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.

Age of sigmar is better. Warhammer fantasy shoehorned a bunch of unnecessary rules into it in an attempt to make the game SEEM more tactical than it is.

The game has always been designed to sell models, every wargame with its own miniatures for the setting is.

Why is it when people bring up examples of tactics for age of sigmar the response is always " other games have that, and MORE " but the tactics put forth as the "more" examples are the exact same tactics used in age of sigmar but with extra rules to make you strive for it? Why does a decision have to be a statistical benefit as opposed to a... Tactical one?

That was answered like 20 times already, you would post the same argument even if someone provided an equation showing it.

Someone mentioned that AoS has hit and run tactics with cavalry. Apart from how crude they are, do you know why they even work? Because cavalry have bonuses for charge on warscrolls. No modifiers, no fun, deal with it.

Ofc if the mechanics were really smart, then you could have benefits significant enough for tactics to be valid but they're not, they're simple and that basic pile in is not an equivalent of detailed rules/ good abstracy mechanism

Or maybe just post those battle reports with oh so much tactics.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Age of sigmar is better. Warhammer fantasy shoehorned a bunch of unnecessary rules into it in an attempt to make the game SEEM more tactical than it is.

The game has always been designed to sell models, every wargame with its own miniatures for the setting is.

Why is it when people bring up examples of tactics for age of sigmar the response is always " other games have that, and MORE " but the tactics put forth as the "more" examples are the exact same tactics used in age of sigmar but with extra rules to make you strive for it? Why does a decision have to be a statistical benefit as opposed to a... Tactical one?

There are people who just aren't happy with minimalist rules. I think you can be a better AoS player if you choose to deploy and utilize your models in more strategic ways than what a lot of folks do. I say this because you can be a better 40k player because there is a ton of strategy in the game if you choose to play in that fashion -- but my observation is that by and large, most folks don't.

For the vast majority of miniature wargamers I've met, being strategic just means learning how to build list of good synergies, deploy smartly and using the tricks of each unit (or synergy between units). Even the combat tactics that plum and others are talking about are mostly just tactics that you learn once, use forever. I mean, to me, flanking is not being strategic; tricking someone into moving their army into a position where they can be outflanked, is. There are rarely times that I encounter people who set good traps, make good unit sacrifices, and really force their opponent to think. It happens, but not really often. A lot of this is also because the pool of players in miniature wargaming is relatively small, and the people you play with tends to become repetitive, even when you're playing "public pickup games". Once you get used to certain players, you notice that they use certain tactics more, others less, and their playstyle is predictable. Certainly, this is so after years or decades of playing in the same group or club.

By and large, this is why I don't really care in the miniature wargaming scene one way or the other, and see the experience as more entertainment (and eye candy) than intellectual stimulation. When I want the latter, personally, I just find a game like Hearthstone on the PC miles above the tabletop experience, because what happens is, as you get better and are higher ranked, you meet and play people in the world who are also more clever and do unexpected things beyond the obvious.

Edit: I should also add that in miniature games, you're (usually) constrained to fielding the miniatures you own or can bring. So, in almost all miniature games, whether it's Infinity or WMH or 40k or AoS, a "good" player is one who sees what their enemy brings and the table, and is experienced enough to go, "well, these are all the possible things they can do and all of their sneaky tricks". The "bad" player is basically just someone ho doesn't have this knowledge or chooses not to absorb it. There just aren't a lot of brilliant surprises, in my experience (which is okay with me). Like I said, *sure* this could be possible, but it's just not how the vast majority of people that I've run into choose to play tabletop wargames.

DBA rules are very minimalist compared to the preceding WRG 7th Edition, and take up 11 pages of A4 in the rulebook, plus two pages of optional rules (big battles and campaigns) in addition to which there are explanatory diagrams and about 300 army lists.

Nonetheless the game has been extremely successful for casual and tournament play.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Someone mentioned that AoS has hit and run tactics with cavalry. Apart from how crude they are, do you know why they even work? Because cavalry have bonuses for charge on warscrolls.

So just so we're clear from what you've said;
Unit X has a flat bonus to standard game rule A.
Planning/using the unit to capitalise on this is not tactical because it's a bonus?

But if unit X has maneouvered into a position where standard game rule B gave them a bonus to game rule A, that is tactics? (Such as flank charging for +1 combat res)

I am not suggesting AoS is a tactical Mariana trench, but the burden of proof seems impossible because every example of a 'tactic' given just gets dismissed as "it's a special rule" or "the game mechanics are too simple" or some other explanation that never actually explains what counts as a "tactic" to the people laying these criticisms.

It's like trying to sell fossils at a Young Earth convention.

That is the point I've been trying to make!

Also, talys, thank you for what you wrote. I play both of these games in that fashion, my win loss ratio is not bad by any stretch. Hell, my 1500 point pure harlequins army is currently undefeated simply due to thinking tactically. I won't bring the list to fun games because I can't make mistakes with it and it isn't fun to roll through someone's army or be blown completely off the table when you are just having a good time.

I am not suggesting AoS is a tactical Mariana trench, but the burden of proof seems impossible because every example of a 'tactic' given just gets dismissed as "it's a special rule" or "the game mechanics are too simple" or some other explanation that never actually explains what counts as a "tactic" to the people laying these criticisms.

Because table top tactic is something you have to do and not fire off a special rule, that opponents don't have to counter. Pointing 4 cannons and 30 crossbows, like my army, is not tactics, Having impossible to hit flying models, because GW decided to make dwarf models small and flyer stand in AoS have no official size, is not tactics. Deep striking eternals and killing opposing generals with shoting turn 1 for ID victory is not tactics.
Tactics is something one has fit to every opposing army, and not something that works every time , excluding mirror matchs. Warmahordes has tons of tactics, old WFB had some of it, although not for all armies. AoS doesn't have it, because you either win by having a better faction or collection of models, or by playing some gimik build the opposing player can't counter with the models or faction he has.

RoperPG wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Someone mentioned that AoS has hit and run tactics with cavalry. Apart from how crude they are, do you know why they even work? Because cavalry have bonuses for charge on warscrolls.

So just so we're clear from what you've said;
Unit X has a flat bonus to standard game rule A.
Planning/using the unit to capitalise on this is not tactical because it's a bonus?

But if unit X has maneouvered into a position where standard game rule B gave them a bonus to game rule A, that is tactics? (Such as flank charging for +1 combat res)

I am not suggesting AoS is a tactical Mariana trench, but the burden of proof seems impossible because every example of a 'tactic' given just gets dismissed as "it's a special rule" or "the game mechanics are too simple" or some other explanation that never actually explains what counts as a "tactic" to the people laying these criticisms.

It's like trying to sell fossils at a Young Earth convention.

I'm not exactly sure whether I understand your post or not tbh, are you reffering to my earlier posts about combos?

Anyway everything that makes you decide is tactics but some require more thought/ forthought/ sth idk. Nothing absolute here, bonus for manouvering vs just firing up a combo of special rules I'd say the former is more beardstrokeworthy but that obviously depends on complexity, variablity and specifics of the latter.

My point was, some situations require mechanical bonuses to flesh them out and make them matter. Take the bonus away from cavalry, there's no point to the mentioned hit and run anymore.

As for examples well maybe that's because only simple and basic things are mentioned (still tactics though ofc), I was called arrogant in one of such threads (and I probably was heh) but I mainly post like that because it's strikingly obvious for me and have trouble wrapping my head around the fact that there's even a discussion. Few post back you have claims that a game of free roaming directionless blobs is better than a game where units have vulnerable sides/ rear and facing limiting their movement/ attack ability because it's was all false depth in the latter. Which is obvious bs, whfb was not a paragon of tactical gameplay but the mentioned facing adds another layer of planning, reading the opponent and potential for significant/ critical mistake to movement phase. That's the thing, all games have the basic wargameish gameplay elements that make for almost everything AoS has to offer but other games tend to add layers of interaction over that, be it issuing orders in advance, interrupts, turn order manipulation, supression, modifiers, facing, more sophisticated combos idk all the things not present in AoS. The more layers, possibilities, things to take into account, the deeper the gameplay.

I also don't think it's fair to say that what counts as tactics was never explained. First it's all tactics just some more demanding than others and the discussion is about "shallow/ deep" scale and not a 0/1 " not a tactic/ tactic" tick form. Second, it's a third thread like that or sth and there were attempts to define tactical depth already and multiple examples of things adding depth to a game.

@Lythrandire, eagerly awaiting the inevitable "but why is it different?" post from you

Makumba wrote:

I am not suggesting AoS is a tactical Mariana trench, but the burden of proof seems impossible because every example of a 'tactic' given just gets dismissed as "it's a special rule" or "the game mechanics are too simple" or some other explanation that never actually explains what counts as a "tactic" to the people laying these criticisms.

Because table top tactic is something you have to do and not fire off a special rule, that opponents don't have to counter. Pointing 4 cannons and 30 crossbows, like my army, is not tactics, Having impossible to hit flying models, because GW decided to make dwarf models small and flyer stand in AoS have no official size, is not tactics. Deep striking eternals and killing opposing generals with shoting turn 1 for ID victory is not tactics.
Tactics is something one has fit to every opposing army, and not something that works every time , excluding mirror matchs. Warmahordes has tons of tactics, old WFB had some of it, although not for all armies. AoS doesn't have it, because you either win by having a better faction or collection of models, or by playing some gimik build the opposing player can't counter with the models or faction he has.

This is not true at all for comped* play (I have seen very few people arguing for uncomped AoS). I recommend you listen to Heelanhammer episode 134 and 135 for some insight from tournament WHFB players who have been playing quite a lot of AoS and are enjoying it thoroughly, going so far as to say that it's a better game than 8th. Swastakowey and Plubarumrum may want to listen as well since they have been asking for some deeper discussion of AoS, even if it is very early days yet.

*To be clear, when I say comped I mean:
- some sort of points system
- measuring from bases
- limiting summoning
So not rewriting the game or changing tons of rules. Anything beyond this is up to taste.

 Mymearan wrote:

I recommend you listen to Heelanhammer episode 134 and 135 for some insight from tournament WHFB players who have been playing quite a lot of AoS and are enjoying it thoroughly, going so far as to say that it's a better game than 8th. Swastakowey and Plubarumrum may want to listen as well since they have been asking for some deeper discussion of AoS, even if it is very early days yet.

I listened to both podcasts (to be fair I gave up half way through the second). If one is looking for general advice in the spirit of:

-"You need to think about whether to go first or second for the 50% chance to get a second turn in a row."
-"You really need to think where you move your models because of threat range and the 3" control zone."
-"The order in which you go through your units is important."

he is not going to be disappointed. Otherwise I'd recommend not wasting the time on these, but this is just my opinion...

It isn't different, you simply think it is and I will never convince you otherwise. If the core rules had a page that said " units with spears get to reroll hits if they didn't charge or move this turn", "cavalry models get to reroll wounds on a turn in which they charged", and " models varying shields get to reroll ones for saves" you would for some reason believe it added tactical depth.

It doesn't matter that these things are in the game as rules where you need to have them (in the statlines for units it applies to) you refuse to see the amount of ACTUAL rules in the game that add ENORMOUS complexity to the game itself.


Also, blobs are stupid for any sort of significant tactic. But it shouldn't be something you are denied from doing for the sake of making the game SEEM more complex.

Go ahead and demand a battle report from me that I already said would be impossible to do for about a month, I know it's comming

Yea folks seem stuck on the base 4 page rule book. Not the fact that warscrolls include unit's specific rules and buffs (spears, cavalry, charging bonuses, unit bonuses with characyer buffs, etc, etc). When one studies this they see the tactical depth and complexity that aos offers. The dice rolling, etc arguments are not good either as wfb and 40k do all the same thinga this game does too.

My wife initially wouldn't play 40k, infinity, or wwx because they looked too complicated with all the 'rules and tactics' ( and she and her friends used to make fun of us gamers in college). I convinced her to play aos with the 4 page rule book two months ago. She agreed as it looked 'simple'. She is now an avid wargamer and has told me that the rules are actually full of depth, they are just laid out in a simple manner that makes the game easy to learn. We are still learning good tactics, bonuses, etc each time we play.

I also showed her these threads and posts from folks who continously say aos is simple and not equal to other mainstream wargames in tactical depth. I even showed her the post in which a person said aos is more similar to checkers or a board game than a table top war game. She and her friends laughed and said it is far more similar to wwx, 40k, etc than people give it credit for and she thinks people are just (rightfully so) bitter that their game system was killed off.

Nice to see aos got several of our wives into gaming too... they now play many different table top war games!

N

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
It isn't different, you simply think it is and I will never convince you otherwise. If the core rules had a page that said " units with spears get to reroll hits if they didn't charge or move this turn", "cavalry models get to reroll wounds on a turn in which they charged", and " models varying shields get to reroll ones for saves" you would for some reason believe it added tactical depth.

It doesn't matter that these things are in the game as rules where you need to have them (in the statlines for units it applies to) you refuse to see the amount of ACTUAL rules in the game that add ENORMOUS complexity to the game itself.


Also, blobs are stupid for any sort of significant tactic. But it shouldn't be something you are denied from doing for the sake of making the game SEEM more complex.

Go ahead and demand a battle report from me that I already said would be impossible to do for about a month, I know it's comming

Enormous complexity with little added depth. 40k has tons of special rules that bring little to the table as well, it's just noise.

It is different you just think it isn't but I will never convince you otherwise. How can it be the same when units/ models with facing can only attack things in their front arcs. How is it the same when you can't just move backwards freely.

Your examples just show that you don't even understand what I mean. Not to mention I already said that cavalry having bonuses on warscrolls make the tactic valid (shame that the core rules create an environment when it is obvious and a no brainer) so yeah you are wrong, I know my post can be hard to read but please just try next time.

I only demanded a battle rep once from you I think. It's not the even closely resembling your "but why is it different" posting tactic, you obviously have troubles with subtle but meaningful differences though so I won't hold it against you

You want facing rules, enormous complexity, little depth. If the entire goal of every tactic you want to see on the table is "get to the side of the unit, they are weaker there" your " tactics" become stagnant very quickly.

You asked me directly once for a battlereport, then later said you were still waiting. That's twice.

You don't like the fact that the rules you prefer aren't in the game, that's fine, don't play it. But you pretending that the game is shallow and has basic, simple tactics despite the FACT that there are a huge number of decisions needed to be made based on rules interaction, area buffs, situational bonuses from utilising terrain and special rules within the warscroll, how the enemy has deployed their unit compared to your own, and even the choices made on allocation of attacks within the unit to generate better battleshock results is simply being stubborn.

I ask the same question because I keep getting the same answer. You not liking the way they chose to change gameplay doesn't make the gameplay any less deep and tactical than it was before.

As an example from my mageknight days, if a model came within your back arc, you got a free spin unless they had a special rule denying it. Because trained warriors DO NOT STAND STILL WHEN AN ENEMY HAS CLOSED IN ON THEM. If you really want to flank someone, you need to hit them from both sides to keep them from forming an effective offense. Age of sigmar gives that to you by letting you pile on more wounds, deny escape routes, and force d visions on model placement and target prioritization.

But we'll just keep pretending that flanking means nothing in the system and give it grief because reasons.

Oh look, realism argument. Well you argued before that there's no reason for phalanx to have vulnerable sides and rear so not sure if you're the person to judge it. I also love archers trained to a point that they never hit their own when shooting into the moshpit not to mention can shoot from the middle of one. Realism arguments have no place in AoS discussion unless you want to bash it.

I don't think that was me, though not sure. Not sure why it is that hard to find a bat rep with that decesive flank charge, even I think that although it's rare, unreliable and mostly irrelevant to game outcome, it still can happen and matter.

As for facing, it's not only about flank charges but also movement and attack restrictions though feel free to ignore it as usual. I guess trained soldiers can run in one direction and then right away run the same distance in the same time but opposite direction, in formations. Especialy the famous flying inverted Ts, those guys.

Stubborn lol, pot meet kettle to say the least.

40k has the whole model representing exact soldier's position thing for 2 editions. I have yet to see anyone who played 3 games getting it wrong or coming up with some brilliant, suprising setup. It's obvious as in obvious obvious. Buffs and rules interactions, GW is famous for writing a lot of rules with little impact. LOTS OF DECISIONS BUT MAJORITY NO BRAINERS FACT CAPITAL LETTERS SO MORE FACT.

OK, I believe we have made all of our points. I am actually becoming agitated and appear to be aggitiating you as well.

You don't like it, I do. As the person above said, just because most people don't play the game with a tactical mindset doesn't mean there is a lack of tactics. And I believe I read from someone who does mock battles for fun that the archers in combat is a viable thing also.

We aren't going to agree with each other, I am sorry I have bothered you as much as I have. I look forward to our next topic of debate, it is good to put myself against someone who doesn't resort to name calling

Thank you, you are a worthy opponent.

Yes I was about to post the same to you, it's not worth it to be spiteful over this and lower the discussion level to jabs and one liners. Not that I don't pracice those heh, it's my modus operandi in fact but I try to adapt to my disputants, you're a polite poster and I also enjoyed the argument based discussion. Believe or not but I take all the arguments into consideration and will try the things mentioned here if not out of curiosity.

Yes I think we said everything, multiple times in fact. I think it's relatively shallow but not mindless you know as you can still outplay an opponent even on the basic things, the vast combination of armies, tables and deployments warrant that and the warscrolls or gaming the pile in, though not much imo, are still something. I play games with imo similar level of depth on PC and have fun though having them figured out to the bone, I think some additional mechanism would really improve the gameplay. It's also the fact that I expected a lot from from Games Workshop having a clean slate, it was really an opportunity to get things right imo plus it coinceided with what I see as significant deterioration of art quality in their books and I am really dissapointed in GWs decisions lately.

Also I agree that it's can be used to get wives into TT wargaming, btw congratulations to yours for handing you your ass. MIne did that to me in 40k but hey shallow game erm lol.

So yes apologies and I consider you worthy as well.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Yes I was about to post the same to you, it's not worth it to be spiteful over this and lower the discussion level to jabs and one liners. Not that I don't pracice those heh, it's my modus operandi in fact but I try to adapt to my disputants, you're a polite poster and I also enjoyed the argument based discussion. Believe or not but I take all the arguments into consideration and will try the things mentioned here if not out of curiosity.

Yes I think we said everything, multiple times in fact. I think it's relatively shallow but not mindless you know as you can still outplay an opponent even on the basic things, the vast combination of armies, tables and deployments warrant that and the warscrolls or gaming the pile in, though not much imo, are still something. I play games with imo similar level of depth on PC and have fun though having them figured out to the bone, I think some additional mechanism would really improve the gameplay. It's also the fact that I expected a lot from from Games Workshop having a clean slate, it was really an opportunity to get things right imo plus it coinceided with what I see as significant deterioration of art quality in their books and I am really dissapointed in GWs decisions lately.

Also I agree that it's can be used to get wives into TT wargaming, btw congratulations to yours for handing you your ass. MIne did that to me in 40k but hey shallow game erm lol.

So yes apologies and I consider you worthy as well.

My wife chose Malifaux because the aesthetic of the creepy Victorian pleased her. (I had wanted to get into but she gave me the excuse) She's more than willing to learn complex rules for a game she finds interesting.
Different people want different things from their games. Often times the same person wants different and contradictory things.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Different people want different things from their games. Often times the same person wants different and contradictory things.

This

 MWHistorian wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Yes I was about to post the same to you, it's not worth it to be spiteful over this and lower the discussion level to jabs and one liners. Not that I don't pracice those heh, it's my modus operandi in fact but I try to adapt to my disputants, you're a polite poster and I also enjoyed the argument based discussion. Believe or not but I take all the arguments into consideration and will try the things mentioned here if not out of curiosity.

Yes I think we said everything, multiple times in fact. I think it's relatively shallow but not mindless you know as you can still outplay an opponent even on the basic things, the vast combination of armies, tables and deployments warrant that and the warscrolls or gaming the pile in, though not much imo, are still something. I play games with imo similar level of depth on PC and have fun though having them figured out to the bone, I think some additional mechanism would really improve the gameplay. It's also the fact that I expected a lot from from Games Workshop having a clean slate, it was really an opportunity to get things right imo plus it coinceided with what I see as significant deterioration of art quality in their books and I am really dissapointed in GWs decisions lately.

Also I agree that it's can be used to get wives into TT wargaming, btw congratulations to yours for handing you your ass. MIne did that to me in 40k but hey shallow game erm lol.

So yes apologies and I consider you worthy as well.

My wife chose Malifaux because the aesthetic of the creepy Victorian pleased her. (I had wanted to get into but she gave me the excuse) She's more than willing to learn complex rules for a game she finds interesting.
Different people want different things from their games. Often times the same person wants different and contradictory things.

Well my wife plays Twighlight Struggle, Space Hulk, 40k with me and boadgames mainly Warrior Knights when we have guests and I ever decide to get her into fantasy wargame I will start with KoW. I'm quite sure that she would actualy hate AoS but she plays wargames already. I do in fact think that it sounds a bit condescending towards said wives to say that AoS is for them in particular like they were unable to learn something more complex but I was more about how having whfb minis already, it can be easily arranged at home and resolved quickly. TIme is often an issue and I for example have to threaten thaf I will order a prostitute or leave her for my friend's more gamey gf to get some bigger 3 hours 40k game and she still half hates it for taking the entire evening, I would probably get 10 times the games if it played faster. Another advantage is the sound of 4 pages of rules, it makes it appear casual and sth you can do for a break without much commitment. There are better quick games ofc but AoS might be good for introducing to the basic concepts of wargames with little effort. I would never reccomend it to someone not having minis already though, if you are to start fresh then yes find something you're interested in and start go for it right away, it's not rocket science we're talking about but all 12+ games anyway.

 Talys wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

Different people want different things from their games. Often times the same person wants different and contradictory things.

This

Since when isn't different synonymous with bad and worse, because am feeling like we are talking here about some sort of bizzaro worlds.

Makumba wrote:

Since when isn't different synonymous with bad and worse, because am feeling like we are talking here about some sort of bizzaro worlds.

Most of the time actually.

Different is just that. Neither better or worse.

Really. You need to get out of your playgroup and play against some historical gamers or someone like talys who can actually show you other 'different' ways of playing ttg's that have real value.

I just want to point out....
In my own personal experiences of venturing to the stores in my area, I have noticed that every player who is excited about AOS, or who wants to play AOS is a player who has been labeled as cheesy.
Most of the people I have talked to casually in the stores who are into AOS are players who can’t get a 40k game because they are labeled as cheese players and people avoid them. I think this is why those players love AOS, no real rules so they can just come up with a crazy stupid list.
Now I know what people reading this are saying, "outrage, AOS players are not cheese" well, I just have to say I have not seen one player in my ventures who has what I would consider a balanced army.
I miss the old days of having a lot of units of troops, a unit of cavalry, and maybe some artillery or a giant monster.
But no, I have seen ZERO Age of Simpleminded players who even know how to spell balance.

My personal observations so far have been...

1) The day the game released a guy sold his greyknights to start playing ogres. When i asked why, his reasoning was that the game is based off of models and not points, so one ogre is comparable to one empire man, and then he asked if i wanted to play a game. HA, no thanks was my response, along with some complaining about how loose the rules sounded.

2) Walked into my normal store and noticed a guy with a fedora of all things to wear looking at chaos fantasy, I started a conversation, and turns out the guy is new to fantasy. He thinks, (and yes these were his words) "chaos warriors are useless, i am making a hoard of chaos spawns" that ended the topic for me real quick, and then i had to come up with an excuse to get away.

3) Went to the store, talked to the same guy in story #1, he wants to try to start a campaign of sorts, I got a bit excited as I love campaigns. The problem I had was that he wants to run the campaign and play in the campaign. After talking to him for 45min, come to find out he wants to start a campaign because he cant find anyone who wants to play against his army, so his grand plan is to get players new to the game who he is going to crush of course. I pointed out that his logic was flawed, and if he was to play in his campaign and run it, he should choose an army that is not good that he will loose with so that he can keep his players interested. His little brain could not comprehend what I was trying to explain, so of course its no news to me that his campaign flopped the second week when no one showed, its been 2 months and his campaign is very dead. Turns out people don’t want to play when you you make the rules and have a cheese army, go figure!
4) Walked into another store I used to venture too often, and a player I have seen a few times is pulling out 3 blood thirstiers, and 9 skull crushers, badly painted of course. He prompts me for a game, as im talking to him I keep looking to see what else he has, turns out that is his army. I don’t think I even bought anything from the store, I was still annoyed at the levels of cheese I saw.

I have more story’s or examples, and no I don’t need you quoting me and pointing out how great you are, or how much smarter you are.
As far as it goes for AOS, im never going to play a game, and I think that a lot of people see AOS the same why I do….
A, hate the rules, or lack of
B, all the players that talk about it on any of the sites or in stores have proven to me they are cheese
C, you can have the all the victory’s you want, ill stick with a game that takes skill and dosnt have people running to the local store to buy up all the monsters they can.

It's almost like removing all kinds of balance ENCOURAGES the WAAC mentality instead of somehow stopping it....

 GraywarTS wrote:
I just want to point out....
In my own personal experiences of venturing to the stores in my area, I have noticed that every player who is excited about AOS, or who wants to play AOS is a player who has been labeled as cheesy.
Most of the people I have talked to casually in the stores who are into AOS are players who can’t get a 40k game because they are labeled as cheese players and people avoid them. I think this is why those players love AOS, no real rules so they can just come up with a crazy stupid list.
Now I know what people reading this are saying, "outrage, AOS players are not cheese" well, I just have to say I have not seen one player in my ventures who has what I would consider a balanced army.
I miss the old days of having a lot of units of troops, a unit of cavalry, and maybe some artillery or a giant monster.
But no, I have seen ZERO Age of Simpleminded players who even know how to spell balance.

You know that as soon as you write stuff like that, most people interested in hearing a well-reasoned argument will stop reading your post, right? Is it really necessary?

 Mymearan wrote:

 GraywarTS wrote:

But no, I have seen ZERO Age of Simpleminded players who even know how to spell balance.

You know that as soon as you write stuff like that, most people interested in hearing a well-reasoned argument will stop reading your post, right? Is it really necessary?

Huh, I just had to check and make sure I wasn't in the Optimists Only thread. But you know, turns out we aren't

 Mymearan wrote:

 GraywarTS wrote:
I just want to point out....
In my own personal experiences of venturing to the stores in my area, I have noticed that every player who is excited about AOS, or who wants to play AOS is a player who has been labeled as cheesy.
Most of the people I have talked to casually in the stores who are into AOS are players who can’t get a 40k game because they are labeled as cheese players and people avoid them. I think this is why those players love AOS, no real rules so they can just come up with a crazy stupid list.
Now I know what people reading this are saying, "outrage, AOS players are not cheese" well, I just have to say I have not seen one player in my ventures who has what I would consider a balanced army.
I miss the old days of having a lot of units of troops, a unit of cavalry, and maybe some artillery or a giant monster.
But no, I have seen ZERO Age of Simpleminded players who even know how to spell balance.

You know that as soon as you write stuff like that, most people interested in hearing a well-reasoned argument will stop reading your post, right? Is it really necessary?

And if you bothered the read his post you know he doesn't care and just wanted to say how he see it.

 jonolikespie wrote:
It's almost like removing all kinds of balance ENCOURAGES the WAAC mentality instead of somehow stopping it....

I'm sure that everyone's experience and meta varies, but hat has not been my experience in my neck of the woods.

A constraint based system encourages players to push the rules to the limits. Removing the constraints forces players to find their own equilibrium and fun. Sure, if you live somewhere that everyone wants to play the most powerful armies that's just fine, *as long as both players want this*. In this case, it's just herohammer, which is what I like anyhow (mostly because the only fantasy models I want to paint are the super premium ones).

Where the system dies is when HALF the players want superpowerful armies, and the other half wants to play grunts. OR when half the players want to list for advantage and the other half wants to list for fluff or fun. But that's no different than Magic: A super deck against a for-fun favorite pretty cards deck makes for a lousy game. In the end, people in AoS need to find like-minded opponents. Which is no different than any other game.

In the small number of people I've seen really take to AoS (couple dozen or so), it isn't the supercheese crowd, nor the super-competitive crowd. About half seem to like Sigmarites, a big chunk enjoy the not-very-many core rules aspect, some enjoy the campaign booms, and a couple are Fantasy Battle converts.

The real crux of it long term though, is that I'm not sure many of these people will buy a lot of models. Books, maybe, but most of these players don't seem like they want to ever grow into multi-hundreds of model collections that GW loves.

 Talys wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
It's almost like removing all kinds of balance ENCOURAGES the WAAC mentality instead of somehow stopping it....

I'm sure that everyone's experience and meta varies, but hat has not been my experience in my neck of the woods.

A constraint based system encourages players to push the rules to the limits. Removing the constraints forces players to find their own equilibrium and fun. Sure, if you live somewhere that everyone wants to play the most powerful armies that's just fine, *as long as both players want this*. In this case, it's just herohammer, which is what I like anyhow (mostly because the only fantasy models I want to paint are the super premium ones).

Where the system dies is when HALF the players want superpowerful armies, and the other half wants to play grunts. OR when half the players want to list for advantage and the other half wants to list for fluff or fun. But that's no different than Magic: A super deck against a for-fun favorite pretty cards deck makes for a lousy game. In the end, people in AoS need to find like-minded opponents. Which is no different than any other game.

In the small number of people I've seen really take to AoS (couple dozen or so), it isn't the supercheese crowd, nor the super-competitive crowd. About half seem to like Sigmarites, a big chunk enjoy the not-very-many core rules aspect, some enjoy the campaign booms, and a couple are Fantasy Battle converts.

The real crux of it long term though, is that I'm not sure many of these people will buy a lot of models. Books, maybe, but most of these players don't seem like they want to ever grow into multi-hundreds of model collections that GW loves.

This has been my experience as well. I've seen no interest from WAAC players, although to be fair, I'm not sure we have any that would fit that description in our group. I guess they'd be more common at an FLGS? So far I'm the only player buying any of the new stuff, the others already have one or more big WHFB armies and have no need for another one. It'll be very interesting to see what happens when the old races start getting redone. Will these people buy those models? I don't know.

The evidence of the recent AoS weekend in Nottingham is that most people used moderate armies but a few used what could be called cheesy armies, but they did not seem to be TFG kind of people.

As far as this means anything it is that WAAC gamers are a small minority, but that has always been true in 40K as well.

I don't see it as a major benefit or failing of AoS. It is an aspect of human psychology rather than a specific game.