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.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 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.

This rule -- measuring from the model not the base -- is necessary to allow WHFB legacy armies on 20mm square bases to compete fairly with the new AoS figures on 32mm round bases, otherwise combined with the weapon range rules it would allow legacy models to get a lot more attacks into range during the H2H phase.

Of course it introduces other complications, such as climbing on bases, and the use of models with long spears. These are the kind of problems and compromises you have to expect in a simple, free rulebook that relies on the players to sort out the practical issues that arise.

I have to say, the more I read about AoS, the more I'm dying to start an army. It seems so much fun. Too bad I have two 40k armies, a Necromunda gang, Deadzone guys and soooooo little time to hobby. I really want that starter box though, AND the IoB set to get some Skaven going...

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.

But such changes seem strange then. If the CEO says that the focus group for GW games are young male adults, then making a game that mechanics are ment to work better for older or old players seems counter productiv.

 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.

They are wrong. It has just enough tactics and depth to still he considered a game but the same time it's the most shallow and least tactical major title on the market.

It's just like people claiming they have balanced games thanks to counting wounds. They are wrong and their opinion irrelevant no matter how many times it's repeated or how many games they played. For my last game I took clan rats warlord and hellpit abom vs grave guard black knights and a necromancer. It was sth like 97 to 47 for skaven in model count. 112 to 56 for skaven in wounds but Azyr comp had it 26 to 20 for vampire counts in points lol. Ofc vampire counts would get sudden death per RAW, it's mind boggling that they even put that nonsensical and flawed balancing system into the rules, it really would have been better if it was just put down whatever you want to period. The game is bad as in bad, tragic in fact and it's only the fix it mindset of players that saves it.

Re who insults who, I bash the game senseless but have yet to insult a GW designer or a player but was ofc multiple times attacked as a person. Saying the game is dumb, slowed, designed for store mums and pointless is not an insult o people playing it. I play dumb pc games, watch dumb shows and tell dumb jokes. I don't pretend they're not dumb and don't get insulted when someone tells me "you watch a dumb show". It's simple really and going for insults like pro aos brigade does is imo just a sign of logical arguments shortage. Can't blame you guys though it's quite a task you have here.

I played a big game of Age of Sigmar with a few friends. It was good (Storm-casts, Elves and Empire vs evil (Dark Elves, Chaos and Goblins). The objective for the good guys was to stop the bad guys from reaching the inner section of the fortress. (Unfortunately) the good guys won although I reckon if we carried on for a couple more turns, the inner section would have been taken and it would of been a victory for the evil guys. . It had to be one of the most enjoyable wargaming experiences that I have had in a long time.

Makumba wrote:

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.

But such changes seem strange then. If the CEO says that the focus group for GW games are young male adults, then making a game that mechanics are ment to work better for older or old players seems counter productiv.

The CEO actually said they don't do focus groups, or any kind of market research at all. And while the historical crowd might appear to be older, we have no idea how big it is compared to the competitive scenes.

I really enjoy playing AoS, so it's great to see some people organizing tournaments around it!

 WargamingWarrior wrote:
I played a big game of Age of Sigmar with a few friends. It was good (Storm-casts, Elves and Empire vs evil (Dark Elves, Chaos and Goblins). The objective for the good guys was to stop the bad guys from reaching the inner section of the fortress. (Unfortunately) the good guys won although I reckon if we carried on for a couple more turns, the inner section would have been taken and it would of been a victory for the evil guys. . It had to be one of the most enjoyable wargaming experiences that I have had in a long time.

That is a great set up, and sounds like an awesome game

What is the big green guy with the axe?

 jonolikespie wrote:

The CEO actually said they don't do focus groups, or any kind of market research at all. And while the historical crowd might appear to be older, we have no idea how big it is compared to the competitive scenes.

Just to chip in here, he didn't say it to be arrogant - he said it because that kind of market research is of extremely limited use in the hobby games market.

 jonolikespie wrote:

Makumba wrote:

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.

But such changes seem strange then. If the CEO says that the focus group for GW games are young male adults, then making a game that mechanics are ment to work better for older or old players seems counter productiv.

The CEO actually said they don't do focus groups, or any kind of market research at all. And while the historical crowd might appear to be older, we have no idea how big it is compared to the competitive scenes.

In the thing they put out a few months ago it said they focus on young teen males. I don't know how big historical gaming is in the world, but I highly doubt is anywhere near normal table top systems. The size of space needed to play is huge, not to mention the cost of getting an actual models needed.

Makumba wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

Makumba wrote:

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.

But such changes seem strange then. If the CEO says that the focus group for GW games are young male adults, then making a game that mechanics are ment to work better for older or old players seems counter productiv.

The CEO actually said they don't do focus groups, or any kind of market research at all. And while the historical crowd might appear to be older, we have no idea how big it is compared to the competitive scenes.

In the thing they put out a few months ago it said they focus on young teen males. I don't know how big historical gaming is in the world, but I highly doubt is anywhere near normal table top systems. The size of space needed to play is huge, not to mention the cost of getting an actual models needed.

The point is, there's not actually any real market research done, and they're on record saying they don't listen to their customers or find that to be of any value.

Literally.

Which, even if you don't, saying that on a public report is just about as functionally oblivious and lacking in introspection as it gets, but whatever.

Point is, their game designers are aging gamers who fell in love with GM'ed games before they invented these. It shouldn't be surprising.

MVBrandt wrote:

The point is, there's not actually any real market research done, and they're on record saying they don't listen to their customers or find that to be of any value.

I don't think this is as big a point as you think it is. Niche markets tend to be too small and specialized to be able to note trends. It's like doing statistical analysis on a group of three things. There's just not enough data points to be able to draw conclusions.

As for listening to its customers, they don't tend to speak with one voice. In this forum, I've seen people say that AoS is the dumbest, worst game ever made, and I've seen people who like it very much. I've seen people upset that WFB ended, people who like the new lore better, and people who think WFB should've ended even earlier. I've seen people who would murder a man just for daring to suggest that points weren't "all that and a can of beans", and I've seen people thrilled at the opportunities that no points provides. I've seen people say that AoS should be more friendly to competitive players, and people say, "no, feth those competitive guys. They're jerks." I've never seen GW do anything that wasn't both praised and hated simultaneously, often loudly and well past the point of a healthy mind.

So who do they listen to? Do you want them to listen to all their customers, or just you? Or maybe they can put their big boy pants on and make the games they want to make, and if you like them, you can choose to play them.

Speaking of putting on their big boy pants, maybe you could find constructive ways to structure your arguments, rather than resorting to personal attacks on anyone with a different perspective? --Janthkin

Makumba wrote:

I don't know how big historical gaming is in the world, but I highly doubt is anywhere near normal table top systems. The size of space needed to play is huge, not to mention the cost of getting an actual models needed.

You'd be surprised. Historical gaming is quite big, and I'd almost think it's probably larger than sci fi and fantasy gaming. It's just not as exposed as the gws and flgs's which we all walk past. A lot of the historical players tend to play at home too and don't go online. .

In terms of costs again, it's quite reasonable. The Perries, warlord and other companies make very affordable plastic kits with high model counts per box so it's not hard to amass armies of several hundred figures that would have an exorbitant price tag if it was from gw. My mate got a warlord Roman starter with about 120 models for about fifty pounds. Quality is good too. As for space, that's not an issue for a lot of people either.

 Sqorgar wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:

The point is, there's not actually any real market research done, and they're on record saying they don't listen to their customers or find that to be of any value.

I don't think this is as big a point as you think it is. Niche markets tend to be too small and specialized to be able to note trends. It's like doing statistical analysis on a group of three things. There's just not enough data points to be able to draw conclusions.

As for listening to its customers, they don't tend to speak with one voice. In this forum, I've seen people say that AoS is the dumbest, worst game ever made, and I've seen people who like it very much. I've seen people upset that WFB ended, people who like the new lore better, and people who think WFB should've ended even earlier. I've seen people who would murder a man just for daring to suggest that points weren't "all that and a can of beans", and I've seen people thrilled at the opportunities that no points provides. I've seen people say that AoS should be more friendly to competitive players, and people say, "no, feth those competitive guys. They're jerks." I've never seen GW do anything that wasn't both praised and hated simultaneously, often loudly and well past the point of a healthy mind.

So who do they listen to? Do you want them to listen to all their customers, or just you? Or maybe they can put their big boy pants on and make the games they want to make, and if you like them, you can choose to play them.

Which, even if you don't, saying that on a public report is just about as functionally oblivious and lacking in introspection as it gets, but whatever.

They were saying that to their investors, not to their customers. Presumably, their investors would've found it good news that GW doesn't let a bunch of whiny manchildren decide the direction of their business.

I just... people need to get over themselves. The customer is not always right and you are not entitled to anything. If GW makes decisions that you don't agree with... tough titties. Go feth off somewhere else. I hear Mantic is currently looking for a bunch of whiny little bitches to call customer. GW makes a bunch of decisions, both good and bad, both sane and insane, and all you can do is decide whether you can accept those decisions, and if you can not, find another hobby that makes you happy. I know this the internet and a sense of entitlement is kinda just how it works, but holy crap...

I'm a big fan of GW games, run one of the largest GW set of gaming events on the planet, and will continue to. Doesn't mean it makes any sense to put something "For investors" in a document that "your other customers" can read that is superficially disparaging of the value of their input.

It's really not an entitlement thing. If you're also a fan of their products, I'm surprised you wouldn't weigh in when you consider a decision a poor one. If you'll read my prior post, I'm largely supportive of Age of Sigmar ... I think people who play Fantasy over the last 20 years or so are primarily competitive / 1v1 type players, and that's simply not the cross-section of gamers it is built for.

"I know this is the internet and getting pissed unreasonably at everyone without reading everything they've written is just how it works, but holy crap ..."

Edit: I don't have an issue w/ them not doing market research. I have an issue w/ them saying they don't care to or find it valuable on a public report. The former might be totally reasonable business sense. The latter is stupid, b/c *putting it on the public record* has no positive value (you can tell your shareholders without it going on the record, if saying that one line to your shareholders is actually important to say in the first place).

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 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.

They are wrong. It has just enough tactics and depth to still he considered a game but the same time it's the most shallow and least tactical major title on the market.

It's just like people claiming they have balanced games thanks to counting wounds. They are wrong and their opinion irrelevant no matter how many times it's repeated or how many games they played. For my last game I took clan rats warlord and hellpit abom vs grave guard black knights and a necromancer. It was sth like 97 to 47 for skaven in model count. 112 to 56 for skaven in wounds but Azyr comp had it 26 to 20 for vampire counts in points lol. Ofc vampire counts would get sudden death per RAW, it's mind boggling that they even put that nonsensical and flawed balancing system into the rules, it really would have been better if it was just put down whatever you want to period. The game is bad as in bad, tragic in fact and it's only the fix it mindset of players that saves it.

Re who insults who, I bash the game senseless but have yet to insult a GW designer or a player but was ofc multiple times attacked as a person. Saying the game is dumb, slowed, designed for store mums and pointless is not an insult o people playing it. I play dumb pc games, watch dumb shows and tell dumb jokes. I don't pretend they're not dumb and don't get insulted when someone tells me "you watch a dumb show". It's simple really and going for insults like pro aos brigade does is imo just a sign of logical arguments shortage. Can't blame you guys though it's quite a task you have here.

They are not wrong. The game has serious tactical depth, your denial of which isn't factual, or objective. Name ONE tactic that exists in ANY tabletop wargame that doesn't give a statistical or tactical advantage in age of sigmar. No one has been able to as of yet. They have said that the benefit doesn't matter, or it is shallow, or even that it isn't worth trying. Those are opinions, and they are used solely to deny the FACT that they are wrong about the actual tactics and depth allowed within a simple core ruleset.

A general reminder: if you are resorting to personal attacks against another poster, or against an entire category of people, then a) you are violating Dakka's Rule #1; and b) the rest of your arguments are going to be devalued by association.

Remember that forum arguments aren't usually going to convince the guy who is arguing with you. The best you can hope for is to convince the silent readers, who haven't made up their minds yet.

MongooseMatt wrote:

 WargamingWarrior wrote:
I played a big game of Age of Sigmar with a few friends. It was good (Storm-casts, Elves and Empire vs evil (Dark Elves, Chaos and Goblins). The objective for the good guys was to stop the bad guys from reaching the inner section of the fortress. (Unfortunately) the good guys won although I reckon if we carried on for a couple more turns, the inner section would have been taken and it would of been a victory for the evil guys. . It had to be one of the most enjoyable wargaming experiences that I have had in a long time.

That is a great set up, and sounds like an awesome game

What is the big green guy with the axe?

It's an alternative model that we were running as a glottkin if I remember correctly. I cannot remember the manufacturer of the model though.
The unfortunate thing was that he was blocking the ramp up to the gate, fighting Stormcast Eternals for a large portion of the game, preventing the rest of the evil forces from breaking down the doors and storming the fortress.

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.

Thats an excellent post and one that captures my own personal view of AoS perfectly.
Back in 2nd ed 40k which wasnt hugely complicated but it did have a myriad of things to keep track of and micromange (especially after DM was released), I simply loved it. I was almost encylopedic about the rules and thought the intricate movements of the different parts as you put it was so amazingly engaging.

20 years on however, Im simply not bothered anymore and what AoS gives me personally is a simple, relatively clear ruleset that can be setup and played quite quickly still using armies that I was fond of from the whfb days (aesthetically, basic mechanics-wise etc).
I peronally never got that into WMH because of the more intricate nature and combos, whereas AoS satisfies what I look for these days.

I fully acknowledge those like me with 2nd or who like WHM etc likely have been alienated by AoS but that dosent negate the fact it has definitely found a userbase who enjoy the mechanics and ability to field whatever you like - as you state "making the game theirs".
I would also personally second the view that it has a lot more tactical depth and combinations than its given credit for. Whether GW intended that or whether the players themselves have given it that is irrelevant - its an outcome that for many cant be denied.

If I play snakes and ladders but houserule this and that does it make the basic concept any worse? if its still fun - then categorically no.

Judging it whether it lasts or not is simply crystal balling at this point - its 2 months old afterall but for those of us that wanted/needed or simply enjoy the relatively stripped down mechanics, its done well so far.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 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.

They are wrong. It has just enough tactics and depth to still he considered a game but the same time it's the most shallow and least tactical major title on the market.

It's just like people claiming they have balanced games thanks to counting wounds. They are wrong and their opinion irrelevant no matter how many times it's repeated or how many games they played. For my last game I took clan rats warlord and hellpit abom vs grave guard black knights and a necromancer. It was sth like 97 to 47 for skaven in model count. 112 to 56 for skaven in wounds but Azyr comp had it 26 to 20 for vampire counts in points lol. Ofc vampire counts would get sudden death per RAW, it's mind boggling that they even put that nonsensical and flawed balancing system into the rules, it really would have been better if it was just put down whatever you want to period. The game is bad as in bad, tragic in fact and it's only the fix it mindset of players that saves it.

Re who insults who, I bash the game senseless but have yet to insult a GW designer or a player but was ofc multiple times attacked as a person. Saying the game is dumb, slowed, designed for store mums and pointless is not an insult o people playing it. I play dumb pc games, watch dumb shows and tell dumb jokes. I don't pretend they're not dumb and don't get insulted when someone tells me "you watch a dumb show". It's simple really and going for insults like pro aos brigade does is imo just a sign of logical arguments shortage. Can't blame you guys though it's quite a task you have here.

They are not wrong. The game has serious tactical depth, your denial of which isn't factual, or objective. Name ONE tactic that exists in ANY tabletop wargame that doesn't give a statistical or tactical advantage in age of sigmar. No one has been able to as of yet. They have said that the benefit doesn't matter, or it is shallow, or even that it isn't worth trying. Those are opinions, and they are used solely to deny the FACT that they are wrong about the actual tactics and depth allowed within a simple core ruleset.

It is factual, you just ignore valid, logical points and shrug them off as opinion. But sure I will, I'd like you to answer my example about balance first though since you claimed numerous times that AoS RAW method is great for balance. I ask you why the rules give a strong advantage to the side that is already 25% stronger.

Really I'd love to know because if you cant see how deeply flawed the number of models method is, then I question your ability to asess tactical depth tbh.

I apologize for my previous post. It was completely out of line. I was just frustrated, and not particularly to the post I was responding to.

I was reading about a bunch of people getting upset because DriveThruRPG sold an RPG supplement with a tasteless name (the name is all they knew, but it was enough to stoke the fires of indignation). People were emailing the site telling them that as long as they sold that product, they wouldn't buy from them. And all I could think is, what gives you the right to use your money to dictate the morality of someone else? How does a website choosing to sell something you never have to buy somehow offend you so personally? Do you think the website owes you, simply for being a customer? I don't understand it, and that, more than anything, is what's so frustrating to me.

Then coming to this forum, which features a few posters of similarly entitled viewpoints, was probably not the best idea. So I was already in this frustrated state when I saw a post that I considered of a similar kind. It probably wasn't, but that's besides the point. I was absolutely wrong to take my frustrations out in such a childish manner.

This is a discussion I would one day like to have. I do see a lot of entitlement with regard to what GW owes its customers, and I would like to understand it. I want to know where such indignation come from, the manner in which it festers, and whether there is a better way of viewing the hobby that could assuage the anger before it becomes toxic. However, I am obviously not in the mindset to have that discussion today.

How does sudden death give a benefit to the larger side? The player who is outnumbered get to choose which mission to do based on his own armies perceived strength, and will most likely get to go first (unless his opponent simply fielded 1-2 HUGE blocks of single units) so they have the advantage there as well. So you are indeed wrong about the percieved bonus to the side that has the higher model count.

Now, I have not ONCE in any discussion about the validity of tactics shrugged off facts as opinion. Statements had been made that the bonuses for certain tactics weren't large enough to count, that is opinion. It has been said that there is no reason to for formations with units, that is not true, and also an opinion.

In regards to the balance, her is how you decide whether or not something is too strong for your army.

Player a: I am fielding this as my next unit.
Played b: could you not do that please
Player a: why not, it's my model and I want to use it!
Player b: because I have nothing in the collection of models I brought with me that can take it on. It would really crush my army almost by itself.
Player a has two options for balance here, either pick another model, or come up with a quick scenario that gives both players a chance to win. If player a simply refuses to not play with that model, that is on them. They simply aren't going to play, or are going to waste time and energy on a game where the winner is already determined. There, you have balance. Simple, effective, and written clearly in the rules of the game.

Now, what were those tactics that AoS doesn't have I've heard so much about? What masterful plan is incapable of being utilized in this shallow and sad system? Because I haven't heard of it yet.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:


In regards to the balance, her is how you decide whether or not something is too strong for your army.

Player a: I am fielding this as my next unit.
Played b: could you not do that please
Player a: why not, it's my model and I want to use it!
Player b: because I have nothing in the collection of models I brought with me that can take it on. It would really crush my army almost by itself.
Player a has two options for balance here, either pick another model, or come up with a quick scenario that gives both players a chance to win. If player a simply refuses to not play with that model, that is on them. They simply aren't going to play, or are going to waste time and energy on a game where the winner is already determined. There, you have balance. Simple, effective, and written clearly in the rules of the game.

Which is itself a problem at worst, or at best, offers the potential for a lot of hassle.

player b might just be the type of player who throws a tantrum every time someone else fields something that he doesn't like, regardless of how fair it is, or how his opponent is entirely within their rights to field their stuff. You know, because your opponent playing with nice toys is a tfg. And player a is unfairly punished because what he likes isn't seen as being in line with his opponents, regardless of the rights or wrongs of it, or the accuracy of the judgement. And I use that word, and both its main connotations deliberately.

A possible alternative ending for this scenario is as follows:
Player a: I don't mean to be cheeky mate, there's plenty ways around this unit. It's almost like youre saying 'how dare you play with your nice toys?' What's next. Calling me a tfg?

Your post sums up perfectly one of my big issues with the game and how easy it is to go wrong with it. As I said earlier.

Deadnight wrote:

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 own personal likes, dislikes, wants 'rights and wishes and desires' to play x,y and z.

All it takes for that whole house of cards to fall down is one player saying 'no'. As opposed to, you know, good game design.

Also. Why is is on player a to step down? Surely player b is as obligated as a to either step up, change, modifiy or borrow stuff? You know, meet in the middle, etc.

The scenario presented doesn't include an option to "step up" or borrow someone else's models. If player b isn't willing to listen to reason, how is that the game's fault exactly? What universe do these hypothetical players reside in where nobody will learn about a unit and decide that their fears were unfounded?

Also, your statement on the other possible ending automatically assumes player A is going to be more willing to be confrontational as opposed to simply explaining how they would deal with the model in question. If they really want to play it, and their opponent is unsure if they can actually have a chance to beat said unit, why wouldn't player A give them a pointer? Or, as I said before, they come up with a scenario that allows player A the chance to use his model, and allow player B a chance at victory.

Why does everyone have to automatically be aggressively trying to force other people into playing the way they personally want to play whenever these hypothetical situations arise?

If I brought a certain point value army looking for a pickup game in any system in the whole world, and nobody there had enough points to play me, in what universe would it be logical for me to make people play me without changing my stance on what point total to play at?

Just because there aren't points, doesn't mean I am unable to see reason.

Lythrandire you don't read much into post you respond to, do you?

Plumbumbarum wrote:For my last game I took clan rats warlord and hellpit abom vs grave guard black knights and a necromancer. It was sth like 97 to 47 for skaven in model count. 112 to 56 for skaven in wounds but Azyr comp had it 26 to 20 for vampire counts in points lol. Ofc vampire counts would get sudden death per RAW, it's mind boggling that they even put that nonsensical and flawed balancing system into the rules, it really would have been better if it was just put down whatever you want to period.

Azyr comp, system that takes into account difference in stats says that the army outnumbered 2:1 is actualy 25% stronger. If you don't believe said system then just tell me if you consider 100 clanrats stronger than 50 grave guard. Because the latter get sudden death out of supposed disavantage, not to mention it's a light example based on 2 random forces I took out of the cupboard that I found ready to field. The probability that stronger army will get sudden death is huge thanks to number of models method of balance and it's not a hidden gem deeply thought out rule but a nonsensical, ridiculous joke of a rule that they should be ashamed of publishing under their names. And maybe they are, the "studio" guys.

Also we're not talking about how you fix the rules with imagined gentlemans agreements. We're talking about bad rules in the bad ruleset which btw does not contain a word about how you have to agree when your opponent tells you that you can't field an unit because he/she can't counter it.

Deadnight wrote:

All it takes for that whole house of cards to fall down is one player saying 'no'. As opposed to, you know, good game design.

Okay, I have a few questions.

1) Couldn't you say the same thing for any games with more than one player? I've had cooperative games go south due to one player stubbornly refusing to be helpful. I've also had literal houses of cards fall down due to someone else deciding to be a jerk.

2) What is "good game design"? Is it possible that "good" is a subjective claim and thus any concept you have of "good game design" could not be supported by objective arguments?

3) Is it possible that, given "good" to be a subjective declaration, maybe there are a multitude of different game design philosophies which can result in games that are enjoyed by different people for different reasons, all of which qualify as "good" to those that enjoy them?

4) Can a game without "good game design" still be enjoyable to play, either subjectively by participant or just in a general sense of fun? Is it conceivable that someone can have more fun playing Red Light, Green Light than Chess?

5) Do you believe that you are entitled to good game design? What is the worst case scenario for a game which you do not deem good? That you simply dislike playing it? Or do you resent its very existence for not living up to your arbitrary, subjective idea of "good game design"? How much do you expect the world to revolve around your own personal tastes?

In other words, if good design is subjective and good design isn't a requirement for a game to be fun anyway, how does AoS not being "good game design" mean anything all, except "I like this other game better"? And if I say AoS is good game design and you say it is not, by what objective measurement can we say which one of us is correct?

Also. Why is is on player a to step down? Surely player b is as obligated as a to either step up, change, modifiy or borrow stuff? You know, meet in the middle, etc.

Ideally, compromise will come from both parties, but that does not mean that both parties are equally capable of compromise. For instance, if I bring 20 models and you bring 40 models, and compromise made with favor me, since I have fewer options available for compromise. In the case of a hardcore player going up against a casual, the hardcore player is simply going to be much more capable of "playing down" than the casual player is of "playing up". This isn't a reflection of the casual player's ability to play, but of the limitations imposed by a casual engagement in the game.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Lythrandire you don't read much into post you respond to, do you?

Plumbumbarum wrote:For my last game I took clan rats warlord and hellpit abom vs grave guard black knights and a necromancer. It was sth like 97 to 47 for skaven in model count. 112 to 56 for skaven in wounds but Azyr comp had it 26 to 20 for vampire counts in points lol. Ofc vampire counts would get sudden death per RAW, it's mind boggling that they even put that nonsensical and flawed balancing system into the rules, it really would have been better if it was just put down whatever you want to period.

Azyr comp, system that takes into account difference in stats says that the army outnumbered 2:1 is actualy 25% stronger. If you don't believe said system then just tell me if you consider 100 clanrats stronger than 50 grave guard. Because the latter get sudden death out of supposed disavantage, not to mention it's a light example based on 2 random forces I took out of the cupboard that I found ready to field. The probability that stronger army will get sudden death is huge thanks to number of models method of balance and it's not a hidden gem deeply thought out rule but a nonsensical, ridiculous joke of a rule that they should be ashamed of publishing under their names. And maybe they are, the "studio" guys.

Also we're not talking about how you fix the rules with imagined gentlemans agreements. We're talking about bad rules in the bad ruleset which btw does not contain a word about how you have to agree when your opponent tells you that you can't field an unit because he/she can't counter it.

Of course, anyone who ONLY fields 100 Clanrats to counter 50 Grave Guard is a bad player. The issue is not that the Grave Guard are outnumbered. It's that they're not outnumbered ENOUGH. The Skaven player needs to drop more units to have a fighting chance. The core rules cover this situation with no NEED for comp systems. All that is needed is that the Skaven player recognize he is outmatched and deploy additional units. If he doesn't recognize that he's outmatched, a game or two should get him up to speed.

 Sqorgar wrote:


2) What is "good game design"? Is it possible that "good" is a subjective claim and thus any concept you have of "good game design" could not be supported by objective arguments?

3) Is it possible that, given "good" to be a subjective declaration, maybe there are a multitude of different game design philosophies which can result in games that are enjoyed by different people for different reasons, all of which qualify as "good" to those that enjoy them?

4) Can a game without "good game design" still be enjoyable to play, either subjectively by participant or just in a general sense of fun? Is it conceivable that someone can have more fun playing Red Light, Green Light than Chess?

2) 3) You know you won't get any definitive answer (except one that will drive the discussion on and will be a base for your counter point) as anything that will be presented will be either marred by what the poster thinks is "good" or will draw its arguments from other games that are considered "good". As you're implying good is subjective. The same game which for some is "good" will be qualified as "bad" by those that don't like it. Posters here can give you their reasons why they don't like AoS and at most their own interpretation of what a good game is. The second is up to debate and is as equally defensible by the person who gives it as is easy to pick apart by one who watches from a different angle. It is an empty debate IMO. By that logic categorizing any game as "good" or "bad" is pointless. Nevertheless if such a debate would be executed in a manner that would pinpoint the definitive traits that make AoS its own game, along with the ones that people generally rule out not to use, it may have some value for bystanders. Alas this has already been done in multiple threads, with little to no effect and here's just the latest iteration with another (maybe) user. I'm not saying that debating this is without its merits, it is just the beginning of another circular dialogue with no end. "What would be a good game? Well a game that rewards players for good decisions. What would be these good decisions then? Decisions that a good game rewards."

4) Some years ago GW released Dreadfleet. It got MAULED to the ground by reviewers. A couple of months ago a friend managed to find a new copy and I played the first mission. I liked the game. I can't remember which points from the reviews came to mind during the game, but on numerous occasions I thought "Really? They grumbled over that? It's just as ok as any other mechanic". This is just an example I like to give

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
The scenario presented doesn't include an option to "step up" or borrow someone else's models.
.

Ah, so it's a set-up scenario that is story boarded to come to your predetermined conclusions without any other input. Ok Thanks. You don't get to play this card in real life, by the way. Things can get more complicated.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
If player b isn't willing to listen to reason, how is that the game's fault exactly?

Never said it was the games fault, just pointing out how easily the game can break down. Then again, since the game is so heavily underscored by a reliance on both players being 'reasonable', a failure in this is arguably an example of a fault in the game. Semantics really though.

And it's not necessarily about him 'listening to reason', maybe he just has a different view on what's fun. Player a doesn't necessarily have a monopoly on 'reason'. But here he is being judged and ridiculed, because essentially he wants to bring other stuff.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
What universe do these hypothetical players reside in where nobody will learn about a unit and decide that their fears were unfounded?.

The same hypothetical universe? All it takes is someone with a skewed perception. How often do we see threads with people calling x,y and z 'cheese'? You know, like marines in rhinos (there was one of those recently). Or terminators deep striking. It's not exactly 'unusual'. Or maybe they just don't want their opponent to have an equal footing. The possibility is as true for a and for b. Oh yeah, pre set scenario with pre determined conclusions.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

Also, your statement on the other possible ending automatically assumes player A is going to be more willing to be confrontational as opposed to simply explaining how they would deal with the model in question. If they really want to play it, and their opponent is unsure if they can actually have a chance to beat said unit, why wouldn't player A give them a pointer? Or, as I said before, they come up with a scenario that allows player A the chance to use his model, and allow player B a chance at victory.

Who's to say? You say 'confrontational', I say 'friendly banter'. With smiles and a bit of well meaning cheek. The Internet doesn't carry tone very well. Remember that. And Who's to say b's next comment won't be a pointer as you suggest?

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

Why does everyone have to automatically be aggressively trying to force other people into playing the way they personally want to play whenever these hypothetical situations arise?
.

You are correct. But, Like I said, Internet and tone. Let's not forget it might not be 'aggression'. There is also the potential for passive aggressive and flat out whiny or tantrum when they don't 'play down'.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

Just because there aren't points, doesn't mean I am unable to see reason.

Good for you. And fair play. But not everyone is necessarily like you. And don't forget, reason is coloured by perspective for a lot of people. What you see as 'reason', or 'reasonable' won't necessarily be shared by your opponent. And that's where aos can quite easily break down. As much as it can work with the right people with a similar attitude, it can break down beyond that.

Cheers

Plumbumbarum wrote:
Lythrandire you don't read much into post you respond to, do you?

Plumbumbarum wrote:For my last game I took clan rats warlord and hellpit abom vs grave guard black knights and a necromancer. It was sth like 97 to 47 for skaven in model count. 112 to 56 for skaven in wounds but Azyr comp had it 26 to 20 for vampire counts in points lol. Ofc vampire counts would get sudden death per RAW, it's mind boggling that they even put that nonsensical and flawed balancing system into the rules, it really would have been better if it was just put down whatever you want to period.

Azyr comp, system that takes into account difference in stats says that the army outnumbered 2:1 is actualy 25% stronger. If you don't believe said system then just tell me if you consider 100 clanrats stronger than 50 grave guard. Because the latter get sudden death out of supposed disavantage, not to mention it's a light example based on 2 random forces I took out of the cupboard that I found ready to field. The probability that stronger army will get sudden death is huge thanks to number of models method of balance and it's not a hidden gem deeply thought out rule but a nonsensical, ridiculous joke of a rule that they should be ashamed of publishing under their names. And maybe they are, the "studio" guys.

Also we're not talking about how you fix the rules with imagined gentlemans agreements. We're talking about bad rules in the bad ruleset which btw does not contain a word about how you have to agree when your opponent tells you that you can't field an unit because he/she can't counter it.

Did they table you? If not, what sudden death mission did they succeed in? If it ended in a minor victory, what was the difference in percentages. Also, if they are fielding heavy cavalry, why did you field medium to light infantry? There are hard counters out there, I'm sorry you ran into one.

 Kriswall wrote:
Of course, anyone who ONLY fields 100 Clanrats to counter 50 Grave Guard is a bad player. The issue is not that the Grave Guard are outnumbered. It's that they're not outnumbered ENOUGH. The Skaven player needs to drop more units to have a fighting chance. The core rules cover this situation with no NEED for comp systems. All that is needed is that the Skaven player recognize he is outmatched and deploy additional units. If he doesn't recognize that he's outmatched, a game or two should get him up to speed.

I still cannot fathom how people don't seem to get this! It almost seems like a number of people on here are somehow forced to play against people they can't stand.

Deadnight wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
The scenario presented doesn't include an option to "step up" or borrow someone else's models.
.

Ah, so it's a set-up scenario that is story boarded to come to your predetermined conclusions without any other input. Ok Thanks. You don't get to play this card in real life, by the way. Things can get more complicated.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
If player b isn't willing to listen to reason, how is that the game's fault exactly?

Never said it was the games fault, just pointing out how easily the game can break down. Then again, since the game is so heavily underscored by a reliance on both players being 'reasonable', a failure in this is arguably an example of a fault in the game. Semantics really though.

And it's not necessarily about him 'listening to reason', maybe he just has a different view on what's fun. Player a doesn't necessarily have a monopoly on 'reason'. But here he is being judged and ridiculed, because essentially he wants to bring other stuff.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
What universe do these hypothetical players reside in where nobody will learn about a unit and decide that their fears were unfounded?.

The same hypothetical universe? All it takes is someone with a skewed perception. How often do we see threads with people calling x,y and z 'cheese'? You know, like marines in rhinos (there was one of those recently). Or terminators deep striking. It's not exactly 'unusual'. Or maybe they just don't want their opponent to have an equal footing. The possibility is as true for a and for b. Oh yeah, pre set scenario with pre determined conclusions.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

Also, your statement on the other possible ending automatically assumes player A is going to be more willing to be confrontational as opposed to simply explaining how they would deal with the model in question. If they really want to play it, and their opponent is unsure if they can actually have a chance to beat said unit, why wouldn't player A give them a pointer? Or, as I said before, they come up with a scenario that allows player A the chance to use his model, and allow player B a chance at victory.

Who's to say? You say 'confrontational', I say 'friendly banter'. With smiles and a bit of well meaning cheek. The Internet doesn't carry tone very well. Remember that. And Who's to say b's next comment won't be a pointer as you suggest?

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

Why does everyone have to automatically be aggressively trying to force other people into playing the way they personally want to play whenever these hypothetical situations arise?
.

You are correct. But, Like I said, Internet and tone. Let's not forget it might not be 'aggression'. There is also the potential for passive aggressive and flat out whiny or tantrum when they don't 'play down'.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

Just because there aren't points, doesn't mean I am unable to see reason.

Good for you. And fair play. But not everyone is necessarily like you. And don't forget, reason is coloured by perspective for a lot of people. What you see as 'reason', or 'reasonable' won't necessarily be shared by your opponent. And that's where aos can quite easily break down. As much as it can work with the right people with a similar attitude, it can break down beyond that.

Cheers

Scenario as in the real world situation presented, not in the terms of the game. If the player who has no way of defeating a model shows that to be the case, then saying they should step up or borrow someone else's models shouldn't be considered the option. Player A is not being ridiculed, he is being asked about a unit his opponent isn't sure about. Nowhere is there any ridicule.

You are correct in the internet not carrying tone well, but if the game is designed to be played by people who are able to come to an agreement about how they want to play, and are willing to do so without trying to get one over on their opponent, why should cases where that can't happen be the reason the system is bad?

If I play monopoly, and my only opponent doesn't want to do anything but be the banker because that's the only part they like doing, it isn't Parker brothers fault we don't get to game together that day.