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 wrote:
Wasn't an insult, it was an objective statement.

Actually I think you'll find it was a subjective statement that was also a thinly veiled insult

But then you have enough not-so-thinly veiled insults that it's not overly relevant.

"In my opinion" AOS is the worst game I've seen in a long time. It's overly simplistic, has no balance and little depth. I'm not angry about AOS. I think its ridiculous and silly, but I'm hardly angry about it. (Maybe if I had played WHFB and it had destroyed everything I loved, then sure, I'd be a little tiffed)


However....I see that it might have appeal for some and fit nicely into the kind of game they're looking for. A sweet spot, if you will.

But I don't insult people who like it by saying things like "they're jilted ex-lovers" or "irrational" or whatever.
Strange how all the personal insults always come from the pro-AOS side.

Roper, you're not a psychologist. Stop psycho analyzing people because you're not very good at it. Why don't you try arguing against their arguments and stop insulting people that disagree with you.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
"Maybe because it's on of the worst games to come out in a while"

That is a statement of opinion being put for as factual. You did not say "in my opinion" " feel that" or any number of other ways to ensure peope reading the statement aren't under the impression that you have some insurmountable evidence that validates the statement itself.

Huh? The bit you quoted specifically said "maybe". If I said "Maybe pigs can fly", would you take that as meaning I am stating as fact that pigs can fly?

But anyway, I think there's a lot of objective factual flaws in AoS that can be discussed, but obviously the overall "goodness" and "badness" of a game is subjective. Sometimes things are so obviously subjective that people don't bother saying "IMO" because it should be obviously implied that it is opinion

Personally I am of the opinion that 'ignore bases and just place a model on top of another model's base' should be counted as an OBJECTIVE flaw. That is a rule that is going to be directly responsible for damaging people's models (if there were anyone out there who hasn't houseruled it).

 MWHistorian wrote:
But I don't insult people who like it by saying things like "they're jilted ex-lovers" or "irrational" or whatever.
Strange how all the personal insults always come from the pro-AOS side.

"AOS is for people that don't want to put too much thought or effort into it and just roll dice."
"Its a game for people that don't want to think."
"AOS is like the Saints Row of gaming. Go stop thinking and blow stuff up."
"I think its for people that don't want to think too much while they play."
"It's like the Grateful Dead of Wargames. You need to be chemically inhibited to enjoy it."

Please, do continue to explain how you're not commenting on those people that like AoS.
But kudos on doing it indirectly.

RoperPG wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
But I don't insult people who like it by saying things like "they're jilted ex-lovers" or "irrational" or whatever.
Strange how all the personal insults always come from the pro-AOS side.

"AOS is for people that don't want to put too much thought or effort into it and just roll dice."
"Its a game for people that don't want to think."
"AOS is like the Saints Row of gaming. Go stop thinking and blow stuff up."
"I think its for people that don't want to think too much while they play."
"It's like the Grateful Dead of Wargames. You need to be chemically inhibited to enjoy it."

Please, do continue to explain how you're not commenting on those people that like AoS.
But kudos on doing it indirectly.

Way to have ZERO reading comprehension. And way to take sections of quotes out of context in order to distort their meaning. That's actually really dishonest of you.
When I compared it to Saints Row, I said I liked SR for the same reason, I could just shut my brain off. That wasn't an insult.
Also, I said that sometimes just throwing dice can be a good thing and I do it myself on occasion.
Also also, many AOS supporters said they liked AOS because they didn't have to think too much. For example, many have said that not agonizing about army lists and just throw down whatever you want is what draws them to AOS. Many have said that they like not having to worry about tons of rules and just have fun with friends.

Okay, the Greateful Dead quote was a bit meaner than I intended. But I was making fun of the "Beer and Pretzals" thing, as in getting drunk. It was a jab and not a real insult. Once again, it's taken out of context of the conversation around it.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Personally I am of the opinion that 'ignore bases and just place a model on top of another model's base' should be counted as an OBJECTIVE flaw. That is a rule that is going to be directly responsible for damaging people's models (if there were anyone out there who hasn't houseruled it).

The only thing it says about bases is to not include them when measuring distances. The idea that you can climb upon your opponent's base came from the idea that they don't count as part of the model, so they must be valid terrain. This isn't explicitly stated in the rules, so AoS doesn't necessarily allow or promote the idea - it just doesn't disallow it.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
"Maybe because it's on of the worst games to come out in a while"

That is a statement of opinion being put for as factual. You did not say "in my opinion" " feel that" or any number of other ways to ensure peope reading the statement aren't under the impression that you have some insurmountable evidence that validates the statement itself.

Huh? The bit you quoted specifically said "maybe". If I said "Maybe pigs can fly", would you take that as meaning I am stating as fact that pigs can fly?

But anyway, I think there's a lot of objective factual flaws in AoS that can be discussed, but obviously the overall "goodness" and "badness" of a game is subjective. Sometimes things are so obviously subjective that people don't bother saying "IMO" because it should be obviously implied that it is opinion

No, because the "maybe" attached to the statement was used as a way to highlight the validity of said statement in response to the position/question it was answering.

It is more like responding to "the sky is green" with "maybe, if the sky wasn't blue"

It is that response that gets under my skin, the statement that a game is inherently bad because you personally don't like some of the game mechanics.

I played RAW and the game is horrible in my opinion. To make the game playable you need to change it a bunch from the original way the game is meant to be played which makes it a bad game in my opinion. A good game should be able to be played as RAW and not need to be house ruled to be playable. It's not the players job to fix the rules it's the game companies job to release good rules. Play AoS as RAW and see if your opinion about the game changes. I get it you can still have fun with a bad game that's not problem, I have played some bad games in my 40 years of life and had fun. PUG are just as bad as 40k which is not a good thing when you rely on going to a game store looking for a game to play, not that 8th edition was any better. AoS is just another example of GW not knowing what the market wants.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
"Maybe because it's on of the worst games to come out in a while"

That is a statement of opinion being put for as factual. You did not say "in my opinion" " feel that" or any number of other ways to ensure peope reading the statement aren't under the impression that you have some insurmountable evidence that validates the statement itself.

Huh? The bit you quoted specifically said "maybe". If I said "Maybe pigs can fly", would you take that as meaning I am stating as fact that pigs can fly?

But anyway, I think there's a lot of objective factual flaws in AoS that can be discussed, but obviously the overall "goodness" and "badness" of a game is subjective. Sometimes things are so obviously subjective that people don't bother saying "IMO" because it should be obviously implied that it is opinion

No, because the "maybe" attached to the statement was used as a way to highlight the validity of said statement in response to the position/question it was answering.

It is more like responding to "the sky is green" with "maybe, if the sky wasn't blue"

It is that response that gets under my skin, the statement that a game is inherently bad because you personally don't like some of the game mechanics.

Well then your assertion that what he said was stated as fact rather than opinion is entirely based on how you inferred the tone of what was written.

I didn't read the "maybe" as a way to highlight the factual nature of the following statement but rather as a way to offer an alternative solution that is contrary to the one previously presented.

Your example "maybe, if the sky wasn't blue" is flawed because it is not written using the same structure and it is something inherently factual opposed to something you inferred was factual.

You can let it get under your skin or you can accept that maybe it wasn't (or hell, maybe it was!) written with the tone you inferred when you first read it.

What gets under my skin is people who put words in other peoples' mouths, Swasty did not say anything that = "{the} game is inherently bad because you personally don't like some of the game mechanics." (maybe he did elsewhere, but not in the post you quoted, so find a new quote or stop putting words in peoples' mouths).

I've only played it rules as written, and have had no issues whatsoever. None.

What was so wrong with the game, may I ask? How was the terrain placed? Was your opponent (or yourself) intent on showing how bad the system could be? I have seen some people who were deliberately trying to make the game as broken as possible to prove their point, which is literally against the rules.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
"Maybe because it's on of the worst games to come out in a while"

That is a statement of opinion being put for as factual. You did not say "in my opinion" " feel that" or any number of other ways to ensure peope reading the statement aren't under the impression that you have some insurmountable evidence that validates the statement itself.

Huh? The bit you quoted specifically said "maybe". If I said "Maybe pigs can fly", would you take that as meaning I am stating as fact that pigs can fly?

But anyway, I think there's a lot of objective factual flaws in AoS that can be discussed, but obviously the overall "goodness" and "badness" of a game is subjective. Sometimes things are so obviously subjective that people don't bother saying "IMO" because it should be obviously implied that it is opinion

No, because the "maybe" attached to the statement was used as a way to highlight the validity of said statement in response to the position/question it was answering.

It is more like responding to "the sky is green" with "maybe, if the sky wasn't blue"

It is that response that gets under my skin, the statement that a game is inherently bad because you personally don't like some of the game mechanics.

Well then your assertion that what he said was stated as fact rather than opinion is entirely based on how you inferred the tone of what was written.

I didn't read the "maybe" as a way to highlight the factual nature of the following statement but rather as a way to offer an alternative solution that is contrary to the one previously presented.

Your example "maybe, if the sky wasn't blue" is flawed because it is not written using the same structure and it is something inherently factual opposed to something you inferred was factual.

You can let it get under your skin or you can accept that maybe it wasn't (or hell, maybe it was!) written with the tone you inferred when you first read it.

What gets under my skin is people who put words in other peoples' mouths, Swasty did not say anything that = "{the} game is inherently bad because you personally don't like some of the game mechanics." (maybe he did elsewhere, but not in the post you quoted, so find a new quote or stop putting words in peoples' mouths).

He has stated repeatedly what he doesn't like about AoS, that is fine. Him repeatedly saying afterwards that the game is bad as though it were truth is not. Also, your example to your perceived meaning included something that was inherently false (maybe pigs can fly) so how about this example as a breakdown of conversation.

"I like chipotle."
"I don't like chipotle."
"Why don't you like chipotle?"
"Maybe because it is the worst resteraunt to come out in a while"

See there, it isn't being presented as an opinion, it is a statement that is purely subjective being put forth as an objective truth.

Opinions are like donkey-caves. Everybody's got one. It what you do with it that decides whether people are having a good time or requesting a restraining order.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
"I like chipotle."
"I don't like chipotle."
"Why don't you like chipotle?"
"Maybe because it is the worst resteraunt to come out in a while"

See there, it isn't being presented as an opinion, it is a statement that is purely subjective being put forth as an objective truth.

I can't be the only one who read that example and considered 'it is the worst restaurant to come out in a while' to still be opinion can I?

I know I don't state before every opinion I put forth 'in my opinion', nor do I expect others too... There is a difference between making a statement and stating something as a fact.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
He has stated repeatedly what he doesn't like about AoS, that is fine. Him repeatedly saying afterwards that the game is bad as though it were truth is not. Also, your example to your perceived meaning included something that was inherently false (maybe pigs can fly) so how about this example as a breakdown of conversation.

"I like chipotle."
"I don't like chipotle."
"Why don't you like chipotle?"
"Maybe because it is the worst resteraunt to come out in a while"

See there, it isn't being presented as an opinion, it is a statement that is purely subjective being put forth as an objective truth.

Except that's not a breakdown of the conversation when you take things out of context it's easy to infer things that might not be there. It's more like this....

"People sure do complain about chipotle a lot but they don't complain about other restaurants, the only rational explanation is that it's full on stage 2 on display. (whatever the feth that means) They just come across as jilted exes"

"Maybe it's because chipotle is the worst restaurant to come out in a while"

Can you see the difference? There was never the question asked "why don't you like chipotle?" The statement made was "There's a lot of complaints about chipotle and therefore the only rational explanation is there's something wrong with the people complaining".

Context matters.

Even in the (incorrect) context you are making up, you don't have to assume everything that is said but not prefaced with "IMO" is a statement of fact. It's the nature of how people speak and how they write to state opinions without qualifying them as such, you normally only take something to mean a statement of fact when people are *very* clear that's what they mean.

Anyway, this is all very pointless and off topic. Any wargame *can* be fun. There's some objective measures we can use to compare them and I think AoS falls flat in a lot of areas, but I'd never be so presumptuous to say someone is wrong for liking it or wrong for enjoying it.

Measuring from the model and not the base, could reach my models on a charge because his weapons where extended. Could not see my troops but could see their spears so he shot and killed my models. Meeting in the middle and just rolling 3's and 4 got pretty boring quick. Summoning more and more skeletons got old pretty quick also and I had to slug through more and more models. We didn't play a mission so I'm sure that would have changed the pile in the middle. It just not a game that I could truly enjoy, I gave it a shot. Like I said I was not a fan of 8th edition with all its problems, balance being the major factor for me, cannon being laser guided, ect. Going to give KoW a try and see if I like that, if not my Skaven are on the chopping block of being sold.

Maybe context matters.

 Chute82 wrote:
Measuring from the model and not the base, could reach my models on a charge because his weapons where extended.

No point on the model may move more than the model's move characteristic. So if he was six inches away and moved six inches, he was in range the entire time.

It also means that he can't rotate the model during movement, gaining more distance. I believe the intention is total movement, so you can rotate the model all you want, as long as at the end of the movement, no single point has ended up further than the model's move value. So people who rotate their lizardmen around to move their tails forward can't do that unless the end of the tail is less than the move value away from where the end of the tail started.

Could not see my troops but could see their spears so he shot and killed my models.

Were their troops between you or terrain? There's true line of sight in this game, and units can see through themselves, so there's a lot of places where line of sight exists in AoS that it wouldn't in others (I can see Horace between Wolfman's legs, just below the nards). If there was a wall between you, at the very least, you should get cover - scenery rules for walls say that anyone within 3" of a wall gains cover against anyone on the other side of the wall.

As for weapons being considered part of the model and being attacked, you either need to factor that into your strategy, or decide with your opponent that weapons don't count in line of sight. Warmachine Prime had rules like that until they went with volumes in MK2.

Meeting in the middle and just rolling 3's and 4 got pretty boring quick.

Terrain. You must use terrain. If you aren't using the kits with special rules, use the random effects table so that it makes the table more interesting to maneuver around on. They block LOS, create bottlenecks, define advantageous zones - they contribute greatly to the tactical aspects of the game and go a long way to preventing the monster mash in the middle.

Summoning more and more skeletons got old pretty quick also and I had to slug through more and more models.

We're having a discussion on that in the other thread, but my reading of the rules is that you can not summon the same models again. Slain models are removed from play. So to keep summoning skeletons, he would need enough models to summon in the first place.

 MWHistorian wrote:

RoperPG wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
But I don't insult people who like it by saying things like "they're jilted ex-lovers" or "irrational" or whatever.
Strange how all the personal insults always come from the pro-AOS side.

"AOS is for people that don't want to put too much thought or effort into it and just roll dice."
"Its a game for people that don't want to think."
"AOS is like the Saints Row of gaming. Go stop thinking and blow stuff up."
"I think its for people that don't want to think too much while they play."
"It's like the Grateful Dead of Wargames. You need to be chemically inhibited to enjoy it."

Please, do continue to explain how you're not commenting on those people that like AoS.
But kudos on doing it indirectly.

Way to have ZERO reading comprehension. And way to take sections of quotes out of context in order to distort their meaning. That's actually really dishonest of you.
When I compared it to Saints Row, I said I liked SR for the same reason, I could just shut my brain off. That wasn't an insult.
Also, I said that sometimes just throwing dice can be a good thing and I do it myself on occasion.
Also also, many AOS supporters said they liked AOS because they didn't have to think too much. For example, many have said that not agonizing about army lists and just throw down whatever you want is what draws them to AOS. Many have said that they like not having to worry about tons of rules and just have fun with friends.

Okay, the Greateful Dead quote was a bit meaner than I intended. But I was making fun of the "Beer and Pretzals" thing, as in getting drunk. It was a jab and not a real insult. Once again, it's taken out of context of the conversation around it.

Perhaps you should just take one on the chin and realize that people are taking offense from yours and many others comments, and Keep your comments focused solely on the game without inferring negative traits about those who play it. If comparing AoS to "turning your brain off" isn't an insult against those who enjoy it, then I don't know what is... "Just throwing dice" may be a good thing for you "on occasion", but according to those who have played it extensively, it DOES have a ton of depth, tactics and thinking involved. So unless you also have played it extensively, you can't talk about its depth with any authority.

RoperPG wrote:

Yet you say you do not try to pass your opinion off as 'correct'?You ensure that the negatives must be highlighted again and again, as you have claimed that it is not possible to defend the game without resorting to personal opinion. Do you not see the irony there?
You also noticeably do not do the same for other systems.
So that's either cognitive dissonance or hypocrisy.

I don't, I pass it off as my opinion, if people don't agree I don't correct them and say "no, you can't like this game, that is wrong" etc. I Clearly talk as if it's my opinion. Unless you think I should put "in my humble opinion" on the end of everything just in case people think im not talking my opinion or something... Also most people who defend this game do resort to personal attacks, and frequently. Put it all together, opinion? Probably, but it certainly happens a lot...

I don't do it for other systems... hmmmm I wonder why? Maybe it's because no other system is as bad as this one (in my opinion, hope that helps, buddy). Who would have thought eh? Unless you are sayng there is another AOS out in the wild somewhere on this forum?

I don't see what is so hard to understand dude, If I hate a movie, im not a hypocrite for NOT hating on all movies, or other movies. I don't even get what you are trying to say? "They hate this game and are vocal about it, but only this game, there is something wrong with them, anger?" Because obviously that's the only reason someone will post how bad a certain game is and not other games...

 Chute82 wrote:
I played RAW and the game is horrible in my opinion.

Then you are the one at fault- not for finding it horrible mind, but for playing raw. I am not one to defend gw, or aos, but let's be honest and practical here for a second.gw write terrible rules. If you want to get anything positive out of them you need to negotiate and discuss your games prior to putting your stuff on the table. You can't 'go in blind' with gw games - the level of imbalance is simply too big. It's the same with the rules. Yes, they're bad but players are just as bad for being utterly unbending and inflexible when it comes to it (ie seeing raw as 'the only way')I will abide, and recommend balanced rules set like warmachine and infinity to be played raw, but not 40k and other be games - it's a recipe for disaster.

 Chute82 wrote:
To make the game playable you need to change it a bunch from the original way the game is meant to be played which makes it a bad game in my opinion. A good game should be able to be played as RAW and not need to be house ruled to be playable. It's not the players job to fix the rules it's the game companies job to release good rules.

How is the game 'meant' to be played? Let's be clear. Again, I am not defending gw or aos, but their attitude is, and always has been one of 'modify the game to suit yourselves' at the end of the day. Considering this, raw is a bit of a red herring. For right or for wrong, gw are abdicating their role in the game and leaving it entirely in the hands of the players. It's not about the players fixing the rules, it's about the players modifying the rules to suit themselves and their groups (no different to 'we don't play flyers and super heavies' for example). I don't necessarily agree with it in all circumstances, but I can see a lot of merit in the approach, given the right circumstances. some people like to have that flexibility in how they build their games and approach the rules. Some players like to be in the 'driving seat' when it comes to coming up with cool scenarios and feel this lets them unleash their creativity in both scenario creation, army building and in designing interesting battles, and honestly, I don't disagree. 'Organised play' can get a bit stifling and boring. We play this way (ie pointless, unique scenarios, scenario-tailored armies etc(ourselves. Admittedly, with flames of war and often, with infinity. But it is a lot of fun, both in terms of playing the game, and creating the game.

considering this, you just need a basic framework of rules. Let the players twist the rest to suit themselves. And yes chute, I think aos is a bad game too. Not for the reasons you state though, I think it's a bad game because the rules are simplistic, boring and uninteresting. Not because I have to change it (because I'd be doing that anyway, even if the rules were watertight). I think it's a bad game because it destroys the 'common space' of 'organised play'. While I can pre negotiate and organise with my like minded mates, pick up games with strangers and tournaments are a lot harder to work with, especially with tome constraints. I think it is a bad game because It relies so heavily on your opponent enabling and acqueiescing to what you want to play, and that will vary with every single person - rather than balance by good game design, it's balance by social accord, self restraint, self policing, compromise, negotiation, and ultimately, balance by social exclusion and ridicule (ie bullying) when what you want to play is not seen as being in line with your opponents or your groups expectation of the game, regardless of your 'rights and wishes' to play x,y and z.

 Chute82 wrote:
AoS is just another example of GW not knowing what the market wants.

Is it? I dunno chute, I think it's a case of gw not catering to the hard core gamers. The rights and wrongs of this approach are up for debate (my thoughts lean towards gw cutting their nose off to spite their face) but there are a lot more gamers out there than them. I like an intricate set of rules with a lot of moving parts and lots of things going on. Warmachine and infinity sre my bread and butter. Others look on this approach with horror and see this 'burden of knowledge' and 'things to keep track of' as a massive hurdle and a huge barrier. Like it or not, there are a lot of gamers out there who want a simple, straight forward set of rules without that massive burden of knowledge that seems to require, or at the very least, encourage house ruling and player control. Whether that population is large enough to sustain aos is again, up for debate. It's split the old wfb community(all three of them) in half. It's raised the hackles of a lot of the hardcore players. But for all that, it seems to have attracted a lot of casual players- some, or many with no previous interest in wargames, and some older players have come out of the woodwork too. Will it be the next big thing? I doubt it, but I also doubt it will be a flash in the pan. I think it can attract enough interest to pay for itself, at least in the short term. Let's face it, it can't do worse than wfb. I think it has value, if only as a gateway game. And while I personally think it's a sad indictment of the player base - it opened a lot of people up to the idea of 'making the game theirs' and fosters a sense(ie a requirement) of player creativity and player led design that is often overshadowed in other games where the developer tells you how to play - the sad thing is, players could always do their own thing, but only do it now because gw gave them permission (and apparently, it's new and wonderful, even though it's always been there) that seemingly people are embracing it. Sigh.

 Mymearan wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

RoperPG wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
But I don't insult people who like it by saying things like "they're jilted ex-lovers" or "irrational" or whatever.
Strange how all the personal insults always come from the pro-AOS side.

"AOS is for people that don't want to put too much thought or effort into it and just roll dice."
"Its a game for people that don't want to think."
"AOS is like the Saints Row of gaming. Go stop thinking and blow stuff up."
"I think its for people that don't want to think too much while they play."
"It's like the Grateful Dead of Wargames. You need to be chemically inhibited to enjoy it."

Please, do continue to explain how you're not commenting on those people that like AoS.
But kudos on doing it indirectly.

Way to have ZERO reading comprehension. And way to take sections of quotes out of context in order to distort their meaning. That's actually really dishonest of you.
When I compared it to Saints Row, I said I liked SR for the same reason, I could just shut my brain off. That wasn't an insult.
Also, I said that sometimes just throwing dice can be a good thing and I do it myself on occasion.
Also also, many AOS supporters said they liked AOS because they didn't have to think too much. For example, many have said that not agonizing about army lists and just throw down whatever you want is what draws them to AOS. Many have said that they like not having to worry about tons of rules and just have fun with friends.

Okay, the Greateful Dead quote was a bit meaner than I intended. But I was making fun of the "Beer and Pretzals" thing, as in getting drunk. It was a jab and not a real insult. Once again, it's taken out of context of the conversation around it.

Perhaps you should just take one on the chin and realize that people are taking offense from yours and many others comments, and Keep your comments focused solely on the game without inferring negative traits about those who play it. If comparing AoS to "turning your brain off" isn't an insult against those who enjoy it, then I don't know what is... "Just throwing dice" may be a good thing for you "on occasion", but according to those who have played it extensively, it DOES have a ton of depth, tactics and thinking involved. So unless you also have played it extensively, you can't talk about its depth with any authority.

Sorry. Im not going to worry about how I say things based off how someone might take offence at something that meant no offence. Im sorry that you're delicate and take offence at criticism of a game you like.

-

Are we just all mindless consumers?

Games Workshop released a game that is practically a nongame, devoid of the most basic and practical aspects of a wargame. And people are swallowing this garbage up?

You go to an event where people have to brainstorm a bunch of stuff up just to make it functional... and this is touted as a fantastic example of how this new "game" works.

I'll stick with 8th, or the other wargames I've discovered post-Sigmar. When I consume based on brand preference, that's because I like the quality of the brand, not because I'm a mindless slave to the brand. I buy a particular brand of cake mix because it tastes better. If say, that brand released a new box of mix filled with dog feces I imagine I'd move to a different one. I'm no longer loyal to the 'Games Workshop' brand because of what they've done to their IP, and I'd encourage others to leave it as well.

Let's keep the discussion polite, please - thanks all!

So now that this conversation is no longer about people saying offensive things, then saying they weren't offensive, then saying they really don't care if their words are offensive to people ...

I'm not a fan of Age of Sigmar, the Rules. I think the fluff is more engaging as a setting than the world of Warhammer Fantasy was (especially from a "relative to how long they've had to develop it" perspective). That's, of course, a pair of opinions.

One thing Age of Sigmar is, however, is basically a GM'ed gaming / Narrative gamer's wet dream. Warhammer Fantasy, just like Warhammer 40,000, developed as a "tournament game" even among most self-branded "casual" players, in that most games were 1v1 affairs played on a level field by the book. MOST games weren't just leveraging the basic game mechanics and creating complex stories and set-piece battles with plenty of rules-changes and imbalances tuned to whatever was going on at the time.

These types of games are NOT casual. I am a casual and fairly competitive tabletop wargamer .... I do really, really well in tournaments, but I prefer among all things to just sit down with good company, have a beer, and play a simple, straightforward game. I get plenty of set-piece and narrative in my imagination while I play and from the simple good look of painted armies battling over nice terrain.

That said, I've been introduced to true GM'ed/narrative gaming this year by a local group of friends who leverage the basic Bolt Action rules to do exhaustive multi-player, GM'ed World War 2 battles, with lots of rules changes and subterfuge and hidden secrets and tricks, and - perhaps most importantly for them - missions and objectives and tasks that are not "do this for X points," but are more tuned toward recreating taskings given to company and platoon level commanders from the set-piece battles. They paint beautiful miniatures and craft gorgeous crazy-scenic boards on which to play.

These types of gamers are actually VERY common in Tabletop Wargaming, but aren't really encountered all that often by the traditional Fantasy/Sci-FI gaming cross-section. They're the guys who flock in their thousands to places like Historicon, where nearly all the gaming is more like the narrative type just described.

For this type of gaming, all you really need are basic mechanics for how models and units interact with each other on the battlefield. Point levels, army construction rules, etc., are unnecessary, b/c the GMs or event organizers are going to set those to best support whatever they're going for, whether or not "standard" rules for them exist in the game's rulebook.

Age of Sigmar is now this type of game. It's pretty much perfectly aligned to this type of gaming. This is, not coincidentally, the type of gaming that Jervis Johnson is a really big fan of, and gamers tend to - for whatever reason - become more into as they get older. There's a reason the historical and GM'ed gaming crowd is, generally, quite a bit older than the competitive / 1v1-by-the-book gaming crowd. It shouldn't be surprising that he's leveraged flagging Fantasy sales to recreate the game as something more to his tastes, nor really criticized, other than by those who understandably are upset the game they played for 30 years is no longer supported by the parent company.

What Age of Sigmar is, as a result of all this, is absolutely PERFECT for any kind of organized play. This could be tournaments, this could be GM'ed games, this could be big narratives or linked battles, big multi-player events, whatever. Why? Because there aren't enough rules to prevent people tailoring and creating rules to make those events perfect for their intention. Additionally, unlike 40K (as an example), instead of having a heavily flawed and imbalanced ruleset with regard to army balance and construction, you simply don't have one ... meaning event and game organizers can fine-tune army construction to suit their idea of what a fun Age of Sigmar game or event is.

It should, therefore, not be even a little bit surprising that people would go and have fun at one of these events ... after all, the event organizer is effectively the TRUE game designer, and so all rules questions and other things are always going to be answered in the spirit of the game, which is fabulous. It's more work for the organizer, but so what if they want to put in the time to do it?

I'm quite glad a couple of passionate guys stood up and put together some cool Age of Sigmar stuff in a hurry for NOVA next week, and doubly glad some folks are coming out to try it out. I'm sure they'll have a good time. I'm also sure plenty of deep thought went into crafting the rules for the events, and will go into playing through the games.

 Mymearan wrote:
Perhaps you should just take one on the chin and realize that people are taking offense from yours and many others comments, and Keep your comments focused solely on the game without inferring negative traits about those who play it. If comparing AoS to "turning your brain off" isn't an insult against those who enjoy it, then I don't know what is...

In the context of a *game* it's not an insult. I can see how it can be confusing, as saying "turning off your brain" is an insult in *most* contexts, but in the context of a game, it's only an insult if you choose to take it as such.

In most contexts outside of gaming, it is an insult because it usually means someone is not thinking when they should be thinking.

In the context of a game, however, turning off your brain can be the desired outcome. I have a giant stack of video games installed on my computer. Some are deep and complex, some are shallow games where I can just turn off my brain and play them. One's not better than the other, it doesn't make you a better/worse player for wanting to play one over the other, and it doesn't make you more or less intelligent playing one over the other.

Quite often it's the people in jobs that require them to think a lot and have to make high stress decisions who get attracted to the games that let you turn off your brain to an extent.

So unless you also have played it extensively, you can't talk about its depth with any authority.

This is a never ending argument though. If someone who has played 5000 games is still playing it then obviously they think it has sufficient depth. On the other hand someone else plays 5 games and gets bored because the game lacks depth. Depth can be very nuanced if someone is interested enough to find the nuance, but it doesn't make the person who quit after 5 games objectively wrong if they think it lacks depth.

In general, the "you have to play it extensively to have authority" isn't true anyway. Many of the people discussing the topic have been playing wargames for decades and have enough experience to figure out quite a bit from reading the rules and playing a couple of intro games without having to endure 100's of battles they aren't enjoying to form an authoritative opinion.

RoperPG wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

RoperPG wrote:
You can dress it up however you like, but you come across as jilted exes.

And it's silly comments like these that keep people coming back to argue about it.

Seriously, if you want to stop people being negative about AoS, stop baiting people who don't like it with thinly veiled insults.

Wasn't an insult, it was an objective statement

Erm lol? that was in no way an objective statement, just from a debate stance nobody would try to claim that such an opinion on other people from an individual where it actually says "You come across as" as been an objective statement. Its an opinion literally by definition.


Objective statement > this gun fires bullets

Opinion statement > you come across as an ass.


plenty of people who dislike AoS have been offering reasoning why they don't like it and its never "The players are disgusting I hate them I just want to ruin the game because im an ass" they bring up points about the points system, balancing, tournament play, rules sets and still haven't insulted players yet. Go ahead and look through this thread I bet your going to find a lot more name calling (including from yourself) from pro AoS than the people who don't like it. In fact the players who don't like it are just commenting to be left alone for a change and stop with the name calling. In which the response has been name calling and calling them immature jilted exes for offering their opinion. Its on the same lines as telling people who didn't like inception "you're just not smart enough to get it" instead of listening to why they dislike it you jump to calling them names and belittling. Which shows immaturity.

It shows the two sides ways of arguing when one side is basically just asking for threads of AoS to stop name calling and insulting anti AoS players and just stick to the subject and the response instead of been "yeah that sounds fair nobody likes to be called names for no reason" its getting aggressive and name calling those people why? because thread starters and commenters want to name call and carry on the hate. When players who dislike AoS is telling you "listen look at the none insulting threads there's no arguments so please just make threads without having to name call other players" and your response is to call them names and belittle, you know its you thats carrying on this hate parade not them.

and because yo might cry objective heres an objective example, heres a thread that doesn't attempt it insult none AoS players and lets see how much conflict is displaye. I mean judging by your comments anti AoS players are jilted exes who go around looking for trouble and will derail any AoS thread out of spite oh wait:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/660815.page

^ so wheres all the anti AoS players raiding to call the game terrible? or in any of the other threads that don't insult people for their opinions in fact ive seen this so much since launch Ive brought up its time to leave people alone before here, which seemed to be agreed upon
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/655662.page


and for added examples look who tries to start the argument off in a thread just about saying goodbye to fantasy with comments like:

"I don't want to deal with these guys - and you will meet them if you go to a tournament. Sure as death.
Now, if these guys are driven away by the AoS vagueness about what's fair (implying you have to discuss with your opponent, thus forcing you to communicate and reach an agreement in advance), I can only be happy - not just for me, since I have friends to play with anyway, but for all the guys who only play PUGs and who are not forced to put up with this gak anymore."

- From a nice happy AoS supporter on a thread about stopping hating on none AoS players saying that because he personally doesn't like tournament play to win (not like tournaments are there for that reason or anything) players hes happy AoS has driven that scum away

If people can't agree that insulting players directly for not liking a system isn't nice and should stop well thats on you. Next time someone says they don't like the rules think twice before you call them names personally or call them a TFG or maybe even....a jilted Ex.

 MWHistorian wrote:

When I compared it to Saints Row, I said I liked SR for the same reason, I could just shut my brain off. That wasn't an insult.
Also, I said that sometimes just throwing dice can be a good thing and I do it myself on occasion.
Also also, many AOS supporters said they liked AOS because they didn't have to think too much. For example, many have said that not agonizing about army lists and just throw down whatever you want is what draws them to AOS. Many have said that they like not having to worry about tons of rules and just have fun with friends.

I like AoS... It's cool that you don't.

However, you do raise a couple good points here... (I skipped to the last page, and saw this little bit).. I also like Saints Row. To me, the SR games allow players to put as much, or as little thought into the game as they want.


One of the things that I absolutely HATED about the previous fantasy game, was the perception (real or imagined) that you won/lost the game, largely before it began. This happened both in the list building stage, as well as the deployment stage, because I've seen/heard too many people moaning about how they deployed one unit wrong and it cost the whole game.

And you're right about not agonizing over unit lists, even though we're already beginning to figure out the what works/doesn't work thing, and can begin adjusting armies accordingly.... However, I will say that that option is still there, particularly if you are, like me, playing in a store escalation campaign and are trying to see what others' are doing and so trying to plan your army accordingly. And, at least at the store I frequent, there is a definite increase in the "fun" factor, people are actually smiling and having fun even when losing.

The passive-aggressiveness is strong in this thread. Rage of Skubmar is a low quality rulesett dumped out by GW as a final admittance that they can't write rules worth a damn so they put the onus on the players to balance it. If you can make a ton of house rules and have fun with the game good on you. That doesn't make it a quality ruleset. Just as much fun if not much more could be had if Age of Sigmar was a tightly written, well balanced ruleset.

By their logic, I was making fun of myself for saying I like different games for the same reason.