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.

Aye, a lot of against AoS players tend to discuss points about balancing and points systems while from what Ive seen they don't actually make hate threads whilst we get a lot of passive aggressive pro threads that are half OP content actually about AoS and the rest are about the people who don't like it.

I mean its not like anti AoS people can go around saying "you don't like it move on, go away, the game doesn't need ignorant old TFG anyway. Tournament players are everything wrong with tabletop" and all the other points Ive seen the past few weeks.

We had a discussion a few weeks ago where it was pointed out that you don't actually see many comments from people who don't like AoS in threads like "AoS army builds" or "What do you choose in said scenario" they generally only comment when OP's bait them with threads with titles that take a smug or aggressive tone towards players who don't like the system. Constantly reigniting the flame war for fun I guess, or to feel superior. The way the new supporters have been treating long time fantasy players who are either slow to adapt or just don't like the system is whats been shocking. Its got the air of new ownership where they have, instead of been given time to look back on fantasies loss have been constantly reminded how great AoS is, how much better it is, how it gets rid of the toxic community, how all those annoying tourniment players are now crying and how funny it is. A shocking lack of respect all round. Who likes to be made out as been a toxic, no fun allowed TFG player just for liking warhammer, not liking AoS or the most horrid crime of all, playing to win.

I still remember the comment from that guy basically saying he was happy AoS killed off the tournament play of warhammer because he personally didn't like playing tournament players and was happy they had their "toys taken away"

So maybe in the next few weeks we can get threads just about AoS without any passive aggressive tone, diminishing the other sides opinions or any bait titles and wording. I doubt people who even hate AoS would feel any need to comment there as they don't like the system anyway so discussing tactics wouldn't appeal to them. When they're not been baited of course. As not an AoS fan myself I wouldn't have even taken notice of this thread if it didn't read like it was written in a mocking dripping with sarcastic tone. Some players had an AoS tourni and had fun, great why has it got to be all "ohh they had funn, how is this possible!! everyones supposed to hate itttt oh dearrrr" and im just thinking Jesus

@Swastakowey: the impression i have gotten from reading these threads has been the exact opposite...
the angry WFB players seem to have been much more aggressive...
i guess both sides feel victimized...

@los pollos hermanos: the sarcasm comes from the anti-AoS people having been so vocally judgemental...
i completely disagree with any claim that the critics only comment because they are baited...
maybe we are reading thing differently because we are coming from opposite perspectives...

cheers
jah

 jah-joshua wrote:
@Swastakowey: the impression i have gotten from reading these threads has been the exact opposite...
the angry WFB players seem to have been much more aggressive...
i guess both sides feel victimized...

@los pollos hermanos: the sarcasm comes from the anti-AoS people having been so vocally judgemental...
i completely disagree with any claim that the critics only comment because they are baited...
maybe we are reading thing differently because we are coming from opposite perspectives...

cheers
jah

Can you please give examples of those who dislike AOS being rude or offensive to others? Because I don't see it...

Meanwhile we have had a few threads like this (which has already been mod edited to remove the nastiness that usually comes with threads like that)

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/661596.page

And oh what a surprise, another pro AOS thread was locked due to pro AOS nastiness.

The nastiness is very much one sided.



I think Los Pollos has the right idea.

@Swastakowey:

"And oh what a surprise, another pro AOS thread was locked due to pro AOS nastiness. "

that is exactly the same tone as the title of this thread, yet the OP gets called passive-aggressive...
how is your comment any different???

do you think that the thread you linked was created out of thin air and paranoia, or the fact that the AoS fans are feeling victimized???

i could quote some of the rude things that you have posted yourself in these threads, but that would make it personal...
we are just going to have to accept that we see things completely opposite from one another, and accept that neither side is innocent...

i have no interest in starting an argument with you...
i was just stating, in response to someone elses post, that i have a different impression of what has been going down in these threads that last 6 weeks...
he defended his opinion quite well in the first post of this page...
let's leave it at that...

cheers
jah

 jah-joshua wrote:
@Swastakowey:

"And oh what a surprise, another pro AOS thread was locked due to pro AOS nastiness. "

that is exactly the same tone as the title of this thread, yet the OP gets called passive-aggressive...
how is your comment any different???

do you think that the thread you linked was created out of thin air and paranoia, or the fact that the AoS fans are feeling victimized???

i could quote some of the rude things that you have posted yourself in these threads, but that would make it personal...
we are just going to have to accept that we see things completely opposite from one another, and accept that neither side is innocent...

i have no interest in starting an argument with you...
i was just stating, in response to someone elses post, that i have a different impression of what has been going down in these threads that last 6 weeks...
he defended his opinion quite well in the first post of this page...
let's leave it at that...

cheers
jah

My tone? Well my tone was different because I didn't insult mods, people or anything. I was stating the truth, that another thread was locked due to nastiness from a certain group.

That thread was created because someone wants an echo chamber.

Please quote some rude things I said in the AOS forums. Go on...

Well yes, of course we see things differently, just one of us is wrong by the looks of it.

 Swastakowey wrote:

 jah-joshua wrote:
@Swastakowey:

"And oh what a surprise, another pro AOS thread was locked due to pro AOS nastiness. "

that is exactly the same tone as the title of this thread, yet the OP gets called passive-aggressive...
how is your comment any different???

do you think that the thread you linked was created out of thin air and paranoia, or the fact that the AoS fans are feeling victimized???

i could quote some of the rude things that you have posted yourself in these threads, but that would make it personal...
we are just going to have to accept that we see things completely opposite from one another, and accept that neither side is innocent...

i have no interest in starting an argument with you...
i was just stating, in response to someone elses post, that i have a different impression of what has been going down in these threads that last 6 weeks...
he defended his opinion quite well in the first post of this page...
let's leave it at that...

cheers
jah

My tone? Well my tone was different because I didn't insult mods, people or anything. I was stating the truth, that another thread was locked due to nastiness from a certain group.

That thread was created because someone wants an echo chamber.

Please quote some rude things I said in the AOS forums. Go on...

Well yes, of course we see things differently, just one of us is wrong by the looks of it.

You seem to ignore Jah joshua's comment and how you pick on people saying they are passive aggressive and yet you go ahead and do the same thing as well. Jah-joshua was very fair in his comment and actually said that both sides thought they were victimised, and perhaps were rude with each other without knowing it and yet you come in and show everyone how obnoxious you were while trying to claim pity.

On a side note, I think this event was really great because of the hosts and how he went out of his way in the end to check up with the players and get feedback. AoS is a friendly game but when expanded upon can be used for tournaments which I find quite interesting as many places would have their very own houserules as well.

Im not claiming pity, I am refuting their claims of pity. They are claiming pity while their threads are being locked for obvious reasons.

Also I don't think Passive Aggressive is being used in the right context here, because what I said was not passive aggressive (well not by any of the definations I read anyway).

Nobody in the "AOS haters" or "whiners" has called anyone man children, nor have they called anyone "toolfethers" etc. (The list is extensive from one side).

The actual aggression and hate is almost entirely from one side. To say other wise is pretty incorrect. It has nothing to do with point of views.

"Good riddance to those competitive players," doesn't foster a lot of good feelings.

@Swastakowey: you misread me, mate...
i was asking how your quoted comment was any different from the title of this thread which los pollos called passive-aggressive...
the sarcasm was exactly the same...

cheers
jah

 jah-joshua wrote:
@Swastakowey: you misread me, mate...
i was asking how your quoted comment was any different from the title of this thread which los pollos called passive-aggressive...
the sarcasm was exactly the same...

cheers
jah

No it wasn't exactly the same. At all.

My comment was in no way negative towards anyone (unless you count pointing out what one side consistently does is negative?). It also happens to be that my comment was about something that, unlike in the OP, actually happens (as evident by this very thread and the link provided). I was not being condescending like the OP, nor was I flaming (only to conveniently leave afterwards) to obviously try get attention for something.

Please explain to me how what I said is anything like what the OP said?

how many times are we going to go around in this off-topic circle???
again, you misread me...
i was very specifically referencing the title of this thread...

"60 folks showed up at an Age of Sigmar Tournament and had...FUN?!" is mild sarcasm, and in no way negative towards anyone...

"And oh what a surprise, another pro AoS thread was locked due to pro AoS nastiness.", is also sarcasm...
in fact, the thread you linked was not a pro AoS thread, but a question about why mods are allowing AoS bashing, to which they rightfully responded that people are allowed to voice their opinion, no matter which side of the fence they stand on...

cheers
jah

 jah-joshua wrote:
how many times are we going to go around in this off-topic circle???
again, you misread me...
i was very specifically referencing the title of this thread...

"60 folks showed up at an Age of Sigmar Tournament and had...FUN?!" is mild sarcasm, and in no way negative towards anyone...

"And oh what a surprise, another pro AoS thread was locked due to pro AoS nastiness.", is also sarcasm...
in fact, the thread you linked was not a pro AoS thread, but a question about why mods are allowing AoS bashing, to which they rightfully responded that people are allowed to voice their opinion, no matter which side of the fence they stand on...

cheers
jah

Ok cool, but his sarcasm is actually negative when it gets to the condescending "like the internet will have you believe". It implies a hive mind reaction of fact less opinion for those who are do not like the game (despite the fact nobody is saying AOS can't be fun). So yes the OP is being negative towards another group. Which was part of my original point.

Yes and the person who made it is very much a pro AOS user, that person is also one of the users who had more moderation done than most. That's why I used that example.

not liking the game is an opinion...
there are no facts in a judgement call...
someone either likes the game, or they don't, and both will shape their argument to fit their perspective...
nobody is right or wrong, but both sides have said some things they shouldn't have over the last 6 weeks...

my opinion is that the OP was being sarcastic, not negative, but nothing i say will change your mind, and you are not going to change mine, so we can just call it a draw...

cheers
jah

 MWHistorian wrote:
"Good riddance to those competitive players," doesn't foster a lot of good feelings.

It would amusing as a comment in a thread whose topic is the fun to be had in an AoS tournament using a comp system and objectives.

More importantly, there is a difference between criticising a game and criticising people because of their views on a game.

Let's all stick to the topic.

...and yet people who are very clear on how bad they think AoS is and repeatedly state they have no intention of ever playing it still feel somehow entitled to weigh in on AoS discussion, but don't feel the need to drop into other sub-forums to inform people how bad their preferred gaming system is.

The whole point of a forum is discussion, but there's a difference between valid debate and chiming in to do nothing more than piddle on someone's parade. Because that get's people's backs up, and that's when the ad hominem starts. On BOTH sides.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is ample evidence AoS is selling, and people are enjoying playing it, whether vanilla or house ruled.

The issue those who support AoS are having is that those who dislike the game keep saying things like the game is "shallow" "slowed" or is for people who "don't want to think about what they're doing and just throw their dice around"

These are attacks against the game itself, which is fine. You don't like it, you have your opinion, I can't stop you. However, they are also direct inferences about the mindset of those who do enjoy the game and their mental competency.

Every thread in here that involves a discussion on the merits of flaws in the game has instances of people using similar verbiage to make points whilst keeping themselves protected by the rules of the forum because their attacks only infer that the players share the same traits instead of outright saying they do. It is a method used in politics and debates to frazzle your opponent into getting upset and either lashing out, or forgetting their counterpoints.

So yes, you will see more pro AoS people being moded or having threads locked. Those same people are still forced to look at the sideways attack that pushed them to begin insulting those who made it because of the "clever" way they were able to get around the rules themselves.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
The issue those who support AoS are having is that those who dislike the game keep saying things like the game is "shallow" "slowed" or is for people who "don't want to think about what they're doing and just throw their dice around"

That last one was said by me and wasn't meant as an attack. Many AOS supporters have said so themselves. It just depends on what you want out of a game. AOS is less complicated and more simple than other wargames. Sorry, but that can't really be argued against. It's not bad or good. It just is. Depends on what the player wants.

I've explained that several times.
Perhaps the problem isn't the people offering criticism of the game, but you taking offense at someone not liking a game you like?

 MWHistorian wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
The issue those who support AoS are having is that those who dislike the game keep saying things like the game is "shallow" "slowed" or is for people who "don't want to think about what they're doing and just throw their dice around"

That last one was said by me and wasn't meant as an attack. Many AOS supporters have said so themselves. It just depends on what you want out of a game. AOS is less complicated and more simple than other wargames. Sorry, but that can't really be argued against. It's not bad or good. It just is. Depends on what the player wants.

I've explained that several times.
Perhaps the problem isn't the people offering criticism of the game, but you taking offense at someone not liking a game you like?

From my viewpoint, there seems to be a lot of condescension coming from those who don't like the game. I like the game. Saying that I 'don't want to think about what I'm doing and just throw my dice around' is kind of insulting. I do like to think about what I'm doing. That's why I'm thoughtful about looking at what my opponent deploys and make careful decisions about what I deploy in return. I am thoughtful about choosing units that combo with each other. I am thoughtful about which units I attack and where I move. I am thoughtful about how to use terrain to my advantage and when to run away from combat. I'm honestly not sure where the idea that no thought is required comes from. Saying no thought is required makes you sound very dismissive and insulting, which I'm sure is not your intent.

Age of Sigmar is no more a child's game than 8th Edition was. It's just far easier to learn than 8th Edition.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
The issue those who support AoS are having is that those who dislike the game keep saying things like the game is "shallow" "slowed" or is for people who "don't want to think about what they're doing and just throw their dice around"

That last one was said by me and wasn't meant as an attack. Many AOS supporters have said so themselves. It just depends on what you want out of a game. AOS is less complicated and more simple than other wargames. Sorry, but that can't really be argued against. It's not bad or good. It just is. Depends on what the player wants.

I've explained that several times.
Perhaps the problem isn't the people offering criticism of the game, but you taking offense at someone not liking a game you like?

But that is exactly the issue, you may not mean it as an attack, but it certainly is one. What tone could you possibly have if you told someone to their face that if all they want to do is throw dice around without thinking too much, then sure you can enjoy this game besides one of derision and condescension?

That is where the insults lie from the perspective of those on this side.

Just because you take offence at something doesn't make it offensive.


It really does feel like people here are starting to take things a bit personally. A criticism of the game is in no way a criticism of the people playing it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

RoperPG wrote:
...and yet people who are very clear on how bad they think AoS is and repeatedly state they have no intention of ever playing it still feel somehow entitled to weigh in on AoS discussion.

While I'm at it I have a problem with the wording of this.

You're damn right I feel entitled to comment on this. As long as I am not breaking any rules, nor trying to drag a conversation off topic, I sure as hell feel entitled to comment on any thread on this forum. That is the whole point of visiting it.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
The issue those who support AoS are having is that those who dislike the game keep saying things like the game is "shallow" "slowed" or is for people who "don't want to think about what they're doing and just throw their dice around"

That last one was said by me and wasn't meant as an attack. Many AOS supporters have said so themselves. It just depends on what you want out of a game. AOS is less complicated and more simple than other wargames. Sorry, but that can't really be argued against. It's not bad or good. It just is. Depends on what the player wants.

I've explained that several times.
Perhaps the problem isn't the people offering criticism of the game, but you taking offense at someone not liking a game you like?

The core rules are simple and straightforward and easy to learn, which I think is part of the draw for some AoS players (conversely a detractor for others).

But that doesn't mean the game is shallow or slowed, or whatever adjective, because the depth comes in what you do with those rules, and the hundreds of pages of special rules, and how you choose to play the game.

I believe that the nature of the rules and game will attract people who are looking for a simple and straightforward game, and don't desire any additional depth, simply because they only want occasional play. It will also attract some people who want something else out of it, too; but these two segments may not necessarily make ideal play partners, which is no different than any other game.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Just because you take offence at something doesn't make it offensive.

That is entirely wrong, and why people are becoming aggressive. People aren't stating opinions in a vacuum, most of the descriptions of why they don't like the game include language where they insult the mental capacity of those that do by attributing mental deficiencies to the game it cannot itself possess. A game cannot be "slowed" or "just want to throw dice around without thinking" those are descriptors used for people. And since some are saying they enjoy the game, you are second handedly attributing those traits to them.

To quote Talladega nights, "just because you say 'with all due respect' doesn't mean you can say whatever you want to me!"

Its funny because I was quoting people who said that very thing in defense of AOS and somehow its an attack.

If you feel like people attacking a game is offending you then you are turtling up. It usually happens when someone makes something too much of their identity and it gets to the point that when someone attacks that form of media or art or hobby it is so much of what you view as your personality you take it personally and lash out.

So when someone says AOS is simple (which, even players who like it say is a defining trait of the game) they aren't calling you simple. You need to understand that you are not the game. Then maybe you guys will stop taking game criticism so personally and instead see it as criticism of a game you happen to play.

Doing this will result in you being more happy when someone disagrees with you.

 Swastakowey wrote:
If you feel like people attacking a game is offending you then you are turtling up. It usually happens when someone makes something too much of their identity and it gets to the point that when someone attacks that form of media or art or hobby it is so much of what you view as your personality you take it personally and lash out.

So when someone says AOS is simple (which, even players who like it say is a defining trait of the game) they aren't calling you simple. You need to understand that you are not the game. Then maybe you guys will stop taking game criticism so personally and instead see it as criticism of a game you happen to play.

Doing this will result in you being more happy when someone disagrees with you.

You have a point, generally speaking.

Online, though, people can be much more hostile: for instance, labelling a game or company is stupid, and implying that people who buy or play such products aren't too bright. Obviously, most people don't think they're dumb, or that their form of the hobby is stupid.

Specifically, as to AoS, that the core rules are simple is pretty factual, and not a bad thing; in comparison, I think both WMH and 40k have rules that are overly complicated, especially in the context of people who enjoy wargaming but don't play it that regularly (you spend too much time looking up rules, or forgetting about them). As you say, it's a defining trait of the game. Some of the best games ever written have very simple rules (like Go).

But the entire game isn't necessarily so simple. It can be, if you and your group want it to be, or it can have a lot more thought and depth strategically as there are many interesting ways to use units and synergies between them that requires exploration and experience beyond the casual. Or, it can be a very involved game from a storytelling perspective. Like any game, AoS works badly when people with different objectives try to make it work together; so someone who wants to play the occasional game here and there, another person who really wants to parade beautiful models, someone who wants to follow the AoS primary storyline, another person who wants to invent their own, and someone who wants to delve into the use of units, factions and their special abilities and wants a strategic challenge may all be better off gaming with people who are looking for the same thing as them.

Frankly, this is the main reason I game with the same group of friends. If I just play with random people at the store, there's such a high likelihood that they're just after something different than me, and wargaming is so time consuming that I don't want to waste my time playing with someone who just wants to essentially play a different game with the same rules.

Considering most of the anti AoS players were saying that there's nothing wrong with implementing optional rules to allow tournament play, which is what this thread is about a first run AoS mini tournament and yet a few days or weeks prior all we had from the pro side was

"AoS doesn't need tournament style rules!"
"It restricts player freedom!"
"Tournament play is what made 8th toxic!"
"Tournament players only want to win they ruined the game!"
"anyone who likes tournmant is just a TFG"

And now pro AoS are praising how great playing AoS is in a tournament set up and then somehow try to rub it in anti AoS players as if its a victory for AoS when thats the very thing most of us were asking for in the first place, things like erm points systems and other ways to let people play tournaments hell we have a thread called "points?! who needs em" wheres the "AoS! who needs it, its trash" thread? thats right we don't make those kind of threads. You won't find hate threads from the anti AoS people on the first page or many others.

So tournament play even mentioned made people go nuts and start calling everyone TFG or out to win or out to suck the fun out of gaming or part of a toxic and failed past and now you're praising an AoS mini tournament as a success.

Make up your minds. We're not going to sit around all the time been AoS's punching bag to make the game feel better than it is by belittling people who don't like it in every thread about the game.
I have a challenge for people, anyone who makes an AoS thread try doing it without belittling the people who don't like the game and just talk about the game itself. You might just find, you won't get people been offended all the time when you stop calling them toxic losers from a bygone era.

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
Especially considering most of the anti AoS players were saying that there's nothing wrong with implementing optional rules to allow tournament play, which is what this thread is about a first run AoS mini tournament and yet a few days or weeks prior all we had from the pro side was

"AoS doesn't need tournament style rules!"
"It restricts player freedom!"
"Tournament play is what made 8th toxic!"
"Tournament players only want to win they ruined the game!"

And now pro AoS are praising how great playing AoS is in a tournament set up. Make up your minds.

Like I just said, it's all about finding like-minded gamers: people who want the same thing out of a game (ANY game) as you.

In most of the past, most people were referring to pickup games. All of the advantages of AoS with respect to no points and the problems with competitive players is relative to people who don't want a more relaxed, "bring what you want, play what you want type of play, and using Rules as Written.

It doesn't mean that you can't take AoS, bolt on a comp system and play a tournament (and have fun) if you prefer to do that kind of thing. By the same token, nothing stops you from throwing away the whole WMH or 40k point system and just playing it based on what you perceive as balance.

However...

How the game is WRITTEN will attract the players looking for that sort of game. So if a game shuns competitive, tournament types, there will be *fewer* competitive players and fewer tournaments. If a game is a great competitive game, it will attract more of those sorts of people, and the likelihood of running into them when you play a game will be higher.

Likewise, if most of the material for a game that comes out follows a story line, then the people who buy into the game will have a large number that enjoy that story line. Not *everyone*, but a lot of the fans will be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:
Make up your minds. We're not going to sit around all the time been AoS's punching bag to make the game feel better than it is by belittling people who don't like it in every thread about the game.
I have a challenge for people, anyone who makes an AoS thread try doing it without belittling the people who don't like the game and just talk about the game itself. You might just find, you won't get people been offended all the time when you stop calling them toxic losers from a bygone era.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I like AoS (as in, I enjoy it), and I've never called anyone who prefers any other game, or style of play, anything remotely like a toxic loser from a bygone era >.<

I can say that for ANY tabletop wargame, I no longer enjoy playing against ultracompetitive tournament types. It doesn't mean I have anything against them; I would just rather play with someone interested in nice models, an interesting scenario that had thought and preparation beyond what would be found at a tournament, and relative army parity at Turn 1.

 Talys wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
If you feel like people attacking a game is offending you then you are turtling up. It usually happens when someone makes something too much of their identity and it gets to the point that when someone attacks that form of media or art or hobby it is so much of what you view as your personality you take it personally and lash out.

So when someone says AOS is simple (which, even players who like it say is a defining trait of the game) they aren't calling you simple. You need to understand that you are not the game. Then maybe you guys will stop taking game criticism so personally and instead see it as criticism of a game you happen to play.

Doing this will result in you being more happy when someone disagrees with you.

You have a point, generally speaking.

Online, though, people can be much more hostile: for instance, labelling a game or company is stupid, and implying that people who buy or play such products aren't too bright. Obviously, most people don't think they're dumb, or that their form of the hobby is stupid.

Specifically, as to AoS, that the core rules are simple is pretty factual, and not a bad thing; in comparison, I think both WMH and 40k have rules that are overly complicated, especially in the context of people who enjoy wargaming but don't play it that regularly (you spend too much time looking up rules, or forgetting about them). As you say, it's a defining trait of the game. Some of the best games ever written have very simple rules (like Go).

Is it implying that people who buy from a stupid company are stupid as a result? Because it feels like you made that company your identity and are now annoyed that your identity is being labeled as stupid. I think the price of cheese is stupid, I don't consider myself silly for buying it, because cheese is pretty important to eat sometimes and it can last a long time. However the price does not need to be the height it is. Are you saying I am implying that I am a stupid man for buying cheese? The same can be said for Petrol and many other things I think are badly priced. Or when a Movie Series I like starts to suck and I say the director is stupid, this does not mean I am implying the people who watch his films are stupid (especially since I just mentioned I liked his previous movies).

I haven't played warmachine, but 40k is not complicated, it's just poorly formatted. Which makes remembering rules a pain, finding them a pain and then finding them in game a pain. But the rules themselves are not comples.

But the entire game isn't necessarily so simple. It can be, if you and your group want it to be, or it can have a lot more thought and depth strategically as there are many interesting ways to use units and synergies between them that requires exploration and experience beyond the casual. Or, it can be a very involved game from a storytelling perspective. Like any game, AoS works badly when people with different objectives try to make it work together; so someone who wants to play the occasional game here and there, another person who really wants to parade beautiful models, someone who wants to follow the AoS primary storyline, another person who wants to invent their own, and someone who wants to delve into the use of units, factions and their special abilities and wants a strategic challenge may all be better off gaming with people who are looking for the same thing as them.

Frankly, this is the main reason I game with the same group of friends. If I just play with random people at the store, there's such a high likelihood that they're just after something different than me, and wargaming is so time consuming that I don't want to waste my time playing with someone who just wants to essentially play a different game with the same rules.

What does this have to do with anything?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Talys wrote:


In most of the past, most people were referring to pickup games. All of the advantages of AoS with respect to no points and the problems with competitive players is relative to people who don't want a more relaxed, "bring what you want, play what you want type of play, and using Rules as Written.

This is exactly what most players want...

I don't take criticisms of a game personally, but when the statements mentioned above come with a "... But if you enjoy that kind of game, then you are entitled to that opinion."

That is a veiled insult, and it's the exact type of thing I was referring to.

I never disagreed that tournaments can be had, what I disagree whole hartedly with are the people saying the game is unplayable without points and shouldn't even be considered for pickup games. That viewpoint IS toxic, and entirely false. Those are the comments that bother me.

In regards to the purchasing of cheese, if you had never bought cheese, and went to the store and everyone there with cheese spent the whole time telling you that cheese is over priced and not as good as it used to be. Would you bother picking up cheese?

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I don't take criticisms of a game personally, but when the statements mentioned above come with a "... But if you enjoy that kind of game, then you are entitled to that opinion."

That is a veiled insult, and it's the exact type of thing I was referring to.

I never disagreed that tournaments can be had, what I disagree whole hartedly with are the people saying the game is unplayable without points and shouldn't even be considered for pickup games. That viewpoint IS toxic, and entirely false. Those are the comments that bother me.

In regards to the purchasing of cheese, if you had never bought cheese, and went to the store and everyone there with cheese spent the whole time telling you that cheese is over priced and not as good as it used to be. Would you bother picking up cheese?

Ummm, no it's not. Saying a game is simple, but it's ok if you like that kind of thing is not a veiled insult. Again, you are taking it personally for no reason.

Most people criticise this game for the rules AND the lack of points which makes the rules even worse (by rules I mean the most common, like line of site rules or measuring from the models and many more). The view that this game has revolutionized the gaming world and is something new and amazing above it's competitors however is toxic, because AOS brings nothing new (except sigmarines, if you can call them new) and ultimately shows a lack of experience in other games. I have seen some people dislike the lack of points system and have mentioned the problems that can result from a lack of points, and apparently the solution, according to some, is to not play dirt bags... I wonder which view point is more toxic. The one that decries a group dirt bags or the group that looks at rules to help close the gap between different play styles?

If I never had cheese, and many people warned against it, then no I would not buy cheese. Why? Because if it's that bad to warrant that kind of reaction, I would avoid it and try another food for the money. Which I hope people do when they google AOS and find a game with very polarized ratings.