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.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Talys wrote:
But if you enjoy 8e, there's nothing stopping you from playing that, with the same models, right? You can even go buy more models.

Relying on pick up games.

And tournaments that many stores and events are still running.

It's far from dead. Maybe in some areas it's died off since AOS. And of course it was dead in some areas years before AOS.

 Talys wrote:


Edit: MW, think of it this way -- if you play a ranked game online (like Hearthstone or StarCraft), every win makes it progressively harder to keep winning, because you'll be matched with progressively more difficult players. To me, this is preferable to winning every game, because that would get boring really quickly. The goal of the game, for me, is to keep it equally challenging (roughly speaking) for both players. The outcome of the game is still determined by skill and good decision-making; the only difference is, the better player starts off with fewer resources or disadvantageous circumstances.

And how does having no point system help with this, if we're all guesstimating the wroth of all units? How much disadvatnage is too much of a disadvantage?

 heartserenade wrote:

 Talys wrote:


Edit: MW, think of it this way -- if you play a ranked game online (like Hearthstone or StarCraft), every win makes it progressively harder to keep winning, because you'll be matched with progressively more difficult players. To me, this is preferable to winning every game, because that would get boring really quickly. The goal of the game, for me, is to keep it equally challenging (roughly speaking) for both players. The outcome of the game is still determined by skill and good decision-making; the only difference is, the better player starts off with fewer resources or disadvantageous circumstances.

And how does having no point system help with this, if we're all guesstimating the wroth of all units? How much disadvatnage is too much of a disadvantage?

In a system with no points, you're each forced to assess the strength of the other's army. Like you said, it's guestimation. How strong is too strong? Well, when you win a disproportionate number of games, or if wins come too easily, you need to tone it down (against that opponent).

How is it different from other games with point systems?

Well, that's pretty easy. Because there is no book that says, 'that's 100 points worth of value', a person can't point to a list and say, 'see, we're on even footing' and someone doesn't have to feel bad if they lose disproportionately. The opponent tweaks it down til the game is a challenge for both people. When the pendulum swings the other way, it's too much. Because there isn't per-unit valuation, an army is scored holistically, and ultimately, based on the general's performance. That means force multipliers and exceptionally clever generals are accounted for, and that taking some bad units because you like them isn't a big deal.

In other games like golf and chess, your ranking or ability determines your handicap. Realistically, you're gonna know in a war game after a game or two with someone if you need to handicap, and most people don't live somewhere that offers them unlimited play partners (30 regulars would probably be a big pool, I think).

I mean, let's be practical, too. At some point, if one person is a sophisticated, competitive gamer and the other is hopeless, they may just have to recognize that they don't make good gaming buddies.

All this being said, this sort of play isn't for everyone. In my context, there are only 6 regulars and 4 people who come very sporadically (and occasionally some guests) so this type of play is not unreasonable.

MWHistorian wrote:

 Talys wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I don't understand your meaning. What, if not players skill, should determine the winner in a war game? (And not some one-off super specific thing you and your group does.)

Let's make it simpler. You and I are good buddies, and we like playing WMH (or some other game) with each other. You win 95% of the games because you're a better player, but we enjoy each other's company and gaming with each other. What would you suggest?

In golf, you have handicaps. In chess, you take out some pieces. In tennis, you can play 2:1. et cetera.

Once you prove that you're a more skillful player,. the next 100 games will be a waste of time, in a game that is based purely on skill, and where one person is more skillful than the other. Perhaps the other person can accumulate more skill over time -- but to take chess as an example, skill levels often plateau for long periods of time; or sometimes plateau permanently, because that's as good as that player's going to get, at least barring serious study and tutelage.

I play with a group of private friends; I don't think this is some super specific thing unique to me. I think lots of people prefer this to pickup games. The point is, if I know that I'm a better player than my buddy, I want to give him a handicap so that he has an even chance of winning.

The purpose of a miniature wargame, for me, is for two or more people who are trying their hardest to win. But because I value the social interactions and friendships much more than the outcome of the game, I want everyone to have an equal chance to win, with their skill level factored into the equation.

I do not think that I am unique in this.

I'd suggest teaching the other guy until his skill level is adequate. This isn't learning concert cello, it's a game. It won't take that long. That way, you're not dumbing yourself down cheapening the victory for whoever gets it.
Now, if the guy just can't get up to the same level, then you adjust the points or however you want to do it. But once again, the ENTIRE point of doing that is so that player skill will be the determining factor. So, it still goes back to: What besides player skill should determine victory?
Also, not everyone has the luxury of a close group of friends. For that, the game needs to be workable for pick up games.

Its sad to be in your area seriously. I had many pick up AoS games in my area and we had quite a bit of fun. And as far as I know, many of them were vets of WFB, most of us competitive, and I as a ex-warmahordes gamer and current infinity gamer still enjoy it.

It's good to see you enjoying the game, Mik. I remember the heart wrenching posts you put up when it was on the horizon and the truthful information was coming out about the rules. It was practically breaking you on here. Fast forward to you having fun with it, it shows the game is useable.
At this point, I have two friends who want to play 6th edition WHFB, a full store that would rather play 8th or 9th age only, a couple stores willing to try Azyr rules, and two high school age brothers who thoroughly enjoy AoS. I can play any and all of it. But my first choice would be 6th, then 8th, then AoS.

And when 40k gets sigmarized (when, not if), I hope those of us who miss WHFB won't be so smug that we laugh at the 40k players who find 40k to be such a wonderful game as their game world is wrecked. The writing is on the wall. This is going to happen at some point: might not be next year, might be 4 years, but it's gonna happen.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

And when 40k gets sigmarized (when, not if), I hope those of us who miss WHFB won't be so smug that we laugh at the 40k players who find 40k to be such a wonderful game as their game world is wrecked. The writing is on the wall. This is going to happen at some point: might not be next year, might be 4 years, but it's gonna happen.

There are players that consider 40k to be, in its heart, a game with simple base mechanics, but cluttered with many rules that are just exceptions to the core ones and which define or serve a specific situation or types of unit. I actually think that a possible sigmarization of 40k would do the game an enormous favour. It lends itself very well to the design philosophy of AoS in all things except the many possibilities of model customization. I can't imagine how they'll cram all the stuff a SM can take in a single scroll

bleak wrote:

MWHistorian wrote:

 Talys wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I don't understand your meaning. What, if not players skill, should determine the winner in a war game? (And not some one-off super specific thing you and your group does.)

Let's make it simpler. You and I are good buddies, and we like playing WMH (or some other game) with each other. You win 95% of the games because you're a better player, but we enjoy each other's company and gaming with each other. What would you suggest?

In golf, you have handicaps. In chess, you take out some pieces. In tennis, you can play 2:1. et cetera.

Once you prove that you're a more skillful player,. the next 100 games will be a waste of time, in a game that is based purely on skill, and where one person is more skillful than the other. Perhaps the other person can accumulate more skill over time -- but to take chess as an example, skill levels often plateau for long periods of time; or sometimes plateau permanently, because that's as good as that player's going to get, at least barring serious study and tutelage.

I play with a group of private friends; I don't think this is some super specific thing unique to me. I think lots of people prefer this to pickup games. The point is, if I know that I'm a better player than my buddy, I want to give him a handicap so that he has an even chance of winning.

The purpose of a miniature wargame, for me, is for two or more people who are trying their hardest to win. But because I value the social interactions and friendships much more than the outcome of the game, I want everyone to have an equal chance to win, with their skill level factored into the equation.

I do not think that I am unique in this.

I'd suggest teaching the other guy until his skill level is adequate. This isn't learning concert cello, it's a game. It won't take that long. That way, you're not dumbing yourself down cheapening the victory for whoever gets it.
Now, if the guy just can't get up to the same level, then you adjust the points or however you want to do it. But once again, the ENTIRE point of doing that is so that player skill will be the determining factor. So, it still goes back to: What besides player skill should determine victory?
Also, not everyone has the luxury of a close group of friends. For that, the game needs to be workable for pick up games.

Its sad to be in your area seriously. I had many pick up AoS games in my area and we had quite a bit of fun. And as far as I know, many of them were vets of WFB, most of us competitive, and I as a ex-warmahordes gamer and current infinity gamer still enjoy it.

Shhhh. You'll spoil the WWWhining.

Jack Flask wrote:


Shhhh. You'll spoil the WWWhining.

Nice to see you're contributing a lot to the discussion.

Dismissing it as "whining" is the same as dismissing pro-GW talks as "white knighting".

Well said.

 heartserenade wrote:

Jack Flask wrote:


Shhhh. You'll spoil the WWWhining.

Nice to see you're contributing a lot to the discussion.

Dismissing itn as "whining" is the same as dismissing pro-GW talks as "white knighting".

Whining is exactly what it is though. There are no legitimate arguments, no attempts to make good discussion, or even efforts made to act civil. Its just a gakshow of whining man-children disrupting every AoS related thread. I get that name calling against the rules and that tomorrow a bunch of people will start crying ad-hominem, but that's the reality of how the "detractors" are acting.

We get it, some of you don't like AoS or GW or people who apparently like what you don't like. Here's the thing though, we heard you all the first time. And the second. And the third...

Seriously, theres a small echo chamber of the same people showing up every thread since AoS release week. I totally can understand people complaining on the week it came out, but a month later is just ridiculous. And the "arguments" aren't even logical or remotely resonable.

"AoS is objectively bad. AoS can't be played. AoS isn't complete/wasn't tested/isn't a game. The models are boring so they're bad. Everything is too expensive. This game is exclusionary because there are no points." The list goes on and on, and yet none of these are remotely productive or even sensible.

AoS can't be objectively anything other than a game. Good. Bad. It all depends on who you ask.

The game absolutely does work in the way it is intended to be played. People have played games, rules as written and it unarguable does function. Whether or not it functions in the way you want it to is irrelevant. This game isn't WHFB, and unless GW changes their mind again, it never will be. If its not the type of game you want to play then go play a different game. There are plenty of games that at some point stop receiveing support, WHFB wasn't the first and it wont be the last.

If you don't like the new models then fair enough. You don't have to post in every thread every week to remind us. I hate every single WMH mini, do you see me regularly posting in the WMH forum telling everyone? No, because I know the models aren't my style and I have no reasonable expectation that forum posters should be harangued about it. I can tolerate people criticizing design, pricing, etc but not if its the same person making the same generalized complaint every week about models for a game that they've been dumpstering on the forum. That's basically the definition of gakposting.

And to everyone who's complained in this thread and others about a lack of points excluding them because the game lacks depth and they can no longer play pick-up games or tournaments like before. Congratulations, because WHFB was just as exclusionary if not more so. It was a game which required massive investment in miniatures to play the average sized pick-up game, required massive expensive rulebooks, and had an online community notrious for being self-important, condescending gakholes. I've seen them mock just about every other tabletop game while extolling the intense depth and strategy of WHFB. You know, when they werent throwing fits about how the newest edition was destroying balance.

You want to hear something on topic? Here goes. I like AoS. Sure its not revolutionary, and given the way its designed, I cant comment on balance. What it does wonderfully is allow me and my friends to finally play a fantasy themed Warhammer game, amongst ourselves, at our local GW, and with complete newbies.

I don't have to make some massive time and cash investment just to field on army for pick-up games. Better yet, I can now keep multiple small armies on hand to loan to my friends who don't want to spend money on fantasy models.

The design of the game, with unit special rules, makes every unit feel like it has some purpose other than simply being a "power unit" or a "space filler". The lack of any force restrictions lets me make armies and scenarios that conceptually I find interesting. Right now Im planning an army called the Grim March, a small group of fatalistic dwarves, humans, and dark elves who hunt the generals of Nagash in retribution of lost kin. That's something I could never do I WHFB without the permission of my opponent.

The focus on a scenario based style of play allows for more flexibility in creating narratives in the game. For example I can field a single Chaos war mammoth against a horde of enemy infantry. Or an small number of defenders can try and control an area against waves of enemies.

All of those were reasons that I gave AoS a chance, and found that I liked it.

I respect the fact that not everyone will like AoS, but I don't see that respect being returned. If the dissenting crowd wants to make a thread to discuss their dislike, I respect that. If you want a to make a thread where you can argue about the game with pro-AoS poster, I respect that. But up to now this thread, the opinions thread, and two news and rumors threads have all devolved into arguing. Its honestly feeling pretty tiresome and unnecessarily hostile.

Back on topic, I would love 40K to be AoS-ized. The current game is far too sprawling and expensive.

In an ideal world, GW would design a clever way to account for all the possible options that SMs can take. That won't happen, probably there will just be a bucket-load of SM war scrolls so everything is covered in some way at least. Or maybe a lot of the complication will just be thrown away.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Back on topic, I would love 40K to be AoS-ized. The current game is far too sprawling and expensive.

In an ideal world, GW would design a clever way to account for all the possible options that SMs can take. That won't happen, probably there will just be a bucket-load of SM war scrolls so everything is covered in some way at least. Or maybe a lot of the complication will just be thrown away.

The one thing I'm not a fan of with the AoS warscrolls which I think might help solve that would be to change the >X way the scrolls are written, and either give hard boundaries or specific troop numbers. So like, a warscroll of tac maries is either:

A) between 5-10 marines and can take 1 special or heavy weapon. If the squad numbers ten they can take a second special weapon.

B) is 5 marines and can take a special or heavy weapon. A squad can be 10 marines and take 2 special weapons or 1 heavy and 1 special weapons.

Basically it'd be the same as SM currently, but the upgrades are simply granted to the unit like in AoS. All they'd need to do is keep the existing wargear and weapon stat page which in total takes about one page front and back so it really isnt too bad. Then they could just print default weapons (bolter, bolt pistol, and ccw) on the card with the special rules.

I don't mind AoS as an alternative.
I rather liked WHFB 8th edition, except of the impact of "spell 6"; but instead of WHFB i could also play Warmaster if i wanted to really focus on maneuvering (and not mainly armybuilding).
AoS is not my thing, but i understand what it is and what it is for.

I would mind 40k being AoS, because it would not be an alternative, it would just remove an alternative.

40k has balance issues just as WHFB had
40k already is a skirmish game
In 40k you can already combine almost any miniatures you like.
40k formations are not unlike warscrolls and warscoll combinations.

But 40k has something i personaly always missed in WFHB: objective based battles. And in current edition the impact of objectives is bigger then ever. Furthermore it is a game that can be played "competitively"

So in 40k AoS-ing it would not add a lot, it would however remove a lot. 40k also is the best selling wargame, so that also does not seem to be what a sales based company should do.

If GW has no game left that can be played "competitively", they remove themselves from that market and might lose sales on the game that sells best in the whole industry.

Jack Flask wrote:

Whining is exactly what it is though. There are no legitimate arguments, no attempts to make good discussion, or even efforts made to act civil. Its just a gakshow of whining man-children disrupting every AoS related thread. I get that name calling against the rules and that tomorrow a bunch of people will start crying ad-hominem, but that's the reality of how the "detractors" are acting.

With respect, you not liking the arguments doesn't make them 'not legitimate'. Them holding an alternative viewpoint contrary to yours and detailing it isn't 'no attempt to make good discussion'. Or would you rather a sycophantic 'everything is brilliant' echo chamber instead?

People are pissed for a lot of (to them) very valid reasons. As for efforts to act civil, you're not helping. Those complaining sre a 'gaks how of whining Man children'? Really? Want me to hold your high horse while you come down off of it? Not needed mate, not needed at all.

And for what it's worth, I'm quite sympathetic to aos, even though it's not a game I find enjoyable. I think there is a niche for it. I like what it attempts to push scenario design on the players. My issues is that mechanically, I personall find it dull and uninteresting. I'd much rather they'd built it on the lotr engine, and put in some interesting reaction mechanics rather than the same old igougo roll 3s and 4s formula

Jack Flask wrote:

I don't have to make some massive time and cash investment just to field on army for pick-up games. Better yet, I can now keep multiple small armies on hand to loan to my friends who don't want to spend money on fantasy models.

Very true, I personally think with the 'scenario heavy' approach though, it requires a lot more work pre game to design a workable and interesting scenario, especially if you are designing co operatiely with an opponent. This is fine, at home, with a close group of friends (it's how we play) but for stores, with pick up gsmes and time constraints, I can see it as being far less efficient than 'x points, roll scenario'.

Jack Flask wrote:

The design of the game, with unit special rules, makes every unit feel like it has some purpose other than simply being a "power unit" or a "space filler". The lack of any force restrictions lets me make armies and scenarios that conceptually I find interesting. Right now Im planning an army called the Grim March, a small group of fatalistic dwarves, humans, and dark elves who hunt the generals of Nagash in retribution of lost kin. That's something I could never do I WHFB without the permission of my opponent.

The focus on a scenario based style of play allows for more flexibility in creating narratives in the game. For example I can field a single Chaos war mammoth against a horde of enemy infantry. Or an small number of defenders can try and control an area against waves of enemies.

My issue here is that you could always do this. And not just in aos. In any game. It's how we've played flames of war for several years now. No points. Unique scenarios etc. The historical game playing crowd are chortling into their beards that the fantasy players are now talking about 'being able' to design and play unique scenarios. I think it shines a light on a very negative quality of the playerbase- thst they/we somehow need permission from gw to be told that we can now create our games, and take charge of our own gsmes. Because we never could before, apparently.

It's a fun approach though. It's one thing that I like about aos- the player driven creation of scenarios with the idea of 'appropriate' units facing off against each other for that particular scenario- as you say, mammoth vs infantry, or 'horatio defends the bridge'. What you could try as well is an 'inverse escalation' game. Defender starts with a skirmish line against the core of the enemy force. When the skirmish line is broken, the defender gets his main force and the attacker gets limited reinforcements(everything went into the initial wave). In the game we ran, we face the defender an 'ambush' unit that could strike out when the attacker hit a certain point in the board. Great fun, and we really enjoyed the game.

That said. I think it requires a certain play environment and isn't suitable without like minded players and extensive pre game work. If you have that, then great. Otherwise, aos does suffer and limit

@Dreadnight: it sees a bit strange indeed that AoS seems to give some players the idea that they can now do something they could not do before: play scenario's.

But i do fully understand why this is so:
The historical gamers are not the most open and modern type of gamers.

I live in The Netherlands (near the border of Germany) and i collect and play since 1990 and consider myself a veteran gamer.

The places where a new player meets the hobby are not the places where you find the "scenario gamers". Not at all.

You find them in gaming clubs where the average age is 10-20 years higher then the new gamer and where often the games that are played most in the world are hardly played at all. The focus often is also often on realism, history and scenario's and less on "painting cool miniatures" and having a battle for fun and/or challenge.

The new wargamer and the competitive gamer and the "historical/scenario gamers" are two different communities that often do not mix well and hardly ever meet.
I do meet them both, but at different events and locations.

Most "historical/scenario" gamers that i met in GW or independant stores where the grumpy old men (think Waldorf/Statler) that complain about what is wrong with the games of today.
And "competitive" gamers as well as gamers in the hobby just for the creative fun, do not understand what is fun about painting a lot of the same style soldiers to play something that has already happened.

With AoS, GW goes a bit back to the 40k Rogue Trader / WHFB 3rd edition era, where scenario's where an important aspect of the game as well.

For us old folk that is nothing new, for many wargamers it is.

Deadnight wrote:

Jack Flask wrote:

Whining is exactly what it is though. There are no legitimate arguments, no attempts to make good discussion, or even efforts made to act civil. Its just a gakshow of whining man-children disrupting every AoS related thread. I get that name calling the rules and that tomorrow a bunch of people will start crying ad-hominem, but that's the reality of how the "detractors" are acting.

With respect, you not liking the arguments doesn't make them 'not legitimate'. Them holding an alternative viewpoint contrary to yours and detailing it isn't 'no attempt to make good discussion'. Or would you rather a sycophantic 'everything is brilliant' echo chamber instead?

My appologies, I was unclear in my statement. I didn't mean to imply that there are no arguments against AoS at all. What I meant was that this crowd of constant detractors are not utilizing any sense of reason in their argumentation.

Basically they are mad that WHFB is gone, and don't like the direction GW has taken The franchise via AoS. That is perfectly clear, and well within their right to hold that opinion. However they are showing up in every thread simply to mock the game and then start fights on the premise that they must be right and AoS is "objectively bad/wrong/broken". For no other reason than them not liking the style of game it is designed to be.

Deadnight wrote:
People are pissed for a lot of (to them) very valid reasons. As for efforts to act civil, you're not helping. Those complaining sre a 'gaks how of whining Man children'? Really? Want me to hold your high horse while you come down off of it? Not needed mate, not needed at all.

I understand that they're pissed. I'm not of the opinion that they can't nor shouldn't be. That still doesnt give them some new found freedom to start verbal fights with everyone who likes what they don't.  what gets me the most is that they are coming to these threads trying to discuss AoS just to post random smatterings on unproductive frustrations.

And I agree that what I said was harsh, and definately not productive. However, as a 40k and now AoS player I've gotten pretty fed up seeing the same handful of people constantly show up in the threads/boards of games they hate, just to fire off a few shots of condescending hate before slinking off to stroke their ego.

Deadnight wrote:
And for what it's worth, I'm quite sympathetic to aos, even though it's not a game I find enjoyable. I think there is a niche for it. I like what it attempts to push scenario design on the players. My issues is that mechanically, I personall find it dull and uninteresting. I'd much rather they'd built it on the lotr engine, and put in some interesting reaction mechanics rather than the same old igougo roll 3s and 4s formula

See what you said is actually a productive point that can be used as a basis for discussion. I don't really know much about the LotR system so I'll have to take a look at it. I absolutely agree with you though that there are a lot of repetitive die checks in AoS. I've often wondered, moreso for 40k, if using a wider die range such as d20s would help differentiate units and break up monotony in rolls.

Deadnight wrote:

Jack Flask wrote:

The design of the game, with unit special rules, makes every unit feel like it has some purpose other than simply being a "power unit" or a "space filler". The lack of any force restrictions lets me make armies and scenarios that conceptually I find interesting. Right now Im planning an army called the Grim March, a small group of fatalistic dwarves, humans, and dark elves who hunt the generals of Nagash in retribution of lost kin. That's something I could never do I WHFB without the permission of my opponent.

The focus on a scenario based style of play allows for more flexibility in creating narratives in the game. For example I can field a single Chaos war mammoth against a horde of enemy infantry. Or an small number of defenders can try and control an area against waves of enemies.

My issue here is that you could always do this. And not just in aos. In any game. It's how we've played flames of war for several years now. No points. Unique scenarios etc. The historical game playing crowd are chortling into their beards that the fantasy players are now talking about 'being able' to design and play unique scenarios. I think it shines a light on a very negative quality of the playerbase- thst they/we somehow need permission from gw to be told that we can now create our games, and take charge of our own gsmes. Because we never could before, apparently.

It's a fun approach though. It's one thing that I like about aos- the player driven creation of scenarios with the idea of 'appropriate' units facing off against each other for that particular scenario- as you say, mammoth vs infantry, or 'horatio defends the bridge'. What you could try as well is an 'inverse escalation' game. Defender starts with a skirmish line against the core of the enemy force. When the skirmish line is broken, the defender gets his main force and the attacker gets limited reinforcements(everything went into the initial wave). In the game we ran, we face the defender an 'ambush' unit that could strike out when the attacker hit a certain point in the board. Great fun, and we really enjoyed the game.

That said. I think it requires a certain play environment and isn't suitable without like minded players and extensive pre game work. If you have that, then great. Otherwise, aos does suffer and limit

I understand that its always been possible with any rules, in fact me and my friends do this often in 40k. However, I feel the lack of points and force organization will open this up to be a lot more possible in pick-up games. Because you need your opponent to agree with what you are collectively playing, most people would just play an average point amount with one of the rulebook play modes. Now that you need to discuss briefly what the scenario is and what you'll be fielding, it opens that line of communication where people will hopefully be more receptive to unusual scenarions.

ORicK wrote:

40k has balance issues just as WHFB had 
40k already is a skirmish game 
In 40k you can already combine almost any miniatures you like. 
40k formations are not unlike warscrolls and warscoll combinations.

I know its not quite what you are trying to say, but I also get a feeling that the recent changest in 40k are designed to add some of what makes AoS more flexible while still maintaining the existing complexity of previous editions. Maybe not something as drastic as the AoS unit special rules, but a bit more condesing of exceptions to the core rules?

I'm curious how you feel were GW to clean up the special rules a bit? Because right now it feels quite like a mess to me, and I know in my usual circle of play there are often moments of confusion where people misremember or forget rules which would have had a significant effect on previous turns.

Two easy ways to reduce dice rolling in AoS.

1. Dump the To Hit/To Wound/To Save mechanism and substitute a flat Roll A 6 To Cause Damage. Adjust unit strengths by changing their Attacks, Range, and Hits.

2. Continue with the current mechanism and work out a Quicxk Reference Table giving average number of successes for numbersof dice 10, 12, 20, 24 and so on. Instead of rolling 20 dice you get 3 hits and two dice.

Many people like rolling lots of dice, though.

I personally don't mind special rules. In any system.
IMO it's what makes most gaming systems interesting.

And the bigger the miniature, the more special rules there should be IMO.
So i don't mind that Epic (6mm) has less special rules then 28mm (40k) which again has less special rules than 54mm game or a RolePlayingGame.

For my taste, AoS has too few special rules in a tactical sense. In regard to special rules per unit, i do not have an opinion yet, because we are just getting started.

A steamlined set of special rules is to be preferred above a chaotic set, but in general i would prefer players reading a bit more and better then, pardon my french, "dumbing it al down too much".

Jack Flask wrote:
... Because you need your opponent to agree with what you are collectively playing, ...

You do? Why?

There is no such requirement in the AoS rules. They're just written around the principle that you deploy what you want until you either run out of miniatures or run out of space to put them. There is no indication in the rules that players are expected to sit down with a prospective opponent and nut out a scenario.

That's, IMO, precisely what's missing from the AoS rules. They should have been entirely scenario-driven, and should have just done away with any pretense of being suitable for pick-up games in the first place.

I'm curious how you feel were GW to clean up the special rules a bit? Because right now it feels quite like a mess to me, and I know in my usual circle of play there are often moments of confusion where people misremember or forget rules which would have had a significant effect on previous turns.

The main problem is with special rules that do nothing other than confer other special rules. That's just pointless complexity for no reasonable purpose (I don't consider a special rule having a funky, themed name to be a 'reasonable purpose' if it means just having to remember which other special rules it refers to).

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Two easy ways to reduce dice rolling in AoS.

1. Dump the To Hit/To Wound/To Save mechanism and substitute a flat Roll A 6 To Cause Damage. Adjust unit strengths by changing their Attacks, Range, and Hits.

2. Continue with the current mechanism and work out a Quicxk Reference Table giving average number of successes for numbersof dice 10, 12, 20, 24 and so on. Instead of rolling 20 dice you get 3 hits and two dice.

While I think that it wouldn't change the outcome of two identical situations (and this has surely been discussed in one thread or another) I think that reducing types of roll and different abilities that buff/debuff them takes away some of the appeal that GW games have for some people. "First you have to hit my model, but are you strong enough to wound it? It is now tougher because I gave it some skub. Well your skub-powered blade was stronger, but my armor will stop it...". There are times when units do something cool on sixes or and this may somewhat skew the odds so this have to be taken into account. Hit/wound/save is a long time GW thing and it just comes with the game. Will it quicken the game. Probably. Will people like it? As you stated it depends whether they

 Kilkrazy wrote:

...like rolling lots of dice...

I remember reading something about how GW wants players to roll lots of dice as they consider it part of the fun in a game. It kind of keep your hand busy doing something on the table instead of picking your nose . I can't cite a source, if an official stated it or if it was just a side comment in a WD column, though. Someone may lend a hand in finding it if it indeed exists and is not an artificial memory artifact of mine.

While someone can definitely make alterations to AoS, arguing that it is for the better of the system, gameplay and players, the question remains whether the players will like the game and that is not strictly tied to how good the game is, or is perceived to be (har har, thread pun) by the majority of people (as seen on the forums )

I like throwing lots of dice.

The main reason: i am quite the unlucky dice roller and if i have lots, the average gets a bit better (it's harder to miss with 10 dice then it is to miss with 1 die).

So my 40k Ork unit that shoots does a lot better then my X-Wing Tie-fighter that tries to dodge or to hit.

It's a statistical fact that more dice more often give a result closer to the expected average.

If you only roll 50 dice total in a complete game (X-Wing), luck (or the lack thereof) more frequently has a a big impact on the game then if 1000 dice are rolled.

And yes, I also just like throwing lots of dice! :-)

I like throwing a bunch of dice around too, but there's one huge advantage.

There's just guy in my Warmachine group with hard plastic, comically oversized dice that he throws on the battlefield with this awful backhanded wrist flick, throwing the spinning die high in the air, landing on and knocking over units (he's the guy who set up the group, so I guess nobody calls him on it, but I wouldn't dare play someone who did that). With more dice, you have to use smaller dice - probably those cubes of tiny, rounded Chessex dice. You can't just throw them on the battlefield, because they'd be difficult to see, count, and remove misses. So it would be physically unlikely he could destroy a well painted miniature with his grotesque wrist flick launch.

I admit, it's kind of a weird thing, but... yeah... tiny dice.

What an open mind you have. Let's try reversing your statement and see how it sounds.

Jack Flask wrote:



Gushing is exactly what it is though. There are no legitimate arguments, no attempts to make good discussion, or even efforts made to act civil. Its just a gakshow of gushing man-children disrupting every AoS related thread. I get that name calling for the rules and that tomorrow a bunch of people will start crying ad-hominem, but that's the reality of how the "apologists" are acting.

We get it, some of you like AoS or GW or people who apparently like what you don't like. Here's the thing though, we heard you all the first time. And the second. And the third...

Seriously, theres a small echo chamber of the same people showing up every thread since AoS release week. I totally can understand people excited on the week it came out, but a month later is just ridiculous. And the "arguments" aren't even logical or remotely resonable.

"AoS is objectively good. AoS can be played. AoS is complete/was tested/is a game. The models are awesome so they're good. Everything isn't too expensive. This game is inviting because there are no points." The list goes on and on, and yet none of these are remotely productive or even sensible.

I'll stop there. See how dismissive and insulting your arguments are?
There has been a lot of valid criticisms made for AOS. In a discussion thread, you will get opposing view points to your own. If you don't want to hear them, read a blog instead of a discussion forum.

 MWHistorian wrote:

There has been a lot of valid criticisms made for AOS. In a discussion thread, you will get opposing view points to your own. If you don't want to hear them, read a blog instead of a discussion forum.

But the people making these criticisms aren't interested in having a discussion. They make drive-by comments like, "AoS is the worst game evah!" which have no value as criticism and can only lead to discussions about why they feel like being a jerk is helpful.

When criticisms that can be discussed are had, there is no ground to be had. AoS doesn't have points. That doesn't make it bad, but some people don't like it. So what discussion can you have there? It's either "your opinion is wrong", which is never helpful, or it's "let's agree to disagree", which means there's no discussion to be had.

If we could agree on a few simple tenets to help discussion actually happen, maybe these criticisms could lead to something productive. How about:

1) Your personal opinion as to whether you like or dislike a feature can be stated, but once stated, it does not need to be continually restated within the same thread. It should also be topic appropriate. As an example, a thread talking about how nifty the Celestant Prime model is does not require any commentary on one's dislike of AoS as a game.

2) AoS makes decisions which some people like, and some people don't, so any criticism which is based entirely upon whether someone likes a decision is useless. Disliking something doesn't make it wrong, nor does it provide any insight into anything other than your own personal tastes. That is not criticism. That is whining.

3) Making criticisms which also work as criticisms against those you disagree with are not unhelpful. Such as "AoS is for people who've never played a wargame before", which implies that people who enjoy it are inexperienced wargamers. And I've seen far worse insinuations.

4) Repeating the same, tired criticisms over and over is still just whining, no matter how valid that criticism is. We get it. Games Workshop is overpriced and there are other publishers who create equally nice models for considerably less. But there's nothing we can do about it, except to leave the game and play something else. Let's assume that people in the Age of Sigmar forum are interested in playing Age of Sigmar, and that convincing them to play something else is off topic and a bit dickish.

I lot of this thread seems based on theory and not actually playing.

Played my first game, Orcs & goblins vs Lizardmen 75 wound game. (Lizardmen no summoning to keep it simple)

The combat was really fun, being able to pile into any combat within 3 inches.

Giant and 4 kroxigors pretty much wiped each other out.

10 Black orks and grimgore vs 30 saurus warriors pretty much wiped each other out.

I had a doomdiver which pretty much missed (or didnt wound) every single time, even with the ability to retarget if he misses his first target (which is a fun rule).

I used a 10 man slugga boyz squad as ruglud's armored orcs which was kinda fitting since pistols (counts as crossbows) aren't too far out of the norm in AOS, and ruglud himself did pretty awesome.

I had a 5 man boar rider squad charge up the right flank to attack the dinosaur with a diamond lascannon on it (you know the one I'm talking about) and they failed hard, 1 rider made it out alive to run away.

Lizardman hero on carnisaur was pretty hardcore with his ability to automatically cause additional battleshock in a bubble around it. It took Gorbad Ironclaw, rugluds armored orcs and a boar chariot to bring him down and he pretty much took them all out with him.

At the end it was a very very minor orc victory with 97% of the lizardmen models destroyed, and 95% of the orc models destroyed.

So as for balance, doing 75 wounds seemed to balance it pretty good I'd say (couldn't have made more balanced armies if we tried).

Anyway, for all you naysayers just try a pickup game and see if you have fun (which you will) a lot of energy is being spent here that could otherwise be spent having fun!

 Sqorgar wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

There has been a lot of valid criticisms made for AOS. In a discussion thread, you will get opposing view points to your own. If you don't want to hear them, read a blog instead of a discussion forum.

But the people making these criticisms aren't interested in having a discussion. They make drive-by comments like, "AoS is the worst game evah!" which have no value as criticism and can only lead to discussions about why they feel like being a jerk is helpful.

It can get pretty frustrating, when a poster does not seem to contribute to the conversion in a meaningful way.

However, a poster the other day brought my attention back to something I had forgotten - when signed into the forum, you will find an "ignore" button on every post you see.

While I don't think its good to ignore every poster who makes an annoying post, the ignore button is excellent if there's a poster you feel never contributes to a discussion in a meaningful way. With just one click, you never see them again, and the forums seem much less cluttered, and much more content rich.

Cheers!

Oggthrok wrote:

However, a poster the other day brought my attention back to something I had forgotten - when signed into the forum, you will find an "ignore" button on every post you see.

In general, I don't believe in banning, blocking, or ignoring those who disagree with me. I find it to be petty, and it prevents whatever future contributions they may bring from ever being seen or engaged with. I feel like the internet is way too quick to isolate itself from dissent, creating echo chamber pockets that end up making people develop extremist views. Just like playing AoS, a certain level of compromise can be reached such that all parties find something enjoyable about their time together.

I did, however, ignore one poster. As much as I'm loathe to do so, I think that at the point where you basically dare other people to "ignore" you, you've admitted that you are just being a dick and the only way that you'll stop is if others exercise "force" to stop you.

 insaniak wrote:

Jack Flask wrote:
... Because you need your opponent to agree with what you are collectively playing, ...

You do? Why?

There is no such requirement in the AoS rules. They're just written around the principle that you deploy what you want until you either run out of miniatures or run out of space to put them. There is no indication in the rules that players are expected to sit down with a prospective opponent and nut out a scenario.

You have to agree with what you're playing against for every game in existence, whether the rules say it or not, since you can't force someone who doesn't want to play with you to do so.

The reality is that if Joe and Sam do not have a meeting of the minds of on fairness, they will walk away from the game. In point based systems, if Joe and Sam meet, they assume that if their armies are the correct additive total, it must be fair; and this is not necessarily true.

The only difference with AoS is that it forces players to judge fairness themselves, instead of rely on a point-based system. It may be a subtle difference, but I think it creates an environment that is less of a draw for those who want to play with a list-based advantage, because once you win a couple of times with a powerful combo, opponents will realize it and "charge" you for it.

@Talys last post: i completely agree.

Man players use the rules of "competitive games" to build armies to win.

Most posts on this and many other wargaming forums only focus on what to do to win, what is best for points:
"he current meta" of a system.

What was Always so for WHFB and 40k, but it's the same thing with X-Wing, Warmachine, Mailfaux, Flames-of-War (maybe a bit less) and many more.

The only games i know where that is not the main subject are games like Blood Bowl, Epic, Warmaster, where the main subject is how to learn to use a specific type of army, not how to build the army.

AoS seems to be more about what people want to (buy, paint) and play. And instead of making rules to let people play fair (which never ever worked in WHFB), the players now have to be honest and see to it that games are more or less balanced.

That always was possible off course. But in practice there are too many players that use the rules not to build a balanced army, but to get an advantage.
IMO this often shows a lack of social skills.

ORicK wrote:
IMO this often shows a lack of social skills.

IMO it often shows that someone has done a crappy job balancing the game, in all the well balanced games I play there is a clear and noticeable lack of unfair match ups except when one player is clearly more skilled than they other.