out from you guys. Overall, I'm glad AoS came out as it fueled a passion I always knew I had, but felt daunting to me. Now I hope to build a BloodBowl team before the year's up.