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.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
What killed AoS for me is my inability to utilize real world tactics;

Yes, I agree. I feel AoS models wizards and goblins riding on the backs of giant spiders all wrong compared to how they existed in history.

AoS severely hampers my ability and has no flexibility for me to create a, in my mind, tactically valid force. The reason is that I need the tacit approval of my opponent to place units and it forces me to be "sensitive" to what models they bring to the table. I might have a force of Ogre "legionnaires" in mind with gnobblar auxiliary support and pincer wings of mournfangs but show up to play and the opponent I happen meet wrecks this by not placing enough forces to be competitive against my concept force. My fun is ruined and if I go ahead an place what I have in mind, his fun is ruined.

Isn't that just you being selfish though? Maybe there are people out there that play in the manner that you would like... but does every game have to be that way? Is your fun really ruined when you have to occasionally play the game differently when playing against a new opponent? I mean really? Is it really ruined? Your fun? Ruined? Just going to spend the rest of the day sitting in a corner, pouting, because some donkey-cave had the unmitigated GALL to want to play a game with you? What a jerk!

Think of it like dating. When you first meet, you may have to do things you aren't interested in, like going roller skating. But if you have fun, you can keep seeing each other. And by the third date, you should be comfortable enough with your partner to start asking for the things you really want. You know, the kinky stuff.

There is no tactical depth. People can talk about zones of control like it's a new concept and didn't exist in 8th edition or TFGs.

I didn't say it was new. I said it was fundamental, as in the rules are built around it. Literally. The majority of the rules are about movement up to (but not into) this zone, that you must flee to escape the zone, that you charge into the zone, about starting in this zone to begin combat, about piling in exactly the same length as the zone's radius, and probably other rules I've forgotten about. Pretty much every rule on page 3 is about this 3" zone directly or indirectly.

I also said that its ramifications are not immediately obvious. The rules are built around this zone of control, but they never explicitly say, "hey guy, this model exerts undue influence in the 3" area immediately surrounding it, allowing it to do X, Y, and Z. Relax, guy. Take a load off."

I know AoS was created by people who play games entirely different to how most of us do but that's no excuse for making something so unfriendly to the majority of your current consumer base.

Citation needed.

Citation.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/660707.page

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
I know AoS was created by people who play games entirely different to how most of us do but that's no excuse for making something so unfriendly to the majority of your current consumer base.

Citation needed.

Citation.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/660707.page

First, I don't think Dakka is an accurate representation of GW's consumer base. I'm looking for something official from GW themselves. There's no doubt that that such players exist, but they tend to be rather noisy compared to the alternative, giving the false impression that they are more numerous (or important) than they actually are.

Second, with all the bad publicity surrounding AoS, it has a stigma attached to it that has created a negative impression, even (or especially) among those who have not played it. My Warmachine group was mocking AoS, not a single one of them having played it, and I know for a fact that several of them would love it. The phrasing of the poll is less "Are you a tournament player?" and more "How much do you hate AoS?" And again, the people who hate AoS tend to be louder and more likely to engage in a poll of that nature, giving an unfair appearance of their opinions being the popular (and informed) ones.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
I know AoS was created by people who play games entirely different to how most of us do but that's no excuse for making something so unfriendly to the majority of your current consumer base.

Citation needed.

Citation.
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/660707.page

First, I don't think Dakka is an accurate representation of GW's consumer base. I'm looking for something official from GW themselves.

You mean other than the 4 page rulebook?

Do you require everyone you converse with to defend their personal opinions or is it something you do for fun on the internet? I honestly don't know how you could even come close to the impression that I was conveying a general consensus of the community at large or the like, but ok.

Citation needed? Why? You don't have to agree with me. I could spend the time it takes, if I cared, to talk about lower sales volume on financial reports since the push to "collector" vs. "game" mentality at GW. I could talk about how people like Jervis Johnson, Rick Priestly and others have talked on record about how they play(ed) games in the design studio. I could take the time to cite all of that, but if you're too lazy to research it yourself, I can't be arsed to do the work for you.

Contrary, you could provide citations to prove me wrong. No? OK, we both have an opinion, on the internet, wow, the world continues to turn.

 agnosto wrote:
Do you require everyone you converse with to defend their personal opinions or is it something you do for fun on the internet? I honestly don't know how you could even come close to the impression that I was conveying a general consensus of the community at large or the like, but ok.

I honestly meant no offense. I assumed that since you posted your opinion, you were willing to have a discussion about it. You made a statement about the "majority of the current consumer base", and I felt that was not something one could claim in good faith without some evidence to back it up. There is a difference between an informed opinion and an ass pull, and discussions are far more productive and useful with the former.

I joined these forums for the purposes of providing an intelligent counterpoint to the ceaseless whining going on about AoS in every thread. Your statement "I know AoS was created by people who play games entirely different to how most of us do but that's no excuse for making something so unfriendly to the majority of your current consumer base." is exactly the sort of bandwagon-seeking whining that I aim to provide a counterpoint to.

Citation needed? Why? You don't have to agree with me. I could spend the time it takes, if I cared, to talk about lower sales volume on financial reports since the push to "collector" vs. "game" mentality at GW. I could talk about how people like Jervis Johnson, Rick Priestly and others have talked on record about how they play(ed) games in the design studio. I could take the time to cite all of that, but if you're too lazy to research it yourself, I can't be arsed to do the work for you.

I've seen some of the articles you are likely referring to, as well as read commentary on the recent financials, and I'm not sure what assumptions you can fairly draw from that. I don't think the GW could create a game like 40k, designed and played in the manner that it is, without understanding the players that enjoy it. And I'm not sure that the whining against AoS represents a majority voice in GW's consumer market, as strong and diverse as it must be across the dozen different countries in multiple continents that they serve. I don't think AoS stands firm against certain types of gamers, only that maybe it doesn't meet their expectations - which I'm not convinced is an act of cruelty or insult. I think AoS was GW's attempt at building a Wii. A blue ocean strategy that sought to compete in areas where other wargames don't even bother to go.

But I fully admit that these are assumptions. Maybe Games Workshop really does hate you and purposely designed a game expressly to make you feel uncomfortable and angry, forcing you to take your tainted tournament player blood money with you to its competitors. I guess such things are possible. Seems a bit far fetched, personally.

 Sqorgar wrote:

I honestly meant no offense. I assumed that since you posted your opinion, you were willing to have a discussion about it. You made a statement about the "majority of the current consumer base", and I felt that was not something one could claim in good faith without some evidence to back it up. There is a difference between an informed opinion and an ass pull, and discussions are far more productive and useful with the former.

Ah, so I'm a bad guy for reading this:

Isn't that just you being selfish though? Maybe there are people out there that play in the manner that you would like... but does every game have to be that way? Is your fun really ruined when you have to occasionally play the game differently when playing against a new opponent? I mean really? Is it really ruined? Your fun? Ruined? Just going to spend the rest of the day sitting in a corner, pouting, because some donkey-cave had the unmitigated GALL to want to play a game with you? What a jerk!

At face value and reading the tone to be genuine since you went into so many words to get it across. You're basically calling me a whiney brat for stating that the game is not my cup of tea and explaining why. I'm not attempting to tell people that they're doing anything wrong, I'm just saying why I don't like something. Opinion.

I joined these forums for the purposes of providing an intelligent counterpoint to the ceaseless whining going on about AoS in every thread. Your statement "I know AoS was created by people who play games entirely different to how most of us do but that's no excuse for making something so unfriendly to the majority of your current consumer base." is exactly the sort of bandwagon-seeking whining that I aim to provide a counterpoint to.

Good for you! Go forth and tell us all how we're whiney brats who are having fun the wrong way.

I've seen some of the articles you are likely referring to, as well as read commentary on the recent financials, and I'm not sure what assumptions you can fairly draw from that. I don't think the GW could create a game like 40k, designed and played in the manner that it is, without understanding the players that enjoy it. And I'm not sure that the whining against AoS represents a majority voice in GW's consumer market, as strong and diverse as it must be across the dozen different countries in multiple continents that they serve. I don't think AoS stands firm against certain types of gamers, only that maybe it doesn't meet their expectations - which I'm not convinced is an act of cruelty or insult. I think AoS was GW's attempt at building a Wii. A blue ocean strategy that sought to compete in areas where other wargames don't even bother to go.

Whining. Yeah, such a constructive way to have a "conversation", I'd hate to see how you speak to people that genuinely make you upset. I'll state another opinion that I'm not going to bother providing citations for; a company can not change a primary product without expecting people who have a vested interest in that product to be upset and feeling disaffected. It's been tossed around in AoS discussions quite a bit but new coke is an easy example. Some people loved it, some people were apathetic but the largest voice was one of hate.

I could argue your assumption

But I fully admit that these are assumptions. Maybe Games Workshop really does hate you and purposely designed a game expressly to make you feel uncomfortable and angry, forcing you to take your tainted tournament player blood money with you to its competitors. I guess such things are possible. Seems a bit far fetched, personally.

Yes, very conducive to having an intelligent, mature discussion; and you wonder why I took umbrage with your earlier comments.

 agnosto wrote:
At face value and reading the tone to be genuine since you went into so many words to get it across. You're basically calling me a whiney brat for stating that the game is not my cup of tea and explaining why. I'm not attempting to tell people that they're doing anything wrong, I'm just saying why I don't like something. Opinion.

First of all, I seem to have upset you, and for that I apologize. AoS is a divisive product and emotions run strong on both sides. I assumed that if you could sit there insulting other gamers, then you would have no trouble standing firm when those gamers responded. If I misjudged this about you, I am truly sorry. I prefer to have my online debates with people who don't take every comment personally.

What I was responding to was your comment that this other player "ruined your fun", which I felt was unfairly placing blame on the other player and which seemed like a gross over-exaggeration and a bit whiny - hence the sarcastic response. If other players are truly so culpable in your lack of enjoyment, I'm not sure I have much of a response.

Good for you! Go forth and tell us all how we're whiney brats who are having fun the wrong way.

I should remind you that this whole exchange started because you said that other players not playing the way you wanted to play ruined your fun, and that you hated the social contract required to find an enjoyable game through compromise. I didn't start off by saying that people were having fun the wrong way. You did.

a company can not change a primary product without expecting people who have a vested interest in that product to be upset and feeling disaffected.

Perfectly acceptable opinion to have. The idea that these people would be upset at those who like the change is what I consider offensive.

It's been tossed around in AoS discussions quite a bit but new coke is an easy example. Some people loved it, some people were apathetic but the largest voice was one of hate.

And yet, the Coke you drink today is New Coke. New Coke was just Coke using high fructose corn syrup instead of the more expensive sugar. Coke gradually changed the formula over time, boiling the lobster so to speak, and now people enjoy the product (New Coke) just as much as they ever enjoyed the last (Classic Coke). So if you really want to use New Coke as your example, you are effectively saying that people are upset at change, and would enjoy the product just fine if it didn't come with all that baggage - which I guess is a good point.

 agnosto wrote:
a company can not change a primary product without expecting people who have a vested interest in that product to be upset and feeling disaffected.

Why not? Pepsi changes their formula all the time. BK is no longer flame-grilled. McD is all microwaves now, and NOBODY CARES.

For the tiny % who care about Coke, you can get Mexican Cokes made with sugar.

 Sqorgar wrote:
First of all, I seem to have upset you, and for that I apologize. AoS is a divisive product and emotions run strong on both sides. I assumed that if you could sit there insulting other gamers, then you would have no trouble standing firm when those gamers responded. If I misjudged this about you, I am truly sorry. I prefer to have my online debates with people who don't take every comment personally.

I'm not upset, if I were, I simply wouldn't respond. No, I just generally treat others as they treat me. If you're rude to me, I respond in kind. Please point out where I insult anyone for their enjoyment of AoS or in fact offer any insult at all to any person. My post was entirely of my opinion about the game, the game, not the people who play it. Personally, I feel that checkers is a waste of time but I'm certain there are many people who enjoy it even if I don't. I don't think any less of these people, we simply have different taste. We can disagree about a game of plastic army men without calling one of us, "a whiner" or accusing him of "spend the rest of the day sitting in a corner, pouting" if we don't get our way about something. What's odd here is that I never expressed that I expected something. It's also odd that you would twist what I actually wrote to the point of contriving some insult when there was none, overt nor implied. I prefer to have online debates on actual points rather than contrived ones but I guess we'll be different there.

What I was responding to was your comment that this other player "ruined your fun", which I felt was unfairly placing blame on the other player and which seemed like a gross over-exaggeration and a bit whiny - hence the sarcastic response. If other players are truly so culpable in your lack of enjoyment, I'm not sure I have much of a response.

I should remind you that this whole exchange started because you said that other players not playing the way you wanted to play ruined your fun, and that you hated the social contract required to find an enjoyable game through compromise. I didn't start off by saying that people were having fun the wrong way. You did.

I'm not sure that you actually read what I wrote. Here, I'll post it again:
"AoS severely hampers my ability and has no flexibility for me to create a, in my mind, tactically valid force. The reason is that I need the tacit approval of my opponent to place units and it forces me to be "sensitive" to what models they bring to the table. I might have a force of Ogre "legionnaires" in mind with gnobblar auxiliary support and pincer wings of mournfangs but show up to play and the opponent I happen to meet wrecks this by not placing enough forces to be competitive against my concept force. My fun is ruined and if I go ahead and place what I have in mind, his fun is ruined."

I don't see anything in there about me forcing or expecting people to play the way that I do. I previously stated that I do not play AoS and this is the major reason why. Had I actually stated that I expect everyone to play like I do, I would understand your point. This is what's called a hypothetical scenario, I've underlined the parts that should have indicated this to you. I'm sorry that you failed to understand the post and then made a derogatory comment about what you assumed to be there but actually wasn't.

Perfectly acceptable opinion to have. The idea that these people would be upset at those who like the change is what I consider offensive.

Did I do that? I fail to see anything that I wrote containing something like that, in fact, in an earlier post in this thread I congratulated the OP for having fun with AoS. Other people's fun may not be my fun but that's ok, the world's a big place. You might be projecting some misplaced anger for such people onto my posts, I recommend a deep breath and coming back to reread what I wrote before flying off of the handle and slinging names about.

And yet, the Coke you drink today is New Coke. New Coke was just Coke using high fructose corn syrup instead of the more expensive sugar. Coke gradually changed the formula over time, boiling the lobster so to speak, and now people enjoy the product (New Coke) just as much as they ever enjoyed the last (Classic Coke). So if you really want to use New Coke as your example, you are effectively saying that people are upset at change, and would enjoy the product just fine if it didn't come with all that baggage - which I guess is a good point.

Kind of the point. Coke announced a sudden shift and faced backlash, they changed it over time and faced whimpers. There's still a market for sugar infused coke though. GW is arguably doing this with 40K; shift to "unbound" as an option and all of the formations coming out. I would say that this method is more successful than just trashing the entire thing and starting from scratch.

I have read this thread with some interest and I just wanted to put my point of view because I think some of the arguements here are circular and there is a lot of self fulfilling prophesising. Interestingly a lot of what people are arguing about isn't actually contradictory. I will expand..

Before I start, I will pre-empt my view by saying I haven't played a game of AoS yet. This means I am not an authority on it, and this would apply to anyone in my situation.

Firstly, I disagree with people who say that everyone has a entrenched view. I was really angry about the game when it was released. I have been through several editions of fantasy, and this game is no where near complete in terms of rules, and I was unhappy about that. I wasn't especially bothered about the rather derivative fantasy world exploding, it was tired and hadn't changed in years. I stopped ranting about it on the forums and looked into alternatives. However, my view is changing. This doesn't contradict my original position.

I don't think for one minute GW came up with an ingenuous game concept of providing players with a framework to develop their own rules. I think they wanted to make a game with a low cost entry point and sell lots of models. The rules were clearly an afterthought and if you used them to the letter then the game is ridiculous. If you don't believe that, then play me in a 100 model aside game, I will bring 50 models worth of summoners and fill the board in three turns.

But this isn't the point. AoS can be broken more than any other game and GW have neglected their role to provide a proper framework for army selection/design which for some people is a big part of the hobby. But it doesn't matter, because if you are a competitive player AoS is also the easiest game to comp because there a no restrictions.

In essence, through, in my opinion, GW neglect of one element of the hobby, to prioritise another, there is a simple game here with opportunities for complexity if you want it and play for fun if you don't. There are plenty of army selection systems out there already and we are a month in, but you can feel free not to use them.

By comparison, 40k is one of the most unbalanced games out there. It has layers of structure, and in my view as a 40k player, over complexity with detachments, formations, demi companies, decurions etc. If you think this level of complexity makes it more down to player ability you couldn't be more wrong. If you don't believe me, pick an ork army and face a necron decurion detachment with all the bells and whistles.

As for the gameplay, I can't comment on that, but I am optimistic that this element will develop with warscrolls replacing the 8th edition. There are some things I don't like and will probably house rule them, but the game has a sense of players can do what you like to it.

Ultimately we will know in a year or so where the game stands. But doom and gloom at this early stage I think is premature.

 agnosto wrote:
a company can not change a primary product without expecting people who have a vested interest in that product to be upset and feeling disaffected.

WFB was a primary product? Pretty sure GW's primary product is leasing IP rights to other companies and suing anyone copying their miniatures.

 Sqorgar wrote:


I joined these forums for the purposes of providing an intelligent counterpoint to the ceaseless whining going on about AoS in every thread. Your statement "I know AoS was created by people who play games entirely different to how most of us do but that's no excuse for making something so unfriendly to the majority of your current consumer base." is exactly the sort of bandwagon-seeking whining that I aim to provide a counterpoint to.

I'm so glad you joined to save us. I didn't like AOS but when you told me I'm just a whinner, I saw the truth. There are indeed no criticisms to be made of the game. Ever.

Listen. This is a discussion forum. Specifically a thread about AOS and what people think of it. Some of those opinions (many in this case) have a low opinion of the game.
How about this:
Why do you constantly come to this forum and spout your pro-AOS nonesense in every thread? Don't you have anything better to do? Why don't you go leave us with criticisms in peace?
Pretty silly huh? It sounds no less silly when you say it.

KingCheops wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
a company can not change a primary product without expecting people who have a vested interest in that product to be upset and feeling disaffected.

WFB was a primary product? Pretty sure GW's primary product is leasing IP rights to other companies and suing anyone copying their miniatures.

WFB is definitely a primary product. Tens, mayb hundreds, of thousands of gamers have bought millions of models over the years. The Games has nearly 4 decades of history. It's very understandable that people would be upset when GW killed the game. It will continue the way other deceased games do, but get no attention from GW.

That they also made a new game that you can use with your old figures is for some people a benefit, and for others a poor substitute that they will focus their anger on.

There doesn't need to be a consensus. Some people will hate AOS with out ever having played it. Others will embrace the game. Some will try it eventually and like it, or not.

In many ways both AOS and 8thWFB are in the same boat. They both need help from the community to keep being viable games. Several groups are working on points systems for AOS. (I personally like the Azyr system). WFB has players who want to continue 8th, and others that are working on 8.5 and similar rewrites. It's like WFB is an old veteran turned away from his home, and AOS is the teenage soldier sent off to war only half trained and just 1 bullet.

I'm having fun playing AOS. And actually beating people because of the use of tactics. Things like flanking and double envelopements.
I just got my copy of KOW, be testing that this weekend.
And looking at 8.5 and hoping to see more from that system and eagre to play it.

Part of me will always be pissed at GW for killing WFB, but I'm not going to quit using my miniatures.

 MWHistorian wrote:

I'm so glad you joined to save us. I didn't like AOS but when you told me I'm just a whinner, I saw the truth. There are indeed no criticisms to be made of the game. Ever.

I joined to talk about AoS. I find it fascinating and wish to see many long discussions about it. But that doesn't happen because every thread eventually becomes about why certain repeat posters dislike AoS so very much. And it is whining. It is childish and ill-tempered sulking. This...

chnmmr wrote:I'm sorry, I have nothing constructive to say about AoS. I have nothing supportive to say about it. I loathe the game in every way.

... is childish.

This...

chnmmr wrote:Currently its A** of Sigmar, and that suits us just fine.

... is childish.

This...

MWHistorian wrote:Its a game for people that don't want to think. I happen to enjoy thinking about my games.

... is childish.

Plumbumbarum quoting the opening post of this thread with the one word response, "No" is childish.

And there ARE criticisms of AoS, but this gak ain't criticism. So yeah, you guys are a bunch of whiners. You don't like a game so you belittle, insult, and offend those who do. And you make it practically impossible to actually talk about the game because you just absolutely must derail every thread with your "criticisms" regardless of their quality or desire to be heard. Because you are upset, dammit, and your pain must be acknowledged! It won't be.

At some point, the butt hurt sulking has to stop. I vote for sooner than later.

I did not enjoy writing this post. I'd much rather be discussing AoS than calling out other posters on their behavior. I entered this thread to offer a different point of view on the concept of points and balance, and to share the insight Magic designers had on the different natures of its players. That was an interesting discussion. Let's go back to that.

Believe it or not heaps of people join on forums to "enter a different perspective or point of view" only to say what has been said over and over again by repeat posters. Usually they change in time bar some exceptions.

Honestly dude, the game is awful. People have posted it heaps about why, it's just annoying repeating why it is bad over and over because someone new comes along thinking they have some special mind changing insight for us all.

It's hardly childish to talk crap about a crap game.

If anyone but GW tried to use these rules everyone would have laughed them out of business. I reckon even the defenders of this game on this forum would have laughed at this rule set had it not had the big GW logo on it.

The reason you have rubbish being told on all sides is because the arguments have gone in a circle and it ends up being a record on repeat (on all sides) so it ends up blurring into a mosh of stuff.

If you don't like childishness on the internet either ignore it or make your own private forum to monitor.

 Sqorgar wrote:
I joined to talk about AoS. I find it fascinating and wish to see many long discussions about it. But that doesn't happen because every thread eventually becomes about why certain repeat posters dislike AoS so very much.

I did not enjoy writing this post. I'd much rather be discussing AoS than calling out other posters on their behavior.

There is a mod alert button that you can hit when you feel the "I hate AOS" is overly spammy.

There is also the option to ignore the whiners.

That said, at some point, it would be nice if the "I hate AOS" posters would go away, and leave the constructive discussion to those who don't hate AoS.

The original post is made by a full time game designer.......

I don't know if I can believe any sort of professional game designer would promote the AOS game. Or feel that it has any sort of good game design structure. As it turns out, I am also a professional game designer of sorts (computer and mobile games). Not sure if that counts but I can tell you that you sure as hell would never design any computer game like you would AOS. Imagine having a multiplayer game where you gave 1 team rocket launchers and then the other team pistols....that's AOS.

Yes, we all get the argument that AOS promotes a non-competitive game......we friggin get it! That's actually how me and my friends already play 40k. We try to make lists that will make for good battles! The point he makes about AOS being a low-stress game I would attribute to people not taking the game seriously in any way. For instance I watched a battle report from 1+ armor guys, and despite their efforts to balance 2 lists, 1 army destroyed the other convincingly. Any ways, the guys just laughed about it, made some jokes about how broken AOS is and then stopped playing and changed to a different game. So yeah, they weren't stressed out but only because the system is perceived as laughable.

Someone mentioned earlier, that if AOS was so good than why are so many people complaining about it. And this I can tell you is so right on! If 50 people say it's good and then 50 people say it's bad, then you can be assured you have a really bad product!

From my mind as a fellow game designer I will tell you what I think is flawed and what people mean about "no tactics" in AOS. For starters, all good games have elements of "rock,paper,scissors" in their games. So for instance in 40k you have guns and weapons that have different AP values. So power swords are pretty good in hand to hand combat....unless you're fighting terminators! Even good sandbox games like Dungeons and Dragons (not competitive at all) has RPS elements like Skeletons being weak to bashing weapons yet resistant to piercing. AOS however is missing this crucial element to good game design! They have fixed dice rolls on all of the units.....so your goblins are just as efficient at fighting dragons as they are other goblins! It is this flaw that leads to the inevitable mosh-pit in the middle of the board. There are also very little in the way of movement tactics because there are no bonuses to charging and the players take turns with initiative steps. So in a way it makes less difference if you are the one who charged or got charged.

This is how I understand the full extent of tactics in AOS:

-pick a list of warscrolls. Some units buff other units. Don't make your list too good or you will stomp your friend....

- Run all your guys that hit stuff to the middle of the board and leave your shooty stuff in the back....Don't worry too much about how you place them or who they will fight just run to the centre of the board.

- The mosh-pit starts.....always pick your strongest unit that will deal the most dmg so to negate your enemies attacks back. NEVER pick a unit who's enemy has already acted that turn.

- Roll dice......always the same. Played your friends orcs last game hitting on 3+ 4+? Guess what, now you're playing against Demons....3+ 4+! Never changes.

This is why people don't want to play the game....and if you watch any battle reports or play any games this is what you get!

 Sqorgar wrote:
And there ARE criticisms of AoS, but this gak ain't criticism. So yeah, you guys are a bunch of whiners. You don't like a game so you belittle, insult, and offend those who do. And you make it practically impossible to actually talk about the game because you just absolutely must derail every thread with your "criticisms" regardless of their quality or desire to be heard. Because you are upset, dammit, and your pain must be acknowledged! It won't be.

I enjoyed this post - it mirrors how I've felt reading the AoS forums in this first couple months, even as someone who himself misses the old setting, and has his own criticism of the rules.

I've been in this hobby so long now, that it's actually not the first time this phenomenon has happened that I can recall.

In 1997, I bought a copy of what looked to me to be the coolest thing ever: Epic 40,000! The same game as Warhammer 40k, which I was still new to, but instead of a Rhino or two and some scrubby starter set marines, you had whole companies of marines with support artillery and Landraiders, against seemingly zillions of Orks. I was completely stoked, and although the rules seemed kind of wonky, I got friends to play with my starter box armies, and we were on our way.

Unfortunately, unknown to me, Epic 40k had replaced another game, Epic: Space Marine, which many considered to be a superior game. I won't argue that it was or wasn't, but this meant whenever I got those amazing little Rhinos and Whirlwinds and Battlewagons out in a public gaming store, the same two guys would seem to teleport in out of nowhere and begin grumping and hissing at us that we were playing the wrong game, and that GW should be boycotted until they brought back Epic: Space Marine. One in particular would begin loudly comparing the rules, as if arguing for basic human rights, explaining why individual weapon stats were superior to "that stupid firepower BS" and so on. And, it was hard, as someone with no loyalty to either game, to be like "Okay, that's nice. Well, um, we really want to play our game now, if you're done... Oh, you're not done... okay, um, we'll keep playing if you want to just, complain slightly quieter, a few more feet away from me..."

Oddly, today I mostly agree with their points - Epic 40k did scrap the basic game engine of the older game, and the older game was so well liked that internet communities came together to make an unofficial living version of the old rules. (NetEpic, I believe its called) But, I also wish we could have just played some Epic 40k in peace.

I imagine there's a lot of teens right now in those gaming stores, setting their freshly glued together Stormcast on a game store table to try to figure out the rules with a friend, while another generation of disgruntled veterans move in to make certain they know not to like it.

The rock paper scissors of AoS is actually there, just in how the units run based on movement and special rules. Archers/artillery counter monsters, monsters counter infantry, infantry counter cavalry, cavalry counter archers/artillery.

The moshpit in the middle will happen WAY less often once people start really putting terrain down on the field. When you see games end in a pile, you'll notice a huge empty space right in the center of the field. Put down some decent sized buildings in a 2' area in the center and watch the game and maneuvering really open up.

bob82ca wrote:
The original post is made by a full time game designer.......

I don't know if I can believe any sort of professional game designer would promote the AOS game. Or feel that it has any sort of good game design structure. As it turns out, I am also a professional game designer of sorts (computer and mobile games). Not sure if that counts but I can tell you that you sure as hell would never design any computer game like you would AOS. Imagine having a multiplayer game where you gave 1 team rocket launchers and then the other team pistols....that's AOS.

Yes, we all get the argument that AOS promotes a non-competitive game......we friggin get it! That's actually how me and my friends already play 40k. We try to make lists that will make for good battles! The point he makes about AOS being a low-stress game I would attribute to people not taking the game seriously in any way. For instance I watched a battle report from 1+ armor guys, and despite their efforts to balance 2 lists, 1 army destroyed the other convincingly. Any ways, the guys just laughed about it, made some jokes about how broken AOS is and then stopped playing and changed to a different game. So yeah, they weren't stressed out but only because the system is perceived as laughable.

Someone mentioned earlier, that if AOS was so good than why are so many people complaining about it. And this I can tell you is so right on! If 50 people say it's good and then 50 people say it's bad, then you can be assured you have a really bad product!

From my mind as a fellow game designer I will tell you what I think is flawed and what people mean about "no tactics" in AOS. For starters, all good games have elements of "rock,paper,scissors" in their games. So for instance in 40k you have guns and weapons that have different AP values. So power swords are pretty good in hand to hand combat....unless you're fighting terminators! Even good sandbox games like Dungeons and Dragons (not competitive at all) has RPS elements like Skeletons being weak to bashing weapons yet resistant to piercing. AOS however is missing this crucial element to good game design! They have fixed dice rolls on all of the units.....so your goblins are just as efficient at fighting dragons as they are other goblins! It is this flaw that leads to the inevitable mosh-pit in the middle of the board. There are also very little in the way of movement tactics because there are no bonuses to charging and the players take turns with initiative steps. So in a way it makes less difference if you are the one who charged or got charged.

This is how I understand the full extent of tactics in AOS:

-pick a list of warscrolls. Some units buff other units. Don't make your list too good or you will stomp your friend....

- Run all your guys that hit stuff to the middle of the board and leave your shooty stuff in the back....Don't worry too much about how you place them or who they will fight just run to the centre of the board.

- The mosh-pit starts.....always pick your strongest unit that will deal the most dmg so to negate your enemies attacks back. NEVER pick a unit who's enemy has already acted that turn.

- Roll dice......always the same. Played your friends orcs last game hitting on 3+ 4+? Guess what, now you're playing against Demons....3+ 4+! Never changes.

This is why people don't want to play the game....and if you watch any battle reports or play any games this is what you get!

The reason the 50/50 thing is a little frustrating is it seems like most of the people complaining have not played the game or read the fluff they are complaining about. And then, because so much of what people hear about the game is negativity from people who have not played it or read the story, others get the impression the game is bad and that all there is to it is repeating more negativity. I personally had a bad initial impression of the game based on things I read on this forum. Then I actually looked into it and wow, it turns out the game is actually pretty interesting and the setting has a lot of potential.

Your criticisms of the game mechanics aren't really accurate, possibly because you haven't played the game either. Just starting at the basic level, all the attacks in the game have a Rend stat and all the units in the game have a saving throw stat. Units with Rend perform way, way better against models with decent saving throws than units without. There are also models that can cause Mortal Wounds, which ignore saving throws altogether. Again, these are very good against models with good saving throws while not being any better than regular wounds against models with no saving throw.

The terrain rules also seem to be really important. If you are in cover, you get +1 to your saving throw. If you are charging mindlessly towards your opponent then it seems to me that you are probably not taking advantage of the terrain. There are many rules around the terrain, and I think if you ignore them then the game becomes more shallow. Weird, right?

It seems like the biggest failure here is that Games Workshop hasn't done a good job of selling the rules and demonstrating how they can lead to fun, interesting decisions. People generally seem to agree the models are very high quality, and they are the main thing GW seem to have really showcased properly. It's a shame they didn't do the same for the rules and backstory.

About the only thing positive I can say in regards to AoS is that the new Blood Reavers look interesting. The Chaos fortress also looks neat.

Until they make something medieval looking again, I'll probably be passing on most of their stuff.

The ruleset on the other hand is simply diarrhea vomit. If you want to look hard and long at that, I understand; it's one of those horrifying scenes where you might be prone to rubber necking and/or smelling the air to gauge the stench.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
a company can not change a primary product without expecting people who have a vested interest in that product to be upset and feeling disaffected.

Why not? Pepsi changes their formula all the time. BK is no longer flame-grilled. McD is all microwaves now, and NOBODY CARES.

They're still largely delivering something that the ultimate consumer can't tell a difference between however. Look at Coke when it tried to do New Coke, and you'll see how problems can arise when you deliver something that the average consumer can tell is markedly different.

*can't think of any real argument to make and found people who don't share my opinion, thus will reply with the ultimate counter argument while seeming to be mature and intellectual and as an attempt to shut down those who differ in opinion.* ...is childish.

Not the best argument to make when the current discussion is quite heated. The game is sorely lacking especially compared to what it replaced. The change is simply too much and is now an unrecognizable game in an unrecognizable world. The game is undefendable because anyone who calls themselves a wargamer would recognize this for what it is. A means of selling new models by resetting the lore to make it approachable to new players, resetting the rules to make the new forces better than the old ones (therefore selling more models,) and to make the rules basic enough that older children can pick the game up and play it without difficulty (selling more models.) The game attached to these models is secondary.

I love how everyone said that games workshop should make easier rules and give them out for free if they are really a model company and not a game company. Then they do and are now getting criticized for trying to sell more models with this rule set.

Age of sigmar could have been put out by ANY game company and I would still be excited. It is the closest I've seen to my first wargaming love mageknight, and it just so happens that my knights immortal models have a very similar theme to the high elf model range allowing me to dust off my minis and play them as a large scale skirmish game alongside some other stuff I've come across over the years

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I love how everyone said that games workshop should make easier rules and give them out for free if they are really a model company and not a game company. Then they do and are now getting criticized for trying to sell more models with this rule set.

Age of sigmar could have been put out by ANY game company and I would still be excited. It is the closest I've seen to my first wargaming love mageknight, and it just so happens that my knights immortal models have a very similar theme to the high elf model range allowing me to dust off my minis and play them as a large scale skirmish game alongside some other stuff I've come across over the years

haha

Everyone can agree AOS has potential with streamlining etc. HOWEVER like most things GW does it's 1 step forward and 2 steps back. This is not what anyone wanted. In fact please find me evidence where everyone was asking for anything like AOS? the ONLY THING AOS did was give us free "rules" unfortunately these "rules" are not what was asked for. AOS still has the same problems as 40k but worse (lack of structure, lack of balance, endless special rules for everything, stupid model prices, confusing/bloated rules, unclear rules etc etc).

Please stop lying mate, if another company made this game, chances are you would not play this game. Just looking at your post history it's 40k, 40k, 40k and a little AOS... suuuuuuuure you would be excited. Based on your post history I severely doubt you play/will play anything that GW doesn't sell. Not that's its a bad thing, but it is pretty far fetched to think you would be excited about these rules without GW in the picture... I am going to assume you are talking out your booty here anyway.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
I joined to talk about AoS. I find it fascinating and wish to see many long discussions about it. But that doesn't happen because every thread eventually becomes about why certain repeat posters dislike AoS so very much.

I did not enjoy writing this post. I'd much rather be discussing AoS than calling out other posters on their behavior.

There is a mod alert button that you can hit when you feel the "I hate AOS" is overly spammy.

There is also the option to ignore the whiners.

That said, at some point, it would be nice if the "I hate AOS" posters would go away, and leave the constructive discussion to those who don't hate AoS.

I agree i think AOS should get a section of its own and Oldhammer (now i suppose all other editions in its own section) and mods can mod AOS section to deal with only positive opinions of AOS... perhaps the new AOS section can be listed under tic tac toe sub section so its not confused with warhammer fantasy battle 1-8th editions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I love how everyone said that games workshop should make easier rules and give them out for free if they are really a model company and not a game company. Then they do and are now getting criticized for trying to sell more models with this rule set.

Age of sigmar could have been put out by ANY game company and I would still be excited. It is the closest I've seen to my first wargaming love mageknight, and it just so happens that my knights immortal models have a very similar theme to the high elf model range allowing me to dust off my minis and play them as a large scale skirmish game alongside some other stuff I've come across over the years

I never said i wanted rules that were "easier" and or "free." I would like them to write rules that were easier to reference material in some cases, knock off all the random table stuff (some of it is ok, but random tables for a lot of stuff doesnt add to the game in positive way for me personally). I say this cause of your "everyone" comment

Well the rules might be good for mageknight . I personally would not have looked at the rules if they were another company's rules and if i did see them i would have thought meh. That is my opinion however, i am sure everyone else has their own too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kveldulf wrote:
About the only thing positive I can say in regards to AoS is that the new Blood Reavers look interesting. The Chaos fortress also looks neat.

Until they make something medieval looking again, I'll probably be passing on most of their stuff.

The ruleset on the other hand is simply diarrhea vomit. If you want to look hard and long at that, I understand; it's one of those horrifying scenes where you might be prone to rubber necking and/or smelling the air to gauge the stench.

I agree AOS is like training pants for todlers wanting to get into wargaming or for wargamers who want a game that takes no pre-planning to play etc. Sorry if i offend, i really dont care as this is my opinon and sorry if you dont like it

 Swastakowey wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I love how everyone said that games workshop should make easier rules and give them out for free if they are really a model company and not a game company. Then they do and are now getting criticized for trying to sell more models with this rule set.

Age of sigmar could have been put out by ANY game company and I would still be excited. It is the closest I've seen to my first wargaming love mageknight, and it just so happens that my knights immortal models have a very similar theme to the high elf model range allowing me to dust off my minis and play them as a large scale skirmish game alongside some other stuff I've come across over the years

haha

Everyone can agree AOS has potential with streamlining etc. HOWEVER like most things GW does it's 1 step forward and 2 steps back. This is not what anyone wanted. In fact please find me evidence where everyone was asking for anything like AOS? the ONLY THING AOS did was give us free "rules" unfortunately these "rules" are not what was asked for. AOS still has the same problems as 40k but worse (lack of structure, lack of balance, endless special rules for everything, stupid model prices, confusing/bloated rules, unclear rules etc etc).

Please stop lying mate, if another company made this game, chances are you would not play this game. Just looking at your post history it's 40k, 40k, 40k and a little AOS... suuuuuuuure you would be excited. Based on your post history I severely doubt you play/will play anything that GW doesn't sell. Not that's its a bad thing, but it is pretty far fetched to think you would be excited about these rules without GW in the picture... I am going to assume you are talking out your booty here anyway.

To be fair, I would have bought the Sigmarite models if they were plastic models made by any company, priced at what GW sold them for. Those are just models that I like a lot, especially the prosecutors and the judicators. But some of the other ones, too, like Lord Castellant on Drakon and Relictor.

I regularly buy all sorts of models from lots of companies.. I just got Shinobi Assassins from Wyrd, and bought (but returned because they were horribly cast) Nephilim Warriors from PP.

What I find extremely fascinating is how divisive AoS is. There are people who just absolutely adore the game, and people who seem to be repulsed by the thought of it, and relatively few people in between.

Which is weird for me, because I'm squarely in between. I don't love the game, or the mechanics, but I find it quite playable (and enjoyable). I don't really like the army building mechanism, but I do appreciate, "play what you want, not what is strong". I do love the models and the fluff and artwork -- enough to buy pretty expensive books (though my wife really loves them, so that's a separate reason to buy them) -- but I don't love the scenarios enough to want to play them.

Clearly, the game has a *strong* draw for some people. The big question for GW is whether these people will collectively spend more than the old WHFB crowd. My gut instinct is... yes, in the short term, dunno for the long term. Maybe!

I was talking about the rules.

There is nothing wrong with the models except personal opinion, the same cannot be said about the rules though.

 Swastakowey wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I love how everyone said that games workshop should make easier rules and give them out for free if they are really a model company and not a game company. Then they do and are now getting criticized for trying to sell more models with this rule set.

Age of sigmar could have been put out by ANY game company and I would still be excited. It is the closest I've seen to my first wargaming love mageknight, and it just so happens that my knights immortal models have a very similar theme to the high elf model range allowing me to dust off my minis and play them as a large scale skirmish game alongside some other stuff I've come across over the years

haha

Everyone can agree AOS has potential with streamlining etc. HOWEVER like most things GW does it's 1 step forward and 2 steps back. This is not what anyone wanted. In fact please find me evidence where everyone was asking for anything like AOS? the ONLY THING AOS did was give us free "rules" unfortunately these "rules" are not what was asked for. AOS still has the same problems as 40k but worse (lack of structure, lack of balance, endless special rules for everything, stupid model prices, confusing/bloated rules, unclear rules etc etc).

Please stop lying mate, if another company made this game, chances are you would not play this game. Just looking at your post history it's 40k, 40k, 40k and a little AOS... suuuuuuuure you would be excited. Based on your post history I severely doubt you play/will play anything that GW doesn't sell. Not that's its a bad thing, but it is pretty far fetched to think you would be excited about these rules without GW in the picture... I am going to assume you are talking out your booty here anyway.

I'm actually enjoying AOS. I've played over a dozen games, taught the game to several people, and enjoying the league we have set up. I had to a bit of work in, but then I've had to do a bit of work for every league i've ever run, for any system. The Azyr point system is working for balancing lists. We use a lot of scenery, which adds in a lot of tactics. Few wargames doe well with no scenery.

I know there is a faction out there that can't stand AOS, and seeming can't stand that anyone, anywhere might like it. But at some point you're going to have to recognize that there are people who like the game. Trying to turn every thread into a gakfest of "Why we should all hate AOS" gets old.

 mikhaila wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I love how everyone said that games workshop should make easier rules and give them out for free if they are really a model company and not a game company. Then they do and are now getting criticized for trying to sell more models with this rule set.

Age of sigmar could have been put out by ANY game company and I would still be excited. It is the closest I've seen to my first wargaming love mageknight, and it just so happens that my knights immortal models have a very similar theme to the high elf model range allowing me to dust off my minis and play them as a large scale skirmish game alongside some other stuff I've come across over the years

haha

Everyone can agree AOS has potential with streamlining etc. HOWEVER like most things GW does it's 1 step forward and 2 steps back. This is not what anyone wanted. In fact please find me evidence where everyone was asking for anything like AOS? the ONLY THING AOS did was give us free "rules" unfortunately these "rules" are not what was asked for. AOS still has the same problems as 40k but worse (lack of structure, lack of balance, endless special rules for everything, stupid model prices, confusing/bloated rules, unclear rules etc etc).

Please stop lying mate, if another company made this game, chances are you would not play this game. Just looking at your post history it's 40k, 40k, 40k and a little AOS... suuuuuuuure you would be excited. Based on your post history I severely doubt you play/will play anything that GW doesn't sell. Not that's its a bad thing, but it is pretty far fetched to think you would be excited about these rules without GW in the picture... I am going to assume you are talking out your booty here anyway.

I'm actually enjoying AOS. I've played over a dozen games, taught the game to several people, and enjoying the league we have set up. I had to a bit of work in, but then I've had to do a bit of work for every league i've ever run, for any system. The Azyr point system is working for balancing lists. We use a lot of scenery, which adds in a lot of tactics. Few wargames doe well with no scenery.

I know there is a faction out there that can't stand AOS, and seeming can't stand that anyone, anywhere might like it. But at some point you're going to have to recognize that there are people who like the game. Trying to turn every thread into a gakfest of "Why we should all hate AOS" gets old.

Can you read... your response has nothing to do with what I said.

I never said that it is not ok to like the game... ever. Go ahead, search my posts. Stop putting words in my mouth. People who love this game claiming bull crap and making out the haters as mindless haters is also very old.

Cool, you enjoy it... carry on enjoying it then...?

Also want to point out I have seen a lot of naval games that do not use scenery. Some aircraft games too (most use clouds).