Giving Age of Sigmar a Second Look (Long!)

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.

**RoperPG**

http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2015/09/30
Seemed appropriate...

Played a game last night, Stormcast V Stormcast.
I was outnumbered by about 20% on model count, even more on wounds.

I won because I played the scenario, and this has been the case with every game I've played, win or lose.
Model/wound/whatever count obviously have an effect on the game, but the winner is normally the player who plays the scenario.

Obviously for a lot of people balance is an issue, but from my experience if you stick to scenarios it rarely seems to have as marked an effect as people think. I actively discourage my opponents from 'toning down' their army to match mine, and with one exception in the games I have lost Ibwas able to identify at least one thing I did 'wrong' that lost me the game, rather than my opponent having more stuff than me.

Your view may vary.

**Sarouan**

Oh, not really. Sure, there are people who have a grudge against GW, but not all critics feel that way. Playing the scenario is fine, but it depends from the scenario. Also, if you play against a clever opponent, he will also play the scenario but with advantages of his numbers. There are limits of what you can do by taking a lot less than your opponent, unless you play a specific scenario made for it.

But that means making house-made rules. Again.

About balance, it's an old debate. Honestly, I'm talking more about tools given to the players so that they can have an easier way to get "an interesting game". GW's view with AoS is interesting, by giving all the power to players. The double edge is that if it's left entirely to players, then they will more likely use their own "house made" rules so that games are more suited to their style.

That makes things complicated when they want to play with someone not already in their game circle and used to it. It thus takes more time to get the balance right and have an interesting game.

Danger is that players just stay in their comfort zone and don't try to play with "strangers" - like in tournaments or just at the store. They wouldn't take the risk to "lose their time" with someone who can be a "TFG" in disguise or something.

And that's an argument I already read on this forum.

Point cost systems have the advantage to be in the core rules, so that's already a tool to "make something more or less balanced". The trouble is that it has to be well done and reviewed regularly. GW totally sucks at that, because they don't really put their mind into game rules (especially now). That's not their purpose, after all. To be frank, I would say they should call themselves "Warhammer Collectors". It's much closer to the truth, IMHO.

AoS is a fine game if you don't play it seriously - I mean, about rules. You just need to agree with your opponent a bit more than usual in comparison to others games more "strict" on rule writing, that's all. The main difference is that in those games, you can also make your own scenarios and house-made rules if you wish so...but you're not forced to do it if you want to play "pick up games".

**Deadnight**

Sarouan wrote:
Oh, not really. Sure, there are people who have a grudge against GW, but not all critics feel that way. Playing the scenario is fine, but it depends from the scenario. Also, if you play against a clever opponent, he will also play the scenario but with advantages of his numbers. There are limits of what you can do by taking a lot less than your opponent, unless you play a specific scenario made for it.

But that means making house-made rules. Again.

About balance, it's an old debate. Honestly, I'm talking more about tools given to the players so that they can have an easier way to get "an interesting game". GW's view with AoS is interesting, by giving all the power to players. The double edge is that if it's left entirely to players, then they will more likely use their own "house made" rules so that games are more suited to their style.

That makes things complicated when they want to play with someone not already in their game circle and used to it. It thus takes more time to get the balance right and have an interesting game.

Danger is that players just stay in their comfort zone and don't try to play with "strangers" - like in tournaments or just at the store. They wouldn't take the risk to "lose their time" with someone who can be a "TFG" in disguise or something.

And that's an argument I already read on this forum.

Point cost systems have the advantage to be in the core rules, so that's already a tool to "make something more or less balanced". The trouble is that it has to be well done and reviewed regularly. GW totally sucks at that, because they don't really put their mind into game rules (especially now). That's not their purpose, after all. To be frank, I would say they should call themselves "Warhammer Collectors". It's much closer to the truth, IMHO.

AoS is a fine game if you don't play it seriously - I mean, about rules. You just need to agree with your opponent a bit more than usual in comparison to others games more "strict" on rule writing, that's all. The main difference is that in those games, you can also make your own scenarios and house-made rules if you wish so...but you're not forced to do it if you want to play "pick up games".

Exalted. Agreed with you entirely.

Jack Flask wrote:

The problem with 40k is not just some instances of spotty pointing, but the massive diversity present within the rules. You can run infantry hordes, tank companies, all walker forces, "spellcasters", elite MSU, shooting focused armies, melee focused armies, the list goes on... It is basically impossible to balance all of these different units and play styles while still allowing flexibility in army building. If GW did balance an entire codex on one or two play styles then it would force everything into cookie cutter builds or leading to certain units not even being made because they don't fit the archetype. This is one of the reasons that 30k is viewed as being so much better balanced, because how can it not be when outside of 2-3 special units and a few commander variants, everyone is pulling from the same pool of units.

In warmachine, I can do precisely that. I can run infantry hordes, massed armour/walkers, heavy or light magic, elite builds, shorty, melee etc. and it's far more balanced. It's not 'impossible' to do this and still allow flexibility. Let's be clear too - balanced does not mean homogenous, which is your second point.

Jack Flask wrote:

All the situations that people keep inventing of how some guy can still absolutely staunchly refuse to change his list are manufactured arguments, and it reflects more poorly on the community than it does AoS. If I ask someone to play a game and he asks me to take something out but I disagree, I'd politely and briefly explain why I disagree. If he still disagrees then I'll take it out and play. If it makes for a balanced game then I'll have gathered a better grasp of the system. If its totally one-sided and I play them with the same lists again, then I'll use that as a case to field what I originally wanted. If for whatever reason they refuse, in spite of last game, I simply won't play them and cite them crushing me last time if I ask why.

It's not manufactured. Different people with different play styles and groups with different outcomes wanting different things from the game. Compromise on what to take can work with like minded folks familiar with each other and when you have time to organise and build these scenarios, but it's difficult for pugs. Choosing not to play someone has its own consequences - in a small, niche hobby, you risk fracturing and dividing it further, and not everyone has the luxury of picking their opponents from a huge list of potential players. I am fine with building interesting scenarios with appropriate forces and objectives, but part of me is quite against the idea of someone else telling me how I should select and play my army. Aos revolves hugely around this. As I said. It's fine with mates, but you need to be honest and accept its limitations.

Jack Flask wrote:

Other games aren't AoS or 40k. Other games don't have the same amount of unit diversity or probably misguided adherence to some bizarre caricature of the lore that AoS and 40k have. And that's why me and my friends don't play those other games. I field Electro Priests despite how garbage they are because I enjoy the fluff, adore the models, and have fun watching them try to do things regardless.

That 'unit diversity' in 40k is a red herring to be fair. For all the potential options, very few of them are 'real'. Only a handful of builds ever really get played. You see more diversity in twenty 'real' valid options than ten thousand paper options of which only two or three ever see play. As to a misguided adherence to s bizarre caricature of the lore of getting games - pull your head out of the sand mate. Gw's lore doesn't deserve a free pass. A lot of it is juvenile, poorly written trash and bolter porn. Plenty other games have great lore. Privateer press lore is surprisingly excellent, as a first example. They've been writing their stuff for fifteen years now. And it's got great depth and character and is certainly not a knock of of 40k (give it a read - I genuinely recommend it), and 40k itself is nothing more than a generic fantasy setting with laser guns set in space.

Jack Flask wrote:

Seriously why do any of you spend so much time antagonizing fans of GW games if you apparently don't trust their judgement, hate their business model, and don't even like their games? Not every game needs to or even should cater to just your opinion.

Because people are allowed to have an opinion? Your Gw gsmes don't get a free pass where only people who agree with them get to post.

**jonolikespie**

Deadnight wrote:
Jack Flask wrote:

Seriously why do any of you spend so much time antagonizing fans of GW games if you apparently don't trust their judgement, hate their business model, and don't even like their games? Not every game needs to or even should cater to just your opinion.

Because people are allowed to have an opinion? Your Gw games don't get a free pass where only people who agree with them get to post.

And yet we have a thread here for 'optimists only'. I wonder how people would react if someone made a 'pessimists only' thread....

**quiestdeus**

jonolikespie wrote:
Deadnight wrote:
Jack Flask wrote:

Seriously why do any of you spend so much time antagonizing fans of GW games if you apparently don't trust their judgement, hate their business model, and don't even like their games? Not every game needs to or even should cater to just your opinion.

Because people are allowed to have an opinion? Your Gw games don't get a free pass where only people who agree with them get to post.

And yet we have a thread here for 'optimists only'. I wonder how people would react if someone made a 'pessimists only' thread....

I think it would be absolutely fan-freakin'-tastic if you created a "pessimists only" thread and limited all of your pessimistic posting to there. This sub-forum would certainly be a better place without your constant need to explain how you're here to post your opinion just because you can.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Re why people spend so much time "antagonizing fans" (? just discussing/ voicing opinions maybe?) here. It doesn't help that the company hilariously fails on so many fronts, no wonder it attracts attention imo. A clown on the street attracts attention too.

Emphasis mine: discussion ended weeks ago, at this point its more like a shouting match from the few same posters over and over again who feel the need to chime in everywhere with the same exact opinion as their singular response to everything. I have seen nothing new warranting a discussion, just an attempt to flood this forum with repetition (as if that somehow makes one's opinion closer to fact).

Plumbumbarum wrote:

Great to see that attempts on pushing the blame on critics are going strong btw. Somehow other games don't attract that much disdain, must be something wrong with people. Logic ftw.

Logic must mean something different in Poland, because in America, it is pretty logical for folks to be upset at people who continually tell them their opinion is the wrong one to have.

Edit: I mean, seriously, seriously jump back 10 pages and pick up from there... the SAME exact "discussion" exists, the "pro AoS" side changes as new folks keep coming to replace the ones who get fed up and leave the thread, yet the dissenting voices are exactly the same... say your piece then this thread really should be locked.

**Mymearan**

jonolikespie wrote:
Deadnight wrote:
Jack Flask wrote:

Seriously why do any of you spend so much time antagonizing fans of GW games if you apparently don't trust their judgement, hate their business model, and don't even like their games? Not every game needs to or even should cater to just your opinion.

Because people are allowed to have an opinion? Your Gw games don't get a free pass where only people who agree with them get to post.

And yet we have a thread here for 'optimists only'. I wonder how people would react if someone made a 'pessimists only' thread....

At least I would be overjoyed. You know what, I'd volunteer to create it for you. Just say the word.

**Lythrandire Biehrellian**

Well, this thread has gotten nowhere.

The balance is there, it is easy to attain. If you look at your 20 knights and my 20 peasant militia and feel they are balanced then you don't have the mental faculties to count up successes.

The hyperbole that people are going to have a hard time getting their games somewhat even and that people are standing around their flgs waiting to crush people with vast armies they refuse to not field in their entirety is utter rubbish.

The game is fun, easy to get started, has great models, and has significant depth when taking every possible rules interaction into account.

That is an opinion, it cannot be wrong, you may simply disagree with it. Now that I've posted it, I will leave this discussion for another week or two and see who still feels like repeating themselves.

**HawaiiMatt**

The more I play age of sigmar against new opponents, the less I'm liking the game.
IMO, the basic problem is that their are way too many freak'n units. With so many special rules, it's a really steep learning curve to know what everything does.
If neither player has a grasp of what the opponents army does, it's really tough to find a balance during deployment.

This has led to decent games against people I frequently see, and terribly lopsided games against armies and people I rarely see.

This may even out in a year or two, once most people have faced most armies and seen most of the tricks, but I don't think AoS will survive in the local group for that length of time.

IMO, AoS needs some structure to ball-park it, and get kind of close to balance.

**TrollSlayerThorak'Khun'Na**

I do agree that I find the game actually too complicated/too much to remember. It makes me wish we were in the future where you moved models around on an energized board that automatically did all the buffs etc for you. Keeping track of everything is a chore. I also wish more of the abilities were automatic and you didn't have to remember to declare them every hero phase.

**Talys**

Jack Flask wrote:
Seriously why do any of you spend so much time antagonizing fans of GW games if you apparently don't trust their judgement, hate their business model, and don't even like their games? Not every game needs to or even should cater to just your opinion.

There are people who believe screaming that GW sucks loud enough will bring it to its knees. For whatever reasons, they dislike GW, and AoS THAT much

As the vast majority of people who game in my area don't read this or other websites, certainly not beyond rumors, and the overwhelming majority of new players I've encountered haven't really looked at ANY forum, I think they're wasting their time, but it's their time to waste!

Thirty years from now, when GW is still selling space marines and space elves, they can wonder what they could have been doing instead of posting over and over again that AoS rules are for simpletons, game systems without points are ridiculous and that GW prices are obscenely high compared to Gundam suits, civil war dudes carrying bayonets. or WW2 tanks.

You only live 25,000 days, give or take. So live those days doing things you like, I say. Or bashing GW, whatever takes your fancy

**jonolikespie**

quiestdeus wrote:
jonolikespie wrote:

And yet we have a thread here for 'optimists only'. I wonder how people would react if someone made a 'pessimists only' thread....

I think it would be absolutely fan-freakin'-tastic if you created a "pessimists only" thread and limited all of your pessimistic posting to there. This sub-forum would certainly be a better place without your constant need to explain how you're here to post your opinion just because you can.

Who ever said the pessimist talk would only be in that thread?
You missed the point entirely.

The point is that if you don't want to hear certain opinion or certain people's opinion you options are to use the ignore button or try another forum.

**quiestdeus**

Jack Flask wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Plumbumbarum wrote:
Yes I never quite understood the voices saying how AoS is going to fix the playerbase by getting rid of "black hearted jocks rampaging the community for years". If enough players play AoS, the "tfgs" will come anyway and if anything, they will thrive in the environment the rules create.

...
...

It is a way to put a positive spin on not having a points system.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Yes, that was the argument, that the points system facilitated the use of cheesy lists by creating a false impression of fairness and validated the cheesemonger who could say he was simply playing by the rules.

Thus the absence of points in AoS would have the opposite effect, however it hasn't.

My own view, expressed at the time, is that a non-balanced system can be gamed if people want to game it.

To be clear, most of the people at the AoS Weekend apparently did not bring cheesy armies, so obviously people did not want to game the system all that much. However, that is largely true in 40K as well.

I'll respond to your current post as well as the post from the other thread at the same time if that's ok.

You are very clearly missing the point of what people were getting at, which Mymearan pretty much just covered. The issue that happens with 40k which is less likely to happen with AoS, is two people hearing a point number, both making lists, and then one list severely outperforms the other because they are either totally different power levels or are fundamentally incompatible.

You say that people bringing highly competitive lists to casual games doesn't happen often and I don't disagree, the bigger problem is when two people think they're bringing two even lists that absolutely aren't. This happened to two of my friends who play casual Imperial vs Tau games often. The first couple of games they played (they started just before AdMech) were incredibly one-sided in the favor of the Tau against Space Marines. After that the SM bought some newly released AdMech which did significantly better against the Tau, after which the Tau player added a riptide (he likes mech suits and wanted a riptide since he started) which pushed it back into his favor. Thus as a result the Admech player bought a Knight to match the Tau player's overall higher point (he removed stuff to field the riptide) army, and tabled him by turn 3 two games in a row. This led two the Tau player asking permission to proxy a Y'varnah which together with his riptide let him shoot the Admech player off the table by turn 3. Neither was happy with the other.

The problem with 40k is not just some instances of spotty pointing, but the massive diversity present within the rules. You can run infantry hordes, tank companies, all walker forces, "spellcasters", elite MSU, shooting focused armies, melee focused armies, the list goes on... It is basically impossible to balance all of these different units and play styles while still allowing flexibility in army building. If GW did balance an entire codex on one or two play styles then it would force everything into cookie cutter builds or leading to certain units not even being made because they don't fit the archetype. This is one of the reasons that 30k is viewed as being so much better balanced, because how can it not be when outside of 2-3 special units and a few commander variants, everyone is pulling from the same pool of units.

AoS, rules as written, asks that rather than just shuffling together X number of points you instead take a look at what each of you brought and decide on an appropriate game from there. Sure you can do that in any game but AoS asks you to do this from the start, so if someone does bring something ludicrously good then that dialogue of "hey I only have this stuff, I feel this might be a little one sided because of X" is already open.

All the situations that people keep inventing of how some guy can still absolutely staunchly refuse to change his list are manufactured arguments, and it reflects more poorly on the community than it does AoS. If I ask someone to play a game and he asks me to take something out but I disagree, I'd politely and briefly explain why I disagree. If he still disagrees then I'll take it out and play. If it makes for a balanced game then I'll have gathered a better grasp of the system. If its totally one-sided and I play them with the same lists again, then I'll use that as a case to field what I originally wanted. If for whatever reason they refuse, in spite of last game, I simply won't play them and cite them crushing me last time if I ask why.

In reality its really no different from two people showing up to play a casual 1000pt game, and one of them bringing a bare bones Tau commander, two bare firewarrior squads, and a Taun'ar Supremacy Armor. Most people would seriously question the fairness of that army, and if the player refused to use something else then they likely wouldn't see many games. Again, the one advantage of no points is it stops people from using them as a shield for refusing to actually evaluate armies, making the "2015 Eldar" issue nonexistant. It is absolutely much easier to convince someone to remove something on the basis of it being unfair when there's no illusion of points to obscure the issue.

Sarouan wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:

It is a way to put a positive spin on not having a points system.

Hm, I would rather say it's a way to stigmatize those who regret WFB rules. That's the biggest "argument" so far from AoS White Knights; WFB players were all "TFG" players who only wanted to show their victory on the corpses of their hapless opponents. And point cost system was the root of all Evil in favor of that behavior.

Yeah, right. Last event in Nottingham showed that competition didn't stop in AoS. Rules may change, players stay the same. No reason an optimizer still faithful to GW games would stop optimizing with their GW armies in AoS as well.

Oh so because people enjoy AoS and defend the reasons why they like it, they're "White Knights"? Do you even know what white knight means? I've never denied that GW makes mistakes or could do things better, just because my or other fans' list of grievances is different than yours doesn't make us some sort of shills. Also, I don't defend AoS or 40k because they are GW games, I defend them because I find them enjoyable to play.

By your definition of the term then shouldn't every jilted GW-ex who posts comments about how others should switch to Malifaux/WMH/Infinity/etc also be called a White Knight? Because honestly I find their insistence that I should drop a system I enjoy simply because of a few issues that rarely effect me to be pretty obnoxious.

Noir wrote:
chaosmarauder wrote:
I think that in tournaments - you are going to use one of those finely tuned comp systems that people are coming up with these days.

For day to day play against a random person - I'm thinking that number of wounds is just as balanced as using 40ks points system. And if you start with saying its a 'casual game' then any reasonable person isnt going to use those wounds to spam nagash or elite troops.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
And if you think about it, even with 40ks point system, all local LGS have come up with different house rules anyway - certain points, no lords of war, no flyers, or whatever

Its not unreasonable to say "we play 100 wound games here and you have to take 3 basic troops and no more than 3 heroes/monsters" or something similar

Finely tuned, that is funny. Like pointed out above you need to get out of the GW mind set. Other game don't have these issues.

Other games aren't AoS or 40k. Other games don't have the same amount of unit diversity or probably misguided adherence to some bizarre caricature of the lore that AoS and 40k have. And that's why me and my friends don't play those other games. I field Electro Priests despite how garbage they are because I enjoy the fluff, adore the models, and have fun watching them try to do things regardless.

If you want tight balance, cheaper models, or a more consistent combat scale then those games exist for you to play.

Games Workshop doesn't have to make them, and I find it hilarious how many people think they should.

Seriously why do any of you spend so much time antagonizing fans of GW games if you apparently don't trust their judgement, hate their business model, and don't even like their games? Not every game needs to or even should cater to just your opinion.

I just wanted to say this is an awesome post Jack Flask. I agree with what you are saying here!

**Bottle**

TrollSlayerThorak'Khun'Na wrote:
I do agree that I find the game actually too complicated/too much to remember. It makes me wish we were in the future where you moved models around on an energized board that automatically did all the buffs etc for you. Keeping track of everything is a chore. I also wish more of the abilities were automatic and you didn't have to remember to declare them every hero phase.

Yes! I have been making custom counters out of bitz, but I think I'm going to have to invest in the litko counters. I've forgotton a random buff at least once in every game so far.

**RoperPG**

I definitely haven't been using Warmachine counters in my AoS games.
Using the focus/fury tokens as stacking wound markers is an absolute and total pain and exceedingly inconvenient.
The multipurpose tokens you can write on with a dry-wipe pen have absolutely no practical uses I can think of in a game of AoS.

**Plumbumbarum**

[MOD EDIT - RULE #1]