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.

 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.

What is "The Azyr point system"? I did dakka search for this and nothing.

www.louisvillewargaming.com/Files/AzyrComp.pdf

A short message to those people complaining about the fixed to hit and wound rolls. There was a sort of illusion in the last game that WS provided variation. The truth is that if you were a swordmaster you were hitting pretty much everyinthg on 3+, if you had WS3 you were hitting everything on 4+.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Any tactic or army composition which uses extreme edge cases in order to exploit loopholes in the rules in order to win an easy victory at the cost of playing a friendly, enjoyable game in the manner to which it was designed.

So I turn up with fifty greatswords, he turns up with fifty peasants. No loopholes. No exploitation. An intent on both parties to play a 'friendly enjoyable game'. You can't say either is wrong.

So, what's cheesy? 'Whatever cool toys the other guy has, when he wins' is the answer for a lot of people. Even when it's not.

You previously accused competitive players of being 'selfish' and of their attitude putting a 'cheesy win over a fun enjoyable game'. Essentially, you are projecting them into the wrong, when they are not 'wrong'. When does a 'win' become a 'cheesy win'? Why the zero/sum? Why is it win or fun enjoyable game? They're not necessarily different.
I could argue the casual player is just as 'selfish' as the competitive player, as he is just as insistent in wanting to force his type of game on the other, at the expense of the others wishes. I could also point out a certain sense of arrogance, self righteousness and conceit in belittling and dismissing the others alternative playstyle as 'selfish' with their 'cheesy wins' and I see it as nothing short of colossal arrogance to try to claim ownership over what is defined as a 'friendly enjoyable game' and that the other guy somehow isn't interested in it.

It goes back to defining what the components are in a 'friendly enjoyable game'. Everyone has a different answer.

 Sqorgar wrote:


Basically, draw a Venn diagram. Two circles. One circle is everything that makes up a friendly, enjoyable game (the casual view). The other circle is everything that can be done to win the game (the competitive view). The intersection of the two circles is where people have fun together. But many competitive gamers expect the casual gamers to utilize the entire winning circle at all times (even when it is not what they want), and have no trouble playing outside of the "fun intersection" to win games against opponents who want to stay within it.

Competitive does not equal tfg, which is 'everything that can be done to win the game'. Don't equate the two please. And I think your venn diagram is innacurate and a bit of a charicature.

Is there a defined example of these? Or will these Venn diagrams be different for every person? I suspect they will. Which, by their subjective nature makes them pointless for an objective discussion.

Whic goes back to 'defining what is a 'cheesy win' and 'friendly enjoyable game'. Because what you think they are, and what I think they are, and what everyone else thinks will not be the same thing.

 Sqorgar wrote:

And a lot of people's definition of 'tournament player' is akin to A Saturday moning cartoons villain. Lots of projection, exaggeration, hyperbole and myth.

I used to think it was exaggerated too, but then I remembered that I've actually played games (not mini games, but card and board games) against these kinds of players. I don't think every "tournament player" is a goblin, and I think these goblins are more amalgamations than actual people, but those tendencies are real, and there's no doubt that some players are more goblin than not.

I think a competitive player can play another competitive player and have a great, friendly game. I don't think a competitive player can carry that same attitude into games with anybody else without there being friction, and I see that in the various mini wargaming communities I visit - even Warmachine. There was a thread in the PP forums recently about how the emphasis on tournament tendencies was potentially driving away players and creating a barrier of entry for new ones. I believe the thread was called something like "Dwindling players".

Uh huh. And I've played games against 'these kinds of players' too. Thryre not all tournament players either. Some of the worst 'goblins' I've come across were casual, and casual at all costs players. Why can't competitive players carry a good attitude over to other types of gsme? You're talking crap. And you are talking an extremely warped view of players. It's not a zero-sum equation. I know for a fact that I am one of those players that can play competitively with competitive players, and casually with casual players. No friction whatsoever.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Again, there is nothing wrong with being competitive - when it is appropriate. But it is not always appropriate, and there are certain attitudes which are, if you'll excuse the term, toxic to the well being of the community. I think competitive players have a... let's call it "aggressive" way of expressing themselves, which makes them dominate discussions and communities, making their way the dominant concern of the game makers (or complaining VERY loudly and frequently, when their concerns are NOT the main concern, such as every Age of Sigmar thread ever). Seriously, competitive gamers are the only ones who will tell everyone within earshot how they are leaving the game for another one because a stat is slightly different than what they'd prefer.

So, confirmation bias. I've seen the same. Loud and obnoxious competitive player types with no appreciation for other people,guess what else I've seen? casual, and casual at all costs players say exactly the same thing,whining and moaning and lashing out at anyOne thst dares to do anything different. I did not lie eaelier. I've known forty-k players whose attitudes amount to 'you should apologise for winning a game because that means you're doing it wrong and are a terrible tfg'. I do not kid.Typically these posts come with some nasty comment about hating competitive gamers or their group and equating them all with Tfg's. Those toxic attitudes exist, but they're across the spectrum. It's a gamer thing, rather than a 'specific type of gamer' thing.

And yes, I've seen casual players 'tell everyone within earshot' how they're leaving game x for another one because of reasons.

 Sqorgar wrote:

I don't think its a divide personally. It's a different way of doing things. like how I can run marathons.

It is a different way of doing things, and in appropriate places, it is well met. I actually like playing competitive players, when I'm feeling sufficiently competitive, because I also enjoy that aspect of gaming. It's one of the reasons I like Warmachine. But there are times when competitive players are not cooperative, and their desires for the future of a game don't mesh with mine, and the resulting discussions end up less than civil.

I like how you snipped my quote in half which completely changes what I say. Point was 'I can do marathons. Or box'. Meaning you can play different games. You can do different things different ways and at different times. I agree with you. There is a time and a place to put the foot to the floor.

 Sqorgar wrote:

In my mind. It's also partly a lack of organisation, a lack of will and a lack of willingness to do anything. A lot of gamers are very lazy. In my experience. Too many would rather sit back and complain on dakka, rather than be proactive and change the games they play, and how they play their games. And to try different ways of doing things. Which feeds into the 'but it's different to how we play, so it's wrong and cannot work' mentality that you see sometimes.

This comment fits in perfectly with my previous one. While your way of playing is okay and simply different, those who play in a manner unlike yours are lazy and lack willingness to try new things. They are wrong, while you are simply choosing a different approach. In a way, competitive players are like the conservatives of the gaming world. They believe that if you are not having fun, it is your fault because you didn't step up. You are poor because you want to be poor, and thus you deserve it. It's karma. But it could be that competitive gamers are the ones not willing to try new things, and their inability to play anything but competitive games at their peak proficiency is what makes the game feel lacking.

As reading comprehension goes, you've resd me completely wrong.

My way of playing is casual, and competitive. I play a lot of different wargames with a lot of different people. Those who play different are not 'lazy and lack willingness to try new things'. they are not 'wrong'. The only was of doing it 'wrong' is to play a game you don't enjoy, but then do nothing about said lack of enjoyment and just complain. Thsts what I was getting at. Being 'proactive' is a solution. Ironically though, it is your fault when you don't step up(ie when you're not happy, but yet do nothing and just complain) and take control of your hobby to make it into something you enjoy. Ultimately, you are the one responsible for your own happiness. Whether that means finding a new group, a new game, or house ruling what you play to mould the games you play into what you want them to be.

I personally don't see competitive players as being conservatives. Like I said, I've seen plenty casual players with the same attitude, refusing to try anything different, refusing to change anything to make their games better, a total inability to appreciate,vor hostile reaction to an alternative viewpoint, and just whining and moaning. I used to be that way.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Well it doesn't sound any different,vor offer anything different to any other wargame that I know, or play to be fair. positioning being important. Ok... Never seen thst before... Terrain and manoeuvre. Ok... Gasp! Why hasn't this been Done?

I'm not aware of many wargames in which you can literally not move near opponents. Even charges can fail when you roll ones. This makes positioning a dominant strategy of area control - in a way, the units become moving, impassable terrain that you can use to shape the battlefield, and the ONLY way to pass them is to engage them in battle to remove them altogether. I think a lot of players, yourself included, are greatly underestimating how much the zone of control around models changes how the battles must be fought.

The idea of using clever positioning to threaten and control the board and deny your opponent manoevre and movement options and shaping the battlefield isn't really new to aos. As to engaging them or removing (shooting) them to remove them, yes that's generally the 'go to' solution. I'd be doing that anyway. Axe to face and all thst. Hardly radical.

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

Yes I just couldn't resist seeing a wall of text of such magnitude being such a spin with so much wrong. Did you take it as some kind of vicious attack btw? Because I just found it funny and had no intent of belitling the poster or sth and would elaborate if someone picked it up. In the end it's not much diferent than stating "I disagree with all the points made by the fine gentleman" just in the hilarious (at least for my childish mind) way.

Rest of your post was crap btw. Arbitrary defining attitudes as childish when in fact it's the children that take critique of their favourite things the hardest and point could be made that you're most childish man around. Then whining about whining makes you a whiner too heh. Last but not least, it's not like you want to "just discuss AoS", many of those threads contain hard statements that the game is just as good or better than sth else and then you act suprised and outraged that people discuss those claims? What do you want, a positive or gtfo nodfest? Apply to GW then, you seem to have just the right attitude.

Btw what you and Age of Splendid brigade describe as "AoS hate" or a mission to ruin it for people or being bent on that or sth is not in my case. I don't hate it, I just see it for what it is.

Played AoS once a month or two ago, against a mate who I play with regularly and with some other people at the club sitting in watching. Can honestly say I've no real interest in playing it again. It fun enough but pretty shallow and with no real hold to it. Other being "by GW", I suppose.

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).

Greetings, fellow designer!

bob82ca wrote:

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.

I have only been on the periphery of video games design, but I have watched one of our tabletop games being ported over to the screen and, as I am sure you are aware, there are things you would do with one that you would never do with the other. On a video game, for example, you can make very complex calculations that do not belong anywhere near the tabletop, as the computer can take the strain. You can also readily do hidden movement without it being a pain in the backside. On the other hand, computer games (at the moment) cannot come close to the scope possible with tabletop games (only limit imagination, etc).

bob82ca wrote:

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

To be fair, we have all seen games of 40k or Fantasy Battle that have turned out that way!

bob82ca wrote:
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!

How many people make complaints about 40k or Fantasy Battle?

bob82ca wrote:

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

I am by no means attacking you when I say this but... you have not yet understood the game.

Let me explain

There is a great deal more depth to the actual gameplay (forget the background at the moment, that is another thing) than people are giving AoS credit for, possibly because they are taking one look at the four page rules and not trying them out. I cannot stress that last part enough, you have to actually play AoS (more than once!) before things start to shine through. There have been an awful lot of gamers who have taken the position that just because they have x number of decades of gaming under their belt, they can glance at a set of rules and instantly tell whether tactics are inherent in them or not.

That is a colossal amount of hubris. I have been a tabletop gamer for 30-odd years, doing full-time design for 15, and freelance for another 5 years before that - and I would not be so quick to judge.

To use an example from your field (and please remember, I am not in your field!), imagine people turning up their noses at a game because it has foul graphics and just writing it off. You come along and see that the designer has actually come up with a superb level of gameplay.

Maybe you have just found Tetris (again, I am not in your field, another game might be more appropriate as an example!).

Yes, to hit and to wound is set in AoS (sort of) but consider that, for a moment, an aid to simplicity - it is not where the tactical choices are made in the game (and, as someone above pointed out, there was really not that much variation in Fantasy Battle when it came to hitting - there were three possible numbers, one of which you almost never used).

The tactics (and the real gems of this game) come through in a) unit synergies, which are much more powerful than they were in Fantasy Battle and b) you'll like this (!) the Movement phase. The zones of control in AoS are important and will dictate the flow of battle. How you set units up and the formations they adopt is also a very powerful tool. If you combine those two, you will force your opponent to go where you want him to, rather than wander the battlefield as he sees fit. Add in the synergies possible between units, and you can rapidly get into quite a complex position, but you are doing so with very, very simple rules.

It is going to be a long time before anyone can say they are good at this game because, at the moment, it is possible that no one really understands it (I certainly have not got a handle on everything possible - nowhere near it).

All of that is a tabletop designer's dream.

At the end of the day, the game's foundation either grabs you or it doesn't, and if it doesn't, that is cool, there are plenty of other games out there (try Judge Dredd, it is really very good ). However, if your issues with AoS are based solely on a perceived lack of tactics alone, I would urge you to try it - not just once, but over a series of games, using the various scenarios that have appeared (and not just a 'standard' set up clash with the core rules alone!).

You will begin to see the depth, I promise. It is there, lying just under a veneer of simplicity.

Deadnight wrote:

So I turn up with fifty greatswords, he turns up with fifty peasants. No loopholes. No exploitation. An intent on both parties to play a 'friendly enjoyable game'. You can't say either is wrong.
...
It goes back to defining what the components are in a 'friendly enjoyable game'. Everyone has a different answer.

The only way Age of Sigmar works is if the person who brings 50 greatswords goes, "Oh, these guys are way better than your 50 peasants. I'll just take 40 of them away, and give it a whirl. Sound good?"

The balancing system of AoS works like this: 1) Which army do we think is more powerful? 2) What do we have to remove to make it equally powerful to the other army? 3) No consensus? No game.

If you can't do that, then AoS will not work RAW. More to the point, if potentially lopsided battles interest you, the game will suck unless there's a group that has some kind of comp system, because a lot of the people who are attracted to AoS will just not play a 2nd game with you... maybe not even a first game, and then what's the point?

Since it's really easy to see that someone who wants to build and field a really powerful army might have trouble finding pickup games if their local AoS scene is of the, "play the models I like" or "play my 50 peasants" meta, most likely, the person who enjoys building and fielding really powerful armies will just not invest in AoS... since they'd never get to pay their really powerful army.

Which is really okay, IMO because in whatever game that they are happy in, the fella who really wants to play his 50 peasants or his 50 models grabbed off the shelf chosen without thought to synerg... well, he, is probably not going to be very happy in that game either, and more likely than not, isn't going to provide the opponent with a very challenging or interesting game.

Zones of control and synergy, things that 100 other games do as well except better.

And yes 40k recieves lot of critique and whfb recieved a lot as well because both are deeply flawed rulesets. AoS is 10 times worse so it recieves even more.

 Talys wrote:


The only way Age of Sigmar works is if the person who brings 50 greatswords goes, "Oh, these guys are way better than your 50 peasants. I'll just take 40 of them away, and give it a whirl. Sound good?"

That is not the only way it works, not by a long shot.

50 Greatswords go marching into a forest. They get ambushed by Peasants who have the advantage of deployment, bows, first turn, increased cover and you add a greater vulnerability to the Greatswords.

That could very easily work. And that is a scenario already in the game.

Or how about 10 Greatswords start on the table, and they need to fend off the Peasant mob long enough for their 40 mates to arrive and mince the rebellion. That is the very first scenario of the first hardback.

Do neither of those strike you as potentially awesome games?

I am not ragging on you, but what looks like a mis-match can very easily end up in a good game whose outcome is not obvious.

 Talys wrote:

The only way Age of Sigmar works is if the person who brings 50 greatswords goes, "Oh, these guys are way better than your 50 peasants. I'll just take 40 of them away, and give it a whirl. Sound good?"

Let's not move the goalposts again.

Is his intent a 'fun' or 'friendly enjoyable' game though with his greatswords - yes, or no?

Because right now, he is being judged as 'selfish" on the simple fact that he is bringing fifty greatswords. Is the fact that he has to change his entire playbook to accomodate and enable another person, when the other guy just sits there doing nothing and expectis to be placated ok? Surely he is s as 'selfish" as greatsword guy because he expects his way to be accommodated above that of the other guys.

And you are partly wrong in stating the 'only' way is for greatswords guy to acquiesce. Why is the obligation that greatswords guy 'plays down'? Because otherwise he is 'selfish'? Really? Surely, peasant guy is just as equally obligated to change his list to accommodate greatswords guy, and maybe bring fifty peasants and thirty men at arms to the game?

Edit: and what matt said. Scenario can be designed to accomodate a mismatch. Good suggestions there, you could also give the peasants an 'unending wave' rule if you fancied a last stand against overwhelming odds.

(Although to be fair matt, none of these are aos things)

That scenario would be just as awesome in every other game except the fact that other games ussualy have much better rules.

MongooseMatt wrote:

That could very easily work. And that is a scenario already in the game.

Not as you describe. You have to modify the scenario so that it becomes that way.

Or how about 10 Greatswords start on the table, and they need to fend off the Peasant mob long enough for their 40 mates to arrive and mince the rebellion. That is the very first scenario of the first hardback.

You are aware that means he will actually play with only 10 Greatswords the whole game? The other "40 mates" will just be in the background, that's all. Unless you add special rules to the original scenario - which is, again, something the players will come to.

And yes, all of those can become great games. But none can be played with the core rules/additionnal scenarios in the hardback books alone. Players have to add their own contribution to the rules as well. Which means AoS, alone, can't be playable. You MUST add some rules with the agreement of your opponent so that it becomes interesting.

In a way, players do the job of a game designer and they still keep buying models. That's why some people say GW is lazy with AoS - which is obviously not true.

I can see the philosophy behind...but it can be dangerous on the long term for professional game designers. After all, if the players don't really need the rules they make to play...why playing their games at all? Why not just make your own game, with your own material? After all, if you have to put time and work on the rules alone so that it can be interesting to play no matter what, you could as well do it to the very end; scrap everything and beginning anew, making another game.

And then professionnal game designers won't be needed anymore.

Of course, it's a caricature. But still...the question would be interesting to ask for the future of GW Game Designers. Are they still needed, in the end? Instead of Games Workshop, shouldn't it be called Warhammer Collectors? Wouldn't a few rules so that you can play with your precious models on a casual game just be enough?

@MongooseMatt - That's fair enough. I actually have no idea what a peasant or greatsword can do. But, you could replace greatsword with, say 50 greater demons. I will happily confess that I have only read warscrolls of a couple of factions, and have no interest in the non-superheroic or non-superdemonic forces. I am an admitted HeroHammer fan. The closer to demigodhood of the models the better

@Deadnight - no, I'm not moving goalposts at all. I'm saying that as the peasant player, this is all I got. If you can field something that makes it a good, fair game, let's play -- you don't, we can't. The only time I'll be mad is if you trick me into thinking there's parity when you know there isn't, in which case I won't like you so much.

Just put it in a point system, if you want. Player 1 shows up with 50 points of models, player 2 shows up with 800 points of models. In order to play, player 2 must play with a subset of their collection. Sure, you might get Thermopylae scenarios, but these are edge cases, and generally not what a player 2 is looking for in a pickup.

The only real difference is that AoS recognizes that points are a poor representation of fairness, but are often used as a justification of fairness. As MongooseMatt put it, the scenario can further unbalance the armies, making points an even worse metric for judging fairness.

The side effect of this, as the OP puts it is that army design becomes de-emphasized. I mean, feel free to disagree with me. It's just that I see a lot people playing and having fun with AoS who put about 1% of the thought that input into my 40k lists into their AoS list. I mean, I have literally spent thousands of hours imagining and planning 40k armies; Other than a couple of old WHFB players, I can't imagine that of most of the AoS players I've run into so far. Maybe it's just my area, but I thing AoS is just attractive to people who consider listbuilding a stressor.

@Sarouan - I actually really like the design philosophy of AoS: really simple mechanics that are fun; complex rules in the warscrolls that you only have to read exhaustively of you want to be competitive. A revenue model based on sales of what are essentially campaign modules.

It's not really much different than the profit model for AD&D (plus models) - sure, you could have just bought PH, DMG and MM, but the reality is, a lot of players bought modules and additional books/supplements because thinking of your own awesome stories and adventures is not easy to do. Plus, reading through stuff campaign materials is a lot like just reading fiction. If you get invested in the plot, you want to keep going and find out what will happen next.

 Talys wrote:
Maybe it's just my area, but I thing AoS is just attractive to people who consider listbuilding a stressor.

I don't think that's true. Even on this forum, you can see people building lists for AoS - be them themed or optimized, whatever.

They just don't use point system to build them. Can be wounds, can be something else, can even be a list of the models they want to play on the table.

That's the same for me, I have a list of Stormcast Eternals I would like to play. It's not based on anything else than just the list of models I would like to add so that it feels "awesome" on the table.

Of course, my gamer side is always telling me such and such unit would be indeed more effective in a specific role/against a particular opponent, but hey, I'll just have to convince my opponent than having his 20 bloodreavers would be nice against my stormbolt judicator crossbowmen.

 Sarouan wrote:

Not as you describe. You have to modify the scenario so that it becomes that way.

Umm, no you don't - I have the scenario right here (The Trap, page 179).

 Sarouan wrote:

You are aware that means he will actually play with only 10 Greatswords the whole game? The other "40 mates" will just be in the background, that's all. Unless you add special rules to the original scenario - which is, again, something the players will come to.

Umm, I think we are looking at two different books - this is the AoS Hardback, Hold or Die, page 143. The 40 other guys arrive in Turn Two.

 Sarouan wrote:

I can see the philosophy behind...but it can be dangerous on the long term for professional game designers. After all, if the players don't really need the rules they make to play...why playing their games at all?.

Shush! You'll give away our secret!

 Sarouan wrote:

Of course, it's a caricature. But still...the question would be interesting to ask for the future of GW Game Designers. Are they still needed, in the end? Instead of Games Workshop, shouldn't it be called Warhammer Collectors? Wouldn't a few rules so that you can play with your precious models on a casual game just be enough?

Answering seriously - yes. You chaps need us to provide a framework (and to do the grunt work you would rather not do, such as build whole worlds).

I'll put that another way.. You want us to provide a framework. And because we have some small skill in putting together something that works.

 Talys wrote:
@MongooseMatt - That's fair enough. I actually have no idea what a peasant or greatsword can do. But, you could replace greatsword with, say 50 greater demons..

Ignoring for the moment that 50 greater daemons is so unlikely that I might be tempted to ignore it for design purposes I would say either a) give me a tick and I'll come up with a scenario to make that work or b) you can obviously find unwinnable mis-matches in any Warhammer. In 40k, for just one example, you can build an army (guys inside Land Raiders) that another army simply cannot touch because of the AV involved. It is not likely someone would take to the field without keeping Land Raiders in mind, but you might not have to travel far to find such a combo.

Complete mis-matches are not unheard of by any means. At the low end, you can have a game system where objectives are more important than killing (both 40k and AoS do this well). At the very high end (the guy who always brings two Warhounds or 50 Greater Daemons to a pick up match), damn his eyes and move on. If you did have a system to handle his armies, is he really the kind of guy you want to play?

Okay, now you got me going There was a post on this forum about an AoS tournament whereby a guy bought a tomb swarm and tried to win by avoiding the game entirely. Now, he got things wrong (these chaps are not always the bushiest brush in the box), but that attitude stinks.

You have a guy who wants to win by not actually playing the game. He wants the win and is not interested in actually playing - he has not given one fig of a thought for his opponent and their fun. What a complete and total twot.

Ah ha, someone says, but he only did that to prove the game does not work! The problem is, he did that at the expense of other people. What a complete twot.

And those using Kairos with Skaven to claim victories ion the first turn? They are twots too.

To go back to your 50 greater daemon example, I don't think GW are writing games for that 0.5% and, honestly, I agree with them. Bring your 50 greater daemons along, by all means, if you have also come up with a scenario that makes them fun for all concerned.

If you have just brought them along to win, go and sit in the corner with Tomb Swarm Guy and Two Warhounds Pickup Game Guy.

For the rest of us? By all means bring along your 50 Greatswords and I'll field my 50 Peasants - we will have a great game even though it is a mis-match. The game can handle it with scenarios printed in the books just fine.

 Talys wrote:

@Deadnight - no, I'm not moving goalposts at all. I'm saying that as the peasant player, this is all I got. If you can field something that makes it a good, fair game, let's play -- you don't, we can't. The only time I'll be mad is if you trick me into thinking there's parity when you know there isn't, in which case I won't like you so much.

Except... Yes you are. thats three questions I've raised that you've not tried to answer, and then attempted to shuffle the conversation off to somewhere else.

And Fifty greatswords is all I got. But it's on me to accomodate and sacrifice in order to enable you in order to make it 'a good fair game'. And you have to do nothing in turn. Gee thanks. And I'm the selfish one?!

Again, why must I take a subset of my army to face yours? You described this as the 'only' solution. You were wrong. There are other options. Take other stuff, borrow stuff, alter the scenario(matt had some cool ideas) etc. which youve just tried to handwave away. which goes back to the point raised that 'competitive players are selfish'. Which was also shown to be a skewed narrative. Peasant player is equally selfish in wanting the game on his terms, instead of acquiescing, either entirely (not needed) or in part (which would be appreciated) to find some kind of a common ground. Instead greatswords guy has to acqueiesce entirely for the other guy to enable him.

I've played every game wizkids put out, played magic, play the aliesn versus predator tcg, and I spend about 30 hours a month playing tabletop rpgs of one sort. I joined dakkadakka because it was an internet community for a game I happened to enjoy, I get enough random talk about my other games to not need an outside group to converse with.

Text removed.

Reds8n

Playing AoS >>> reading the rules, being mad and thinking you know everything.

The lack of set points values is kind of like street hockey.

When my group would show up, if we had only one fully geared goaltender, we'd usually put the net down on the other side (so it's harder to score on), play posts on that side, or make do with the one goalie against the most elite small team on the other side, which could be a fun challenge.

We figured out balance by ourselves because we just wanted to play the game. There was no one who refused to come to an agreement about what would be a fun game.

"You don't have a set number of points for each player and balanced teams before you show up! That'll never work!!!"

Maybe not if you entered a street hockey tournament, with defined rules. But for street hockey with friends or new groups or anyone casual, you don't list-build beforehand.

 Talys wrote:
The only real difference is that AoS recognizes that points are a poor representation of fairness, but are often used as a justification of fairness.

It IS a poor representation of fairness, but I don't think AoS makes any claims on the matter at all. I don't think that the lack of constraints is a commentary on the nature of constraints itself, except that by not adopting an official one, more variety becomes possible (wound count, keywords, model count, collection size, physical weight, deployment zone size, etc).

For instance, one constraint could be that you bring 100 models, but you have to play successive opponents only with the models that survive. Any casualties are removed from future games. Then, if a player puts all his eggs in one basket, he could go up against an army that is particularly strong against that one army type and get decimated. Then diversity becomes much, much more important, as well as potentially NOT fielding certain strong units against opponents that could potentially destroy them.

That's cool. That's an intriguing afternoon. And AoS doesn't say you can't do that. It doesn't explicitly advocate for the idea, but by offering nothing that conflicts with it, it allows players to adopt unique playing styles.

The side effect of this, as the OP puts it is that army design becomes de-emphasized. I mean, feel free to disagree with me. It's just that I see a lot people playing and having fun with AoS who put about 1% of the thought that input into my 40k lists into their AoS list. I mean, I have literally spent thousands of hours imagining and planning 40k armies; Other than a couple of old WHFB players, I can't imagine that of most of the AoS players I've run into so far. Maybe it's just my area, but I thing AoS is just attractive to people who consider listbuilding a stressor.

I don't think that army design is de-emphasized, just that players do not yet understand the boundaries of gameplay yet, and thus can not make informed decisions about army design. That really bothers some people, so they avoid the game, leaving only the people who it doesn't bother behind to enjoy the game.

I think, just based on my initial experiences with the game, that shooty units, smashy units, heroes, monsters, and wizards all have very unique capabilities that encourage bringing at least one of each into each battle. The problem for most people is that AoS doesn't put limitations on how many figures are in a unit, or how many units you can bring, or even what a good relative army size would be (other than 100 models being an afternoon's worth of a game). What if I brought 5 wizards? What if I summoned the entire inventory of GW demons? What if I had a unit of Liberators that had 50 guys in it?

I think some of these questions MIGHT BE answered within the gameplay itself - especially if you use the terrain and sudden death rules. Bringing a unit of 50 liberators may prove especially disadvantageous on a battlefield with a lot of terrain, for example. Because of unit cohesion rules (which are pretty strict, by AoS's standard), they are less mobile and able to move that giant mass of soldiers effectively around the battlefield. A large unit could be near multiple pieces of terrain simultaneously, thus gaining several disadvantages from the terrain rules. Tight quarters favor the attackers, as the number of attacks is based on how many models are in melee range, but the damage is distributed throughout the entire unit. At that point, the extra models are just hitpoints, unable to actually engage in combat except to soak up wounds. Large units are also susceptible to being attacked by multiple enemies simultaneously, increasing the wounds inflicted, and making the unit susceptible to battle shock losses. These are just theories. I've never tried it. But I'd be interested to hear if any of these effects matter and how much.

I think that, right now, we don't really know what the effects of all those weird edge cases are because people aren't bothering to try it out. They say, 50 Liberators? You must be mad. But I wonder if maybe the way unit movement and engagement works, if there isn't an optimal size for an army and its units just based on table factors. I think the people who purposely ignore sudden death or terrain on a "doesn't seem like it works" level may end up doing themselves a disservice.

So I don't think we know the full extent of possibilities in the game, and I'm all for people trying out those really weird edge cases like 50 greatswords versus 50 peasants. Theoretically, based on how other wargames work, that shouldn't work. But maybe that's missing something important. It's worth trying, at least once, to see what happens. Maybe it doesn't work, but having tried it, we'll know for sure why it didn't, and can plan future engagements accordingly.

So yeah, I think AoS's problem is that everybody already assumes they know how everything will work out based on how simple the rules initially appear. It's weird to see theoretical discussions about a game, from people who've never played it, using their imaginary results as conclusive proof that AoS is broken and stupid.

Maybe I misread the scenarios...they didn't look so complete the last time I checked.

MongooseMatt wrote:

Answering seriously - yes. You chaps need us to provide a framework (and to do the grunt work you would rather not do, such as build whole worlds).

I'll put that another way.. You want us to provide a framework. And because we have some small skill in putting together something that works.

I agree with you on that matter. About AoS, the question that is sometimes burning would be; is AoS framework enough on the long term? And does that framework fully suit their playing base? If players keep making their own rules each on their side, wouldn't it be telling us the core rules/scenarios aren't enough for them?

But I believe the answer can really come in the following months (maybe years?). The game is still new, we don't know everything about its universe (far from it!) and a lot of models that should be "sigmarised" aren't here. After all, What does a Fyreslayer look like? Are Aelfs at the time of the Realmgates really the same than Dark/Wood/High Elves from WFB? Didn't the Orruks and Grots change over the time as well? What happened to the human tribes that manage to survive uncorrupted by the Chaos meanwhile?

So many questions and not enough books able to answer.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Being mad is great and surely beats playing that boring simpleton, also you don't have to know everything to know obvious things like the quality of AoS.

We do similar things with football. But both football and hockey have established rules for a fair game that you can ignore if you want to. AoS kind of skips that part lol.

You're just going to respond negatively to every single thing said.

AoS has similar base rules to street hockey and is just as easy to "house rule."

 Sarouan wrote:

I agree with you on that matter. About AoS, the question that is sometimes burning would be; is AoS framework enough on the long term?

An excellent question. And one I think you answer well here;

 Sarouan wrote:
But I believe the answer can really come in the following months (maybe years?). The game is still new, we don't know everything about its universe (far from it!)

You hit the nail on the head. Neither 40k nor the Old World hit the streets fully realised. It takes time to build and develop a fully living, breathing setting. I do think a lot of the issues people have with the background simply won't be a factor in 3 or 4 years time.

For example, suppose 40k had only just been released. There are people who would be having a field day with the term 'Space Marines' and yet we are all very, very comfortable with it now. Same with their squads. Tactical Squads? What, so they do tactics? Devastators? Well, that is a bit obvious isn't it, they just blow stuff up?

People get used to naming conventions over time.

Certainly though, we have only seen a tiny, tiny glimpse of what AoS will be offering.

 Sarouan wrote:
And does that framework fully suit their playing base?

Another good question, which digs up the question of what their player base is. The rumour on the outside (and the skinny on the inside) is that Fantasy just was not making the bread. Running my own gaming company, I can well understand that - you have a number of very dedicated players, but they are not buying enough to keep the line going, so you have to cut it. It is painful, people will act as though you have shot their dog, but it has to be done.

I think AoS will be creating its own player base from strands of existing ones and maybe, just maybe (so GW hopes, I presume) with some new blood as well. Whether that new base is sustainable or not only time will tell - however, the word going round at the moment is that if it is not, Fantasy will be cut altogether. AoS is Fantasy's last chance.

 Sarouan wrote:
If players keep making their own rules each on their side, wouldn't it be telling us the core rules/scenarios aren't enough for them?

Hmmm....

You could see it that way, and it would be an indication that GW can make some hay by exploring these areas on a commercial level.

However.

As a games designer, I would be ecstatic if this became widespread in one of my games. It would demonstrate that players were engaged in the game and its background to a far, far higher degree than most miniatures game enjoy, and that their emotional investment in it was sky high. If that could also be capitalised on commercially, I would call it a huge win-win.

It seems to work perfectly well for RPGs, after all...

That's an interesting point of view, MongooseMatt. I agree with most of your points; it's clear AoS is a brand new game and that a lot of new models will have to follow.

There is something I notice in particular;

MongooseMatt wrote:

As a games designer, I would be ecstatic if this became widespread in one of my games. It would demonstrate that players were engaged in the game and its background to a far, far higher degree than most miniatures game enjoy, and that their emotional investment in it was sky high. If that could also be capitalised on commercially, I would call it a huge win-win.

It seems to work perfectly well for RPGs, after all...

Most players that use house rules usually do that at home - sometimes they show it up on the Internet or something alike, but since it's usually for a very targeted pleasure (I mean, his opponent's and his own), that's not something they always think to share with others.

The same goes with RPG. It tends to stay in their own gaming circles - because that's something usually suited to them alone. Sure, you can find unique scenarios on the Web, but how many are left in the head of their creators and their gaming group? I believe it's far much more.


However, the main difference between a wargame and a RPG is that in a RPG, you have someone who can act as a "judge/neutral party"; the Game Master. He's the arbiter and true story teller, so he can be recognized as someone "who is right to change things" by the other players.

But that's not the same for a competitive game opposing two players - and that's what wargames are usually at the core. You can't ask the players to always have a Game Master for all of their games at AoS so that everything is fair for the sides involved.

So, giving RPG features to a wargame seems to be an ambitious idea. But I think there is a significative risk to assume that something working for a true RPG can work for a tabletop miniature wargame.


Again, we will see if it was a genius idea or an utter failure in the future. And yes, I also believe AoS is the last chance for Warhammer Fantasy Battle. There was definitely something to do, we just have to know if what was done was really the right answer.

We've gone from having less than 1 game of WFB played in the store each week, (usually 0), to a couple of dozen games of Age of Sigmar. 2/3 of the players are fairly new to playing with GW fantasy models. The others have all been playing on the GT circuit for 8th before that sort of wound down.

We aren't really having too many problems with rules. And just using AZYR for points. A vast improvement as far as people playing games in the shop. 8 years ago I would have had 10-15 people in twice a week for WFB and pick up games with monthly tournaments. It fell a long way.

 Sarouan wrote:

However, the main difference between a wargame and a RPG is that in a RPG, you have someone who can act as a "judge/neutral party"; the Game Master. He's the arbiter and true story teller, so he can be recognized as someone "who is right to change things" by the other players.

But that's not the same for a competitive game opposing two players - and that's what wargames are usually at the core. You can't ask the players to always have a Game Master for all of their games at AoS so that everything is fair for the sides involved.

There's nothing in the rules that explicitly forbids a Game Master, and in fact, the scenario-heavy play may benefit from it. Just like I don't think AoS is explicitly competitive, I don't think it is explicitly not competitive either. It could be that a Game Master, more than points, is something that helps AoS thrive as a competitive game.

And you probably wouldn't need Game Masters for every game. For friendly games with no stakes, just invoke the Most Important Rule to resolve disputes. For competitive games in a competitive environment with actual stakes, it's not absurd to ask for a neutral third party judge. Am I wrong in assuming that most tournaments have judges of some sort in a rules arbitrator position, acting as Game Masters as far as fairness goes?

Indeed Age of Sigmar is ambitious because at its core it challenges the modern concept of what a wargame is, the same as in the early 90s when the concept of wargames moved from narrative storytelling devices or reenactments to full blown tournament style competitions.

 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.

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

McDonalds has been losing money like crazy, and the number one reason cited by customers is the quality of their food... Compare that to other fast food chains which are still showing in the positive.

I asked my parents about New Coke as I wasn't really old enough at the time to form an opinion of it, and they mentioned they actually stopped buying it, as did all their friends, then they began buying it again when Coke reverted.

Just wanted to pop in and say that

auticus wrote:
Indeed Age of Sigmar is ambitious because at its core it challenges the modern concept of what a wargame is, the same as in the early 90s when the concept of wargames moved from narrative storytelling devices or reenactments to full blown tournament style competitions.

I've been trying to stay out of AoS discussions because I'd thought I'd finally reached the point where I had said what I wanted to and didn't want to become a broken record, but this is so wrong it's not even funny.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Talys wrote:
The only real difference is that AoS recognizes that points are a poor representation of fairness, but are often used as a justification of fairness.

It IS a poor representation of fairness, but I don't think AoS makes any claims on the matter at all. I don't think that the lack of constraints is a commentary on the nature of constraints itself, except that by not adopting an official one, more variety becomes possible (wound count, keywords, model count, collection size, physical weight, deployment zone size, etc).

For instance, one constraint could be that you bring 100 models, but you have to play successive opponents only with the models that survive. Any casualties are removed from future games. Then, if a player puts all his eggs in one basket, he could go up against an army that is particularly strong against that one army type and get decimated. Then diversity becomes much, much more important, as well as potentially NOT fielding certain strong units against opponents that could potentially destroy them.

That's cool. That's an intriguing afternoon. And AoS doesn't say you can't do that. It doesn't explicitly advocate for the idea, but by offering nothing that conflicts with it, it allows players to adopt unique playing styles.

Yes, I agree.

 Sqorgar wrote:
I don't think that army design is de-emphasized, just that players do not yet understand the boundaries of gameplay yet, and thus can not make informed decisions about army design. That really bothers some people, so they avoid the game, leaving only the people who it doesn't bother behind to enjoy the game.

Spoiler:

I think, just based on my initial experiences with the game, that shooty units, smashy units, heroes, monsters, and wizards all have very unique capabilities that encourage bringing at least one of each into each battle. The problem for most people is that AoS doesn't put limitations on how many figures are in a unit, or how many units you can bring, or even what a good relative army size would be (other than 100 models being an afternoon's worth of a game). What if I brought 5 wizards? What if I summoned the entire inventory of GW demons? What if I had a unit of Liberators that had 50 guys in it?

I think some of these questions MIGHT BE answered within the gameplay itself - especially if you use the terrain and sudden death rules. Bringing a unit of 50 liberators may prove especially disadvantageous on a battlefield with a lot of terrain, for example. Because of unit cohesion rules (which are pretty strict, by AoS's standard), they are less mobile and able to move that giant mass of soldiers effectively around the battlefield. A large unit could be near multiple pieces of terrain simultaneously, thus gaining several disadvantages from the terrain rules. Tight quarters favor the attackers, as the number of attacks is based on how many models are in melee range, but the damage is distributed throughout the entire unit. At that point, the extra models are just hitpoints, unable to actually engage in combat except to soak up wounds. Large units are also susceptible to being attacked by multiple enemies simultaneously, increasing the wounds inflicted, and making the unit susceptible to battle shock losses. These are just theories. I've never tried it. But I'd be interested to hear if any of these effects matter and how much.

I think that, right now, we don't really know what the effects of all those weird edge cases are because people aren't bothering to try it out. They say, 50 Liberators? You must be mad. But I wonder if maybe the way unit movement and engagement works, if there isn't an optimal size for an army and its units just based on table factors. I think the people who purposely ignore sudden death or terrain on a "doesn't seem like it works" level may end up doing themselves a disservice.

So I don't think we know the full extent of possibilities in the game, and I'm all for people trying out those really weird edge cases like 50 greatswords versus 50 peasants. Theoretically, based on how other wargames work, that shouldn't work. But maybe that's missing something important. It's worth trying, at least once, to see what happens. Maybe it doesn't work, but having tried it, we'll know for sure why it didn't, and can plan future engagements accordingly.

So yeah, I think AoS's problem is that everybody already assumes they know how everything will work out based on how simple the rules initially appear. It's weird to see theoretical discussions about a game, from people who've never played it, using their imaginary results as conclusive proof that AoS is broken and stupid.

Again, I agree with you. There is the potential to build greatly synergistic and highly efficient armies within Age of Sigmar. However, by stripping the game of a points based constraint system, it's no longer possible to capitalize on such efficiencies, except if players create their own balancing system.

There is a burning desire within many gamers to be rewarded for good planning by having a leg up. This is one of reasons why Magic the Gathering is popular, after all, and not to be a hypocrite, I often fall into that category, though my reward is more cerebral than a desire to win; that is it's fun to think of and test such efficiencies, but not so much to play them more than once even if they work well. . By taking out the system, you shun such players -- because after all, if you play with your own balancing system, you may not have many / any play partners. The result is that GW (purposefully or not) is attracting a bunch of people who were unhappy with the point-based constraint systems.