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.

Okay, I have a feeling this one might start an argument or two…

That is not my intention. If you have looked at Age of Sigmar and thought ‘urk, big armoured guys in fantasy, not for me!’ or something similar, that is just fine. Plenty of other games out there.

What I am saying is that if you have decided that you do not like Age of Sigmar, then it is just possible that some of the reasons you do not like it are wrong. Somewhere along the line, someone has told you something about the game that is simply not true.

The following are points I have seen made about Age of Sigmar on a variety of Internet forums and they are either not correct, or are based on some shaky foundations.

It is not my intention to provoke anyone. All I am saying is that if you have found yourself saying anything like the comments below, you may have been mis-informed.

As always, this is brought to you by the Tabletop Gamer's Diary: https://ttgamingdiary.wordpress.com/


All my favourite characters are gone!
Just about all Chaos characters are still present. The Chaos Gods took their favourite servants and moved them to the Mortal Realms. Your Glottkin is still working hard for Nurgle (and doing a damn good job, as it happens, seriously kicking Alarielle’s rear end).

Obviously, Alarielle is still around, and she seems to be significantly more powerful. Tyrion and Teclis are still a thing.

Speaking from an artistic point of view, Gotrek had to die. Of all the characters from the world-that-was, he was the one who was always going to be killed…

We don’t yet know the full extent of who survived the End Times and while many have gone, there are still strong links to the Old World.

Manfred, for example, has just popped up...


Age of Sigmar is failing
No one (except a few at GW HQ) knows anything about how the game has been selling. One store, or even a bunch of Internet forums, do not a firm basis make for this conclusion. The first clue we will get will be next year in GW’s financial reports, and we may not really know for 2-3 years.

It really is okay to wait and reserve judgement for later. There is no requirement to make a decision on this immediately!


There are no tactics in Age of Sigmar – just dice rolling
You have not got to grips with the game. If you really believe there are no tactics present, you have made that judgement too quickly. I’ll give some brief examples;

Age of Sigmar is a very mobile game, with a lot of movement and units exerting ‘zones’ of control (effectively, everyone has a 3” area around them that ‘traps’ enemy models). This makes movement very important, and leads to the ability to bait enemy models and block their own movement.

The randomisation of who goes first in a turn (and the possibility that you can have two turns in a row) is a big deal, and it will catch you out when you first play. However, once you get a few games under your belt, you start to figure out how to compensate for it. Basically, you can no longer march up your rock hard close combat unit and be ready for a charge – there is every chance you will be the one charged, and you need to pre-plan how you will counter that. Pre-planning is a basic definition of the use of tactics…

Another example; retreating. You don’t see this done too often in AoS, and that is because it can be quite hard to pull off. When you retreat a unit out of combat, you are basically ensuring it will not fight that turn and, even if you run, it is probable that the enemy will simply charge again and catch up with you. The trick here is to feed the enemy someone else, tying them up (remember the zones of control!).

For example, your elite archers get charged – this is bad news because even though they can theoretically shoot in close combat, many dedicated ranged units get bonuses to firing if the enemy is not right in front of them. So, if you stay there, you will be firing less effectively, and likely getting torn up by a unit that can fight well in close combat. If you just retreat, the enemy will soon catch up and finish you off, and barely miss a beat in doing it.

However, if you retreat your archer unit, and then charge in with your cavalry, the enemy will be unable to follow up, and your archers will be able to reposition themselves and keep firing in the next round.

This sounds simple, but with everything else going on in a turn, it is not always that easy to pull off.

And I have not even touched upon the synergies between units which are far, far more important than they are in Fantasy Battle or 40k…


Shooting in close combat makes no sense
Sure it does. It is a different type of fighting to what you might be used to. I’ll give an example using 40k, as everyone will be familiar with that – feel free to substitute for Bloodreavers and Stormcasts.

A Dark Angels Tactical Squad charges the remnants of an Ork mob cowering behind a barricade, determined to shift them and claim this flank of the battle. One Tactical Marine leaps over the barricade, and kicks an Ork in the chest, leaving it flat on the floor. Stamping on its head with an armoured foot, he turns as another Ork rushes him with a massive cleaver. Raising his Bolter, he fires three rounds which tear through the alien’s chest. Giving praise to the Emperor, he continues firing as the rest of the Orks flee from the assault of the Dark Angels.

Can you see that happening in your head? It is a more cinematic approach to combat but, whether it is your cup of tea or not, it is one that works.


There is no balance in Age of Sigmar
There is, but it is in your hands.

Even if we leave the ‘dick issue’ to one side (basically, don’t be one, and have as much consideration for your opponent’s fun as your own), there are now a handful of points systems available for AoS, and they are all community-made. As time goes on, they will become more accurate and more balanced. They are there and available for your use right now.

It is no secret that you don’t have to go far on a gaming forum to see people complaining about points imbalances in Fantasy Battle or 40k, and in these rants someone always bemoans the fact that GW does not engage in community-led pointing for units. After all, if thousands of people are submitting results, and points costs are updated, they will be far more accurate, right?

Well, that is what you have, right now, for Age of Sigmar. What is more, if you do not agree with one system (a certain points value for a unit will not be agreeable for everyone, you can be sure of that), then there are already others to try.

If competitive gaming is your thing, tournament organisers are now free to pick the points systems they feel work for them best – or simply come up with their own…

Given time, what can be more balanced than that?


But they could have added a points system, and all those ‘narrative’ gamers could have just ignored them – then everyone would have got what they wanted
This is true (leaving aside the benefits of community-pointing for a moment). However, there is another problem and, speaking as a games designer, this is a very real one.

If you put a points-based system in, 99% of all players will use it to the exclusion of all else. Yes, they could just ignore points. But they won’t. Gamers just won’t.

How a game presents itself has a direct effect on how it is played, generally speaking. And this, I know, was a very real issue for the guys at GW in the past. During the days of 3rd Edition 40k, to cite an example, the vast majority of games played used the Dawn Assault mission because, for some reason, people had got it into their heads that it was the ‘fairest’ mission. They also tended to default to 1,500 points.

The problem for the designers is that they have all these other types of battles, and worlds, and models to show you, but if you are just playing 1,500 point Dawn Assault games, you are not getting any of it. You are missing out on a massive amount.

If you are the games designer responsible, that is a big issue. You are creating all this wonderful material, and none of it is getting used. It also means the game is going to stagnate – at some point, you will get bored with Dawn Assault, but if you have been conditioned to think that this is the only way of playing 40k, you may not be looking for alternatives.

I know this sounds ridiculous. But it is a very real thing, and it is very common.

By taking the points out of Age of Sigmar (and by the way they present scenarios), there is no ‘standard’ way of playing. You are being forced out of the comfort zone, and this is where the designers want you. They want you to experience Warhammer in a variety of formats that will keep you gaming for, well, forever.


The free rules are a marketing trick. GW wants you to buy the big, expensive hardback books
Umm, yes. Of course they do. GW need to make money every month or they go bust, and then you will get no more Warhammer, of any flavour.

You can play Age of Sigmar with just the free materials (and, with the ‘legacy’ Warscrolls, there is a lot available for free) and go a long with just that. However, there is a lot more out there – eight entire worlds, in fact.

The hardbacks will give you new ways to play the game, via the Battleplans and Time of War sheets. However, their other purpose is to give you the story behind Age of Sigmar. The background behind Age of Sigmar is at least as important as the actual gaming system – and by this, I mean it is important to the structure of the game as a whole. It might not be important to you personally, as you may find mechanics to be the over-riding component necessary to you in the hobby. I know players who, when they get a new Codex, turn straight to the army list and it may be months before they read the background chapters, if at all. Age of Sigmar, as it stands, may not be for them.

The hardback releases (and those from the Black Library) are the direct driving force behind Age of Sigmar and, I imagine, always will be. If you are not into the storyline, then Age of Sigmar may not be for you. But the free rules are not a trick – the storyline is a fundamental component of the game.


“AOS is still for simpletons & peons. Enjoy your crappy game.”
This is an actual quote from a forum. The level of disrespect present in this comment towards other people (forget other gamers, people in general), is simply breath taking. It would be nice to simply assume he is a maladjusted teenager but, unfortunately, he seems to be in his thirties.

If the guy who said it does not really believe this, then he was being disingenuous at best. If he really does believe what he says, then he is a moron, with no room in his tiny, tiny world for anything other than his own point of view. I can imagine he spends most of his time in a state of bliss.


“The game plays like there is no difference between a goblin and a super warrior Stormcast”
Another direct quote, and it is a little bit troubling that someone actually thinks this. Of course there is a difference – that goblin is going to get stomped by the Stormcast in a stand up fight. In fact, a unit of five Stormcasts is likely to trounce a veritable mob of goblins unless they are well supported.


It is just stupid to stack models on top of one another
Yes it is. But it does not happen in Age of Sigmar.

This is something that cropped up early on forums when Age of Sigmar was released, the idea that models could be placed on top of the bases of others to help with getting more models into combat, and it seems to have stuck.

I need to be clear on this point: Nowhere in the rules of Age of Sigmar does it suggest you can do this. Nowhere.

But, someone might say, it doesn’t say you can’t!

The trouble with this line of thinking is that it also does not say you can’t jam two dice up your opponent’s nostrils, then punch him in the ears so they blast out of his nose. The writers at GW do presume a measure of common sense when writing rules. And I do not think that is completely unreasonable.

Bases are ignored for the purposes of measuring ranges. That is all.


So, if I have a model with a 12” base, no one can fight me, right?
Well, if you go down that road yes, sort of.

If you meet someone with a base like that, have a quick chat and sort it out. All it requires is the application of common sense. I am pretty sure this is why this is not in the rules sheet – the designers could not conceive of anyone seriously trying this loop hole and, to be frank, I agree with them.

They are not writing a set of rules designed to be resilient to all kinds of potential abuse. The assumption is made that both players want to have a good time and will play fairly. Now, you might disagree with that approach, but this is where they are coming from. They are expecting you to play your opponent, not to play the rules.

To put it another way, if someone places a model with a 12” base that makes it impossible to attack, they have clearly done it on purpose for that specific reason, and refuse to budge on any accommodation… walk away. Seriously, life is way too short, and if they have done that, it really will be the least of the issues you will experience while playing them.

I’ll put it yet another way – making a base like that would be like making yourself invulnerable by glitching yourself into a wall in Battlefield or Call of Duty. Yes, the ‘rules’ permit it. But what have you actually gained other than ruining the enjoyment of other people?

(Incidentally, if you think glitching into walls is legitimate, then Games Workshop games overall are probably not for you).


Games Workshop does not care about gamers
Games Workshop is a company. It is incapable of caring about anything.

However, having spent some time with some of the design studio at GW HQ in the past, I can tell you that there are individuals there who very much do care about gamers. They are extremely enthusiastic about games (and yes, they play games other than those produced by GW!), and they see their job as communicating that enthusiasm to you, the gamer.

This is an amazing post Matt, thank you for it.

MongooseMatt wrote:
Okay, I have a feeling this one might start an argument or two…

You are absolutely right.

I appreciate what you're doing here, and enthusiasm for something you enjoy isn't a bad thing, but I'd like to offer a few counter-points from a different perspective.

All my favourite characters are gone!
Just about all Chaos characters are still present. The Chaos Gods took their favourite servants and moved them to the Mortal Realms. Your Glottkin is still working hard for Nurgle (and doing a damn good job, as it happens, seriously kicking Alarielle’s rear end).

Obviously, Alarielle is still around, and she seems to be significantly more powerful. Tyrion and Teclis are still a thing.

Speaking from an artistic point of view, Gotrek had to die. Of all the characters from the world-that-was, he was the one who was always going to be killed…

We don’t yet know the full extent of who survived the End Times and while many have gone, there are still strong links to the Old World.

Manfred, for example, has just popped up...

Yeah, but...all my favorite characters are gone They literally forgot about Skarsnik (and I hope it stays that way, because he'd probably come back as some sort of hybrid squig monstrosity fueled by Waaagh! energy instead of the sneaky, tricksy dirty-fightin' gobbo we know and love), Wurrzag's gone, Morglum Necksnapper's been relegated to tidbit status for ages and so HE'S not coming back...and more importantly, the game doesn't have the sort of setting to help bring forth the kind of characters I liked best, which were the fun little people in the background. There's no place in Age of Sigmar for a ratcatcher and his small but vicious dog. There's no place for a scruffy Border Prince that rose to power by literal backstabbing before being deposed and exiled half a week later. There's no place for the kindly old asylum owner who takes care of all those poor people who keep babbling about giant rats in the sewers - or, for that matter, the sewer jack who has to go down and deal with them. They just don't fit anywhere in the world.

I mean, it's enough of a blank canvas that you can make a place for them, you can come up with your own Altdorf or Karak Eight Peaks or Border Princes, but at that point, why not just write your own setting? It's a deliberate choice on GW's part because it works in 40k, but they're ignoring the fact that 40k still has the necessary superstructure to build on. You get those details about hives on Armageddon or how forge worlds interact with the rest of the Imperium, and you can slot your own planet in there neatly and know how a hive world that supplies parts for the local tech-priests would work.

Don't get me wrong, being able to make up your own stuff is wonderful, leaving room for that has always been one of GW's greatest strengths, but there's such a thing as taking it too far.

Shooting in close combat makes no sense

Sure it does. It is a different type of fighting to what you might be used to. I’ll give an example using 40k, as everyone will be familiar with that – feel free to substitute for Bloodreavers and Stormcasts.

A Dark Angels Tactical Squad charges the remnants of an Ork mob cowering behind a barricade, determined to shift them and claim this flank of the battle. One Tactical Marine leaps over the barricade, and kicks an Ork in the chest, leaving it flat on the floor. Stamping on its head with an armoured foot, he turns as another Ork rushes him with a massive cleaver. Raising his Bolter, he fires three rounds which tear through the alien’s chest. Giving praise to the Emperor, he continues firing as the rest of the Orks flee from the assault of the Dark Angels.

Can you see that happening in your head? It is a more cinematic approach to combat but, whether it is your cup of tea or not, it is one that works.

I can see that happening. What I can't see is a group of nearby Terminators spraying down the area with storm bolter (or...boltstormer... ) fire while their battle-brothers are engaged in a swirling, frantic melee with a mob of frenzied orks without causing a massive friendly fire incident. If you're going to have shooting in or into melee, there needs to be a chance to account for accidentally hitting an ally, and it's really immersion breaking when there isn't.

“The game plays like there is no difference between a goblin and a super warrior Stormcast”

Another direct quote, and it is a little bit troubling that someone actually thinks this. Of course there is a difference – that goblin is going to get stomped by the Stormcast in a stand up fight. In fact, a unit of five Stormcasts is likely to trounce a veritable mob of goblins unless they are well supported.

That one's a little unfair, I think it's reasonably clear that he's talking about the lack of a balancing system. Whether you want one or not is a matter of debate, I guess - although I think it's odd that it never was before Age of Sigmar showed up. The fact remains that you have to eyeball out whether or not forces are evenly matched, and that can lead to a few frustrating games before you find the right general area.

Games Workshop does not care about gamers

Games Workshop is a company. It is incapable of caring about anything.

However, having spent some time with some of the design studio at GW HQ in the past, I can tell you that there are individuals there who very much do care about gamers. They are extremely enthusiastic about games (and yes, they play games other than those produced by GW!), and they see their job as communicating that enthusiasm to you, the gamer.

A better way to phrase the complaint might be 'Games Workshop no longer prioritizes making a product to be used by gamers'. In the past, I'm sure they did. I think I know the kind of enthusiasm you're talking about - the sort that cropped up in the General's Compendium and all over the glorious old, OLD website (the one with all the links to fun skirmish scenarios and campaign rules and little tidbits of fluff, I think it was up around sixth/early seventh edition?)

I just don't see that any more in the material they produce. If the people who want to communicate that enthusiasm are still there, I'm afraid they're not doing the job they once did.

Shooting in close combat makes no sense

Your explain this topic in narrative way, actually the reason behind this is simple. Most RTS/MOBA/computer game allow shooting in(to) melee that streamline the rule and gaming pace for new gamer.

Dude, good points made. The only thing I'd say is there is a rule that says if your opponent has three times the number of models you have you chose one unit of theirs to kill. This, in my opinion, overpowers elite units, especially as the rules were made much simpler to attract players who had been put off by the amount if rules in 40k, the sort of people who may take a while to use or work out a fair "points" system. However, I completely agree with the rest.

Great post, thanks !

Personnaly, I had troubles at the first glance with shooting in melee.
But well... We are talking about something not realistic in a game with monters and semi gods...

About simple rules, a friend of mine reminded me the go game has the simplest rules you can find, and it is still the hardest game to master (the only game with black belts aka dans I know)

MongooseMatt wrote:
If competitive gaming is your thing, tournament organisers are now free to pick the points systems they feel work for them best – or simply come up with their own…

Given time, what can be more balanced than that?

A points system in the books that allows the phrase "2000 points" to be understood universally.

Just to point out - competitive gaming is not the only form of gaming where players like a codified balancing structure.

Back from a short absence, and it's heartwarming to know that the same debates are still being passionately fought

 Spinner wrote:
I can see that happening. What I can't see is a group of nearby Terminators spraying down the area with storm bolter (or...boltstormer... ) fire while their battle-brothers are engaged in a swirling, frantic melee with a mob of frenzied orks without causing a massive friendly fire incident. If you're going to have shooting in or into melee, there needs to be a chance to account for accidentally hitting an ally, and it's really immersion breaking when there isn't.

Presumably, fantasy battles are using slow firing weapons like crossbows and muskets where the "spray and pray" approach to ranged combat doesn't apply. When it takes you up to a minute to load each missle, you'll take the extra few seconds to aim before shooting. The balancing factor to ranged attacks is that they happen one per round, rather than up to four times per round like melee attacks.

That one's a little unfair, I think it's reasonably clear that he's talking about the lack of a balancing system. Whether you want one or not is a matter of debate, I guess - although I think it's odd that it never was before Age of Sigmar showed up. The fact remains that you have to eyeball out whether or not forces are evenly matched, and that can lead to a few frustrating games before you find the right general area.

In practice, it isn't nearly as much a problem as people make it out to be. In general, large power differences are easy to spot and somewhat imbalanced battles are still enjoyable to play where the advantage swings back and forth multiple times. So obsessing over balance is more of a mental hang up than a serious threat to the long term enjoyment of playing.

So most of these misconceptions are true but it's fine if you pretend they don't exist.

'Kay.

Wulfenson wrote:

But well... We are talking about something not realistic in a game with monters and semi gods...

I'm sorry, but I really, really don't care for this argument. At some point, the world has to make sense. Just because there's dragons flying around defying the laws of physics and people being brought back from the dead doesn't mean that everyone is capable of flawlessly pulling off Legolas-style trick shots with their scavenged bows and javelins any more than it means everyone is capable of predicting the future. There's a great quote from Firefly about that -

Wash: Psychic, though? That sounds like something out of science-fiction.

Zoë: We live in a spaceship, dear.

Wash: So?

Back from a short absence, and it's heartwarming to know that the same debates are still being passionately fought

These will be fought forever. I'm waiting with baited breath for the financial report to come out so we can all stick to our positions and argue viciously about how it means nothing after all.

Presumably, fantasy battles are using slow firing weapons like crossbows and muskets where the "spray and pray" approach to ranged combat doesn't apply. When it takes you up to a minute to load each missle, you'll take the extra few seconds to aim before shooting. The balancing factor to ranged attacks is that they happen one per round, rather than up to four times per round like melee attacks.

Yeah, but don't the Stormcast have machine gun crossbows? And aren't most of those weapons really bad at aiming? Try sniping with a musket, see how often you miss. Besides that, you're still trying to draw a bead on people struggling back and forth, chopping at each other, ducking, charging...

In practice, it isn't nearly as much a problem as people make it out to be. In general, large power differences are easy to spot and somewhat imbalanced battles are still enjoyable to play where the advantage swings back and forth multiple times. So obsessing over balance is more of a mental hang up than a serious threat to the long term enjoyment of playing.

Genuinely curious - would you mind mocking up a few balanced against each other armies for me, then? Preferably with as much variation as possible; goblins, ogres, the odd lizardman army, so on and so forth. Just so I could see what you'd consider fairly evenly matched. If you don't have the time or inclination, that's totally understandable, I'd just like to get your perspective on that.

Oh man, I'm bailing out of this thread already. You're a brave man, Matt!

Just want to say your OP is a great read. I also love Age of Sigmar and regarding the tactics I am really enjoying new tepactical questions that have been arising the more I play.

Recently, the dilemma of deploying my Swordsmen flush with no gaps to prevent the amount of enemies that could get into combat vs spacing them out to control more of the battlefield.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
So most of these misconceptions are true but it's fine if you pretend they don't exist.

'Kay.

Thats what I read too.

"Yes this is an issue but PLAY IT MOREER AND LONGERER until you reeeeaaaaallllyyy know the game. Then it's only a little bit less worse" is all I practically read out of that.

OP in no way made the game any more appealing nor did he really change any misconceptions.

Regardless,

I am interested to see that a long bowman can thematically shoot his arrow WHILE being cleaved by Blood crushing blood clotters with blood cleavers hailing the blood god... SKULL! But wait there's more, he can also thematically shoot his arrow into another group of skull grinding skull shooting skullies... BLOOD (seriously, the first step to playing AOS is getting past the pre teen "dark" names) while being cleaved by said blood skulls? He can also apparently then thematically draw his melee weapon and continue fighting only to repeat the process next round?

Wow, that totally makes sense. So thematic. I wonder how the heavy crossbowmen of this world get their steroids too. Must be a tough job.

The mechanics for shooting is terrible. Shooting into a melee should have risks and benefits. Most games either eliminate this problem through game mechanics or have a risk reward set up when shooting. Shooting WHILE in melee should be reserved for very special things in a setting like sigmar. I don't care if it hardly changes the game, it's still an eye sore of a problem and nobody I know would play a game with rules like this for shooting (imagine how bad the other rules are...). If the games shooting rules are so bad someone has to use 40k examples to show how plausible it could be despite the game having bows and arrows etc then something is a little wrong.

I also found your bit on Sigmar being balanced by fans a bit funny. I can't think of something more player UNFRIENDLY than that. Why? First up what do new players do? They see this game in a random shop and buy it (despite it's price being high) and start playing. It is highly likely that those players will give up very quickly on this game once they see how bad the balance is. How does a player made comp on some internet site they never heard of help them? It doesn't. In order for a game to work it needs to be playable out of the box. This game is for people who primarily play because of the GW logo and can tolerate such bad balance simply because they are used to it.

If 99% of players use points over everything else... then perhaps (now hear me out, seriously) this means something. Perhaps it's because points works for a casual game played between 2 randoms? I don't know. Throwing that out there.

I can't be bothered going through all that dribble, but you need to write a big long post like this:

"Yes this game sucks, yes there is no balance, yes it's so easy to break this game, yes the mechanics don't make sense unless we explain it with 40k, yes there are rules that will make you scratch your head and there is a hell of a lot more where that comes from. But we like this game for skulls and blood and fantasy space marines. It is familiar to us and therefore we stick with it no matter what (and yes the logo is a big reason for this). I don't care what anybody thinks about this I ENJOY IT."

Writing that will not only make sense but it will also be honest. I mean, one of your points was "just walk away from anybody who doesn't play like you want them too". I mean, how can anybody bring this up as a good point about their favorite rules? By saying this you are acknowledging that the game IS imbalanced, that the game DOES have huge issues and so on. I can't think of another non GW game where you have to leave the game to avoid 99% of your issues with the rules.

Thank you Matt for your awesome original post! I'm only new to the fantasy side but I'll make my 2 comments :-P
1. Due to the "easier" systems in AoS the game is so much more inviting than it has been before, I know that depth is there to be had but I can build up to that with experience.
2. The point system/no balance issue is as you stated, up to the players to decide what's fair. It's a little slack on GWs part for not figuring it out themselves but at least we don't get the horrible mess of 40ks unbalance. Alot harder to be that guy if your negotiating what your both aloud to use before the game.

I can say, after playing several games of AOS since its release, that I disagree with most of your points. I don't hate the rules with a passion like some, but will be first to say that it takes INTENSE balancing huserules and the Azyr comp to play a fun game. I play with most of the Destruction faction, mainly night goblins on one side and Orcs and Ogres on the other. I have played both sides with varying lists. My verdect? Night goblins are horrible compared to their old rules. Unless you play a large army (all 150 of my goblins plus 12 river trolls and 2 mangler squigs) to be able to compete, and pray the guy I'm facing won't force sudden death on me. Against elites its even worse, Especially ogre leadbelchers with chaos warriors. Orcs with ogres facing my own goblins means the former will win 90% of the time. Add onto the game murdering the awesome setting and mapping it had and replacing it for ambiguous planes makes our group of wargamers visibly upset...so we ignore it and make modifications to the old setting as we desire for narrative campaigns.

My point being? The misconceptions you mention are purely opinions on both sides. There is no "mistake" on the opposing side, we simply disagree and have pointed out details of why we feel it is incorrect on what you proclaim since the game was released.

I agree with all of the OP's points, but I still think AoS is a very lacklustre game and a disgraceful performance by the GW design team. It could have been so much better!

I'm with KK.
The potential for this was huge.

Personally, it needs points or a balance system at the very least.
I think this alone would help improve it 10x.
If people want to fight with unlisted armies then crack on, but balance is something needed in all games to make them work.

What AoS needed was more simplicity (less detail) in the stat line, and more detail added in other rules areas such as morale.

A balance system couldn't have done any harm, and the number of people creating their own shows it was a bad thing to miss out, though the game is playable without.

There also seems to be a problem with GW creating more and more special rules for individual units, but I suppose that is the way they roll, and you can't avoid it.

Elephant in the Room here. Regimental Formation Combat. I wanted a game of Fantasy Battles not a skirmish game. I wanted mass regiments and full scale battle tactics rather than skirmish warfare as an option it's fine but it doesn't replace Warhammer in my mind the scale is wrong.

If a company has talented, dedicated, and passionate designers on staff, how does gak like AoS get out the door?

It gets out the door because the company itself doesn't care enough about the game, only the models.

A well designed and put together game doesn't need internet posts saying "you are doing it wrong" or "you need to look at it this way". A well designed and put together game flows simply out of the box and shows its depth the longer you put time into it.

It certainly doesn't need posts saying "don't believe all the other information you are reading about this game."

By GW's current standards, I am certain any reports will proclaim loudly the "unqualified success" of AoS.

By the vast majority of the gaming community, AoS is a resounding disappointment and a sad testament to the foundation that game and that game company were built upon.

Your no points....point is inaccurate. People play to win, not to make sure little Timmy feels the game is close enough that he could have won too. Anyone can sit down and hash out "fair" lists with their buddies, but then that restricts what GW wanted to do in the first place, get you to buy and use whatever you liked. And that reasoning gets thrown out the window in pickup games and tournaments. And as for fan made systems that's a joke. We had 10 people playing this, then they started insisting on using fan made comp systems. The non summoning armies unsurprisingly wanted to use the ruleset with the harshest restrictions on summoning, which pretty much made the two undead and lizardman players just quit. Some wanted solely wounds based, where things like bertonian knights on horses pumping out stupid amounts of attacks was king.

Truth is GW sat down and said "how can we make the pretense of a game to sell anyone anything they might want to use?". AoS is the results of the sales teams input, not fame designers. For the " leader" in gaming companies its an insulting half assed scam they are trying to justify as open enough to change it to your likeing. YOUR likeing, and nobody else. And because of it pickup and tournament play are a joke.

Man Matt get ready I agree with you but get ready that's all I gotta say. +1 though. I just feel its a new system and setting give it time I find the recent books rather interesting myself and I can't wait to see what mannfred gets up to in the setting since if I was nagash I would let him rot.

AoS isn't the regiment game that I started playing a few years back. It's a skirmish game, I didn't sign up for a skirmish game. It's a complete 180 flip. And there is no way to balance the game, and that, in itself, is utterly bizarre.

It shouldn't be up to the player base to design the damn game, it's up to the designers to design the thing. Every single player ever, goes into a game with the intention of completing it. Hopefully by winning. You don't play a PlayStation game to not finish the game, you play because you want to get to the end and beat it. All this talk of using wounds is just on the forum, what happens in club A, might not be the case in Club B. Club C might do something else entirely. In any other gaming system, Timmy can walk in and go. "I want to play a game." And I can okay. "Okay, how many points?" I might be there to have fun, but it's no fun starting the game with an unfair advantage.

 Spinner wrote:

Yeah, but...all my favorite characters are gone They literally forgot about Skarsnik (and I hope it stays that way, because he'd probably come back as some sort of hybrid squig monstrosity fueled by Waaagh! energy instead of the sneaky, tricksy dirty-fightin' gobbo we know and love), Wurrzag's gone, Morglum Necksnapper's been relegated to tidbit status for ages and so HE'S not coming back...

Those are fair enough points, but whatever was going to happen after the End Times some characters were not going to make it, and each one was always going to be someone's favourite. My point, and reading back I only kinda backed into it, was the remaining links to the Old World that are present. It is not a completely clean sheet, and while it is not the Old World, it is still Warhammer.

That was what I was trying to say

 Spinner wrote:
and more importantly, the game doesn't have the sort of setting to help bring forth the kind of characters I liked best, which were the fun little people in the background. There's no place in Age of Sigmar for a ratcatcher and his small but vicious dog. There's no place for a scruffy Border Prince that rose to power by literal backstabbing before being deposed and exiled half a week later. There's no place for the kindly old asylum owner who takes care of all those poor people who keep babbling about giant rats in the sewers - or, for that matter, the sewer jack who has to go down and deal with them. They just don't fit anywhere in the world.

Not yet. There have been bits and pieces of 'normal' folk popping up in the new fiction, but they have had no focus as yet - perhaps understandably, as there are bigger things going on right now.

However, the Realms seem to be, to all intents and purposes, infinite - I think that may very much have been the point behind them. No reason those characters you mention cannot/will not exist. Still early days, but I would venture the Mortal Realms were designed to serve as the foundation for a multitude of stories.

Still early days - neither the Old World nor 40k had the superstructure, as you say, right from the start. They did not kick off with a major event either.

I think this may be something worth reserving judgement on. If we still have not seen anything like this in the next year or so, may be worth revisiting!

 Spinner wrote:

That one's a little unfair, I think it's reasonably clear that he's talking about the lack of a balancing system.

If that was what the gentleman was meaning, I take it back - wasn't my intention to pick on him, just seemed to be something that was fundamentally wrong (from the way I read it), and thus served to be in the list.

 Spinner wrote:

I just don't see that any more in the material they produce. If the people who want to communicate that enthusiasm are still there, I'm afraid they're not doing the job they once did.

I think you and I have some common ground here! I do think there may be some issues with communication - not with the often cited lack of defined release schedule or not laying out the whole of the AoS background (those just ain't going to happen, and I think there are valid reasons why that should be so), but with how, for want of a better term, access to their games is presented.

To give an example that got me thinking, take the Chaos Dreadhold. When that was first previewed, many people went fairly giddy with the idea of a £600 fortress. Certainly a rich man's toy.

However, that is not really the case, and I did not really twig this until I started reading the Dreadhold Battletome (and, it should be pointed out, you are only going to be reading that if you buy into the idea of the Dreadhold in the first place, and if you have already decided not to spend that £600...).

What only really began to come across in that book is that you don't need the big fortress. You just need one tower to start off with - there is plenty of utility in it. Then add a Bastion. Maybe get a wall or two when you order some paints. Do it gradually - the book actively supports picking up bits and bobs here and there for the Dreadhold, maybe, maybe with the idea that in a year or two you will have something approaching that big fortress.

I am not sure that was communicated particularly well. It appears at first glance that you need to be Lord Rothschild to get into Dreadhold battles, but that is not really the case.

Anyway, communication not always the best in all areas.

Brother Gyoken wrote:

A points system in the books that allows the phrase "2000 points" to be understood universally.

Why do you assume that is automatically more balanced than a system developed by a community? I have a feeling there are many on these forums who may disagree.

 Spinner wrote:

I'm sorry, but I really, really don't care for this argument. At some point, the world has to make sense.

I am actually with you on this I like my fantasy to be internally consistent too.

However, what happens on the tabletop is subject to the players' own interpretation. A unit in close combat fires on an enemy further away? Well, assuming they have LOS (which is going to restrict this a great deal anyway), maybe some of their guys pull back from the fighting for a moment to get the shots in (they are not all going to hit, so maybe some of those misses are not actual misses but the guys still battling away who did not get to fire?). Maybe some of them temporarily get some high ground, a fallen statue or whatever is close by, to shoot over someone's heads. The combat in this game seems to be more fluid, so it will take an adjustment from the old rank and file way of doing things.

(and this will really set some people off: If it does not make sense to you to make any given shot... consider not doing it ).

 Spinner wrote:

Genuinely curious - would you mind mocking up a few balanced against each other armies for me, then? Preferably with as much variation as possible; goblins, ogres, the odd lizardman army, so on and so forth. Just so I could see what you'd consider fairly evenly matched. If you don't have the time or inclination, that's totally understandable, I'd just like to get your perspective on that.

I did not post that comment but, if you are interested, I could dig up some lists tomorrow that we have actually used. Would be happy to go through the thought processes that went to create them too...

autumnlotus wrote:
I can say, after playing several games of AOS since its release, that I disagree with most of your points.

You are welcome to, Sir - always happy to chat/debate about gaming

autumnlotus wrote:

My point being? The misconceptions you mention are purely opinions on both sides. There is no "mistake" on the opposing side, we simply disagree and have pointed out details of why we feel it is incorrect on what you proclaim since the game was released.

On the points side, you are right. There are plenty of gamers who don't want to play any other way and AoS, as presented, will be an issue for them. The flip side is that the game is still new and they already have a variety of points systems to choose from.

That said, there are also other points I raised that are just flat wrong. That is what I suggested people look at. Should point out, I am not looking to convert, but if someone believes something that is based on an erroneous foundation... well, it has to be worth at least a discussion, right?

 Jackal wrote:

If people want to fight with unlisted armies then crack on, but balance is something needed in all games to make them work.

This is something I would call you on - miniatures/war games have existed for decades without a balancing points system. Perversely, it was GW that had a big hand in getting people to rely on points.

 Llamahead wrote:
Elephant in the Room here. Regimental Formation Combat. I wanted a game of Fantasy Battles not a skirmish game. I wanted mass regiments and full scale battle tactics rather than skirmish warfare as an option it's fine but it doesn't replace Warhammer in my mind the scale is wrong.

Here's the thing. You had it (8e) and you didn't support it.

I don't mean you personally (!), but there was not enough interest in WHFB to sustain its life (and the cracks were appearing long before 8e - this has been coming for a while). No one yet knows whether AoS is the answer, but something had to change. We can debate about whether AoS was the correct step, and I am sure there are people who will, but something had to be done.

At the end of the day, if people had been buying into WHFB at the same rate as they do 40k, it is entirely possible that AoS would never have appeared.

Shotgun wrote:

It gets out the door because the company itself doesn't care enough about the game, only the models.

Well, as I said in the original post, a company cannot care about things. It is a company.

Shotgun wrote:
A well designed and put together game doesn't need internet posts saying "you are doing it wrong" or "you need to look at it this way". A well designed and put together game flows simply out of the box and shows its depth the longer you put time into it.

You see, that is what I would argue AoS is in the process of. That does not mean everyone should like it.

Shotgun wrote:
It certainly doesn't need posts saying "don't believe all the other information you are reading about this game."

I presume you are referring to me, but I did not say that.

Shotgun wrote:

By the vast majority of the gaming community.

Ah, now, I missed this - where did the community get together and vote on this?

Sorry, that was facetious. However, sweeping statements like this is where a lot of the issues start. Come on, the 'gaming community' does not speak with one voice, and has no system for deciding what the majority opinion is. Can we agree to leave that behind?

 Orock wrote:
Your no points....point is inaccurate. People play to win, not to make sure little Timmy feels the game is close enough that he could have won too.

I have played to win, it is true, though I have never been in position to gauge little Timmy's feelings.

But here is the thing - I have also played with no expectation or intention of winning, where what happens on the table is more important than who wins. There have been times when I have wanted my opponent to win because it would be more interesting in the context of the campaign we are playing.

And I know I am not alone in that style of play.

Point being, winning is not the only reason people play.

 Orock wrote:
The non summoning armies unsurprisingly wanted to use the ruleset with the harshest restrictions on summoning, which pretty much made the two undead and lizardman players just quit. Some wanted solely wounds based, where things like bertonian knights on horses pumping out stupid amounts of attacks was king.

And your group could find no way to resolve that?

 Orock wrote:

Truth is GW sat down and said "how can we make the pretense of a game to sell anyone anything they might want to use?". AoS is the results of the sales teams input, not fame designers. For the " leader" in gaming companies its an insulting half assed scam they are trying to justify as open enough to change it to your likeing.

Okay, let's be honest here, just for a moment.

That is not the truth, is it? At best, it is a guess. The truth is that no one here knows what conversations took place at GW to create AoS. Putting words in people's mouths may not be the most helpful/productive things we could be doing.

 Orock wrote:

YOUR likeing, and nobody else.

I am the only one who likes the game.

Really?

 Swastakowey wrote:

"Yes this is an issue but PLAY IT MOREER AND LONGERER until you reeeeaaaaallllyyy know the game. Then it's only a little bit less worse" is all I practically read out of that.

Fair enough - but I don't think it was my post you read, because I did not say that.

 Swastakowey wrote:

It is highly likely that those players will give up very quickly on this game

Brand new players, without any preconceptions about points? What are you basing that opinion on?

 Swastakowey wrote:

I can't be bothered going through all that dribble,

You can't be bothered to read a post, but you feel okay about commenting on it?

Wow.

 Swastakowey wrote:

Writing that will not only make sense but it will also be honest.

Just so I am clear, are you suggesting I am dishonest?

 Swastakowey wrote:
I mean, one of your points was "just walk away from anybody who doesn't play like you want them too".

No, it wasn't. I never said that.

What I said was (paraphrasing) 'if someone is being a tit, walk away.' Which is, frankly, good advice in any walk of life, not just AoS.

 Swastakowey wrote:

By saying this you are acknowledging that the game IS imbalanced, that the game DOES have huge issues

Firstly, I did not say it.

Second, what you are doing is putting words in someone else's mouth, and that is very rude. I would much prefer it if we could converse as gentlemen. You up for that?

Meow!
I love how this post was a simple opinion on how others may be casting judgement before realising why AoS is how it is, then people who don't like AoS flame him for having an opinion...
Keep on defending your opinions Matt, even if I did disagree it's not my place to say your wrong.

LucidNinja wrote:
Meow!
I love how this post was a simple opinion on how others may be casting judgement before realising why AoS is how it is, then people who don't like AoS flame him for having an opinion...
Keep on defending your opinions Matt, even if I did disagree it's not my place to say your wrong.

I never said I disliked AoS and if he is going to post his opinion on a discussion board he should be prepared to defend it.

 Spinner wrote:

Genuinely curious - would you mind mocking up a few balanced against each other armies for me, then? Preferably with as much variation as possible; goblins, ogres, the odd lizardman army, so on and so forth. Just so I could see what you'd consider fairly evenly matched. If you don't have the time or inclination, that's totally understandable, I'd just like to get your perspective on that.

That's a lot of effort for something that has exactly zero chance of changing your views. I feel like if you let go of the concept of "balance", you'll have a good time of Age of Sigmar. The game itself isn't broken, just the game while holding a certain perspective. It's not something I can prove (or would bother to try, as AoS opposition refuses to cede ground on any point, EVER, like a flat earth creationist debating an evolutionary biologist), but I have fun with AoS and I think my expectations are in line with the design philosophy behind it, and maybe that's why I can enjoy it as much as I do while others only see red. As long as I felt like I played a good game, it doesn't matter to me who begins with what advantage or disadvantage, or ultimately who won. Some of the best games I've ever played, I never had a chance of winning.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 welshhoppo wrote:
It shouldn't be up to the player base to design the damn game, it's up to the designers to design the thing.

I know! Nintendo just released Mario Maker. They expect players to make their own Mario levels... like fething savages. And don't get me started on Minecraft. What the hell are you supposed to do in that game? And geez, Counter-Strike and DotA started as mods, so obviously player contributions to gaming are unnecessary and unwanted. Leave it to the professionals, I say!

Every single player ever, goes into a game with the intention of completing it. Hopefully by winning. You don't play a PlayStation game to not finish the game, you play because you want to get to the end and beat it.

Nah. Some of my favorite games, I've never come close to winning or literally cannot win. There are a lot of reasons to play games, and I wouldn't say that any one of them is the right way to do it.

I know I was being over simplistic. But they have released a mine craft story mode.... So illuminati confirmed and all that. Plus I used to love little big planet.

But my point stands, you tend to do those in private or with a bunch of close friends and the basics are all the same. You have a base to start on. Mine craft has the block system. It would be like walking into a mine craft game and someone decided that the blocks are actually 1 x 3 x 15 and you need a diamond tools to cut mud, but obsidian can be punched to death. Same for counter strike and everything else. They all have a basic engine.

AoS just feels like they forgot to fill in the parameters, most of it is there but the glue holding it together is missing.

Great posts Matt. I agree with all of your points. I loved WHFB from 3e all the way to to 8e, but it had grown stale to me after so many years and as you said something had to be done. Around me it had all but died only myself and one other friend still showed interest , everyone else went to historicals.