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.
Emphasis on this little bit of the Citadel Design Seminar::
"We start when a new model is presented to Design Team, and we’re told to come up with some rules and background for it”. This sounds exaggerated, like someone from the miniatures side of the building produces a KV128 Stormsurge (built and painted to ‘Eavy Metal standard) and says “We made this, make rules and background so we can sell it!” – but this is literally the example we were given! I know!"
Fethin' top notch rule design process, ain't it?
I genuinely don't see this as a bad thing, in fact I would have thought it obvious.
GW are quite open about being a miniatures company. Therefore the miniatures need are the driving force behind things. For any company concerned with the 'feel' of it's miniatures, then aesthetics would logically have to come first - afaik, Jon Blanche is still the guy charged with this overall?
For example, in certain circumstances that works seamlessly. Take the new Firewarriors. Makes complete sense to have a slight evolution, so the kit has bigger armour and new guns to allow a dual build for a new type of unit.
GW have a dual kit that (at least in theory) is going to shift twice as many units relative to logistics. The fluff is an easy sell there, because it makes sense.
In the 40K universe, development and advancement - even within the Imperium - is kinda accepted. Orks build Gorkanauts, you can see that happening. Tau develop new tech - that's pretty much what they're known for, Tyranids evolve, as more Tomb Worlds are awakened new Necron units come online, etc. etc.
So that model works.
Now go back to WFB. It's a historic setting. Tech doesn't advance on any real kind of scale. There's nothing left to 'discover'. Stuff is pretty much as-is. There was no advancement in the timeline because the stage was so small.
Look at the last Dark Elf release. Add in Swordsmen to the traditional combo of Spears and Crossbows. Erm, okay, funny they've never really been mentioned before but it kinda makes sense... oh, and enormous sea beastie that's always been there. And warlocks on horses. And...
End Times.
Cue complaints from the fluff crowd. That Design-led process 'breaks'.
I'd actually suggest AoS was intentionally designed to gain maximum benefit from this approach. The world is essentially a blank canvas. We've got a few key players already, but the 8 realms have been crushed into submission for thousands of years, and we as the 'viewers' are following Sigmar as he rediscovers the place. With no army book cycle to worry about, the narrative elements are easy. Studio comes up with new Duardin wartrain? Cool, bring it in, we can have it as part of the Battle for the Hearthstone campaign we've got planned. Seraphon get a beast-master style pack of dog-sized Raptors to protect units? Nice. There's no continuity to break because the whole setting for AoS is one of discovery and advancement.
I have no idea how long GW have been using this miniatures-led process - I know it wasn't the case yeeeaarrrs ago. But if the quality of the miniature output for the last 5 or so years - across both 40K and WFB/AoS - is the result, then I'm all for it.
Emphasis on this little bit of the Citadel Design Seminar::
"We start when a new model is presented to Design Team, and we’re told to come up with some rules and background for it”. This sounds exaggerated, like someone from the miniatures side of the building produces a KV128 Stormsurge (built and painted to ‘Eavy Metal standard) and says “We made this, make rules and background so we can sell it!” – but this is literally the example we were given! I know!"
Fethin' top notch rule design process, ain't it?
I genuinely don't see this as a bad thing, in fact I would have thought it obvious.
GW are quite open about being a miniatures company. Therefore the miniatures need are the driving force behind things. For any company concerned with the 'feel' of it's miniatures, then aesthetics would logically have to come first - afaik, Jon Blanche is still the guy charged with this overall?
For example, in certain circumstances that works seamlessly. Take the new Firewarriors. Makes complete sense to have a slight evolution, so the kit has bigger armour and new guns to allow a dual build for a new type of unit.
GW have a dual kit that (at least in theory) is going to shift twice as many units relative to logistics. The fluff is an easy sell there, because it makes sense.
In the 40K universe, development and advancement - even within the Imperium - is kinda accepted. Orks build Gorkanauts, you can see that happening. Tau develop new tech - that's pretty much what they're known for, Tyranids evolve, as more Tomb Worlds are awakened new Necron units come online, etc. etc.
So that model works.
Now go back to WFB. It's a historic setting. Tech doesn't advance on any real kind of scale. There's nothing left to 'discover'. Stuff is pretty much as-is. There was no advancement in the timeline because the stage was so small.
Look at the last Dark Elf release. Add in Swordsmen to the traditional combo of Spears and Crossbows. Erm, okay, funny they've never really been mentioned before but it kinda makes sense... oh, and enormous sea beastie that's always been there. And warlocks on horses. And...
End Times.
Cue complaints from the fluff crowd. That Design-led process 'breaks'.
I'd actually suggest AoS was intentionally designed to gain maximum benefit from this approach. The world is essentially a blank canvas. We've got a few key players already, but the 8 realms have been crushed into submission for thousands of years, and we as the 'viewers' are following Sigmar as he rediscovers the place. With no army book cycle to worry about, the narrative elements are easy. Studio comes up with new Duardin wartrain? Cool, bring it in, we can have it as part of the Battle for the Hearthstone campaign we've got planned. Seraphon get a beast-master style pack of dog-sized Raptors to protect units? Nice. There's no continuity to break because the whole setting for AoS is one of discovery and advancement.
I have no idea how long GW have been using this miniatures-led process - I know it wasn't the case yeeeaarrrs ago. But if the quality of the miniature output for the last 5 or so years - across both 40K and WFB/AoS - is the result, then I'm all for it.
No doubt the miniatures have become better looking (and more expensive, and the price per model has doubled, and... I rant ) but if the price for that is AoS-like shoddy "rules", I am definitely not buying it, but that is personal opinion.
What good are awesome-looking miniatures if I don't want to play the game they are specifically made for?
"Let them that are happy talk of piety; we that would work our adversary must take no account of laws."http://back2basing.blogspot.pt/
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote: What good are awesome-looking miniatures if I don't want to play the game they are specifically made for?
AoS has rules. Some people like them, some don't. AoS has miniatures. Some people like them, some don't. I would assume that Age of Sigmar, as a miniature ecosystem, is probably the overlapping section of people who both like the rules and like the miniatures. Therefore, if you are outside of that overlapping sections, or indeed outside of either or both of the circles, it is fair to assume that Age of Sigmar is not made for you.
The question then is, if your personal opinion is the problem here, what can you do about it?
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote: What good are awesome-looking miniatures if I don't want to play the game they are specifically made for?
AoS has rules. Some people like them, some don't. AoS has miniatures. Some people like them, some don't. I would assume that Age of Sigmar, as a miniature ecosystem, is probably the overlapping section of people who both like the rules and like the miniatures. Therefore, if you are outside of that overlapping sections, or indeed outside of either or both of the circles, it is fair to assume that Age of Sigmar is not made for you.
The question then is, if your personal opinion is the problem here, what can you do about it?
I didn't say AoS doesn't have rules. I said they were shoddy - it's a whole different thing.
Also I can do what I am doing at the moment - not buy the AoS content. But, last I checked, there was nothing barring me from expressing my opinion while talking to RoperPG about the current citadel design process... or is there?
"Let them that are happy talk of piety; we that would work our adversary must take no account of laws."http://back2basing.blogspot.pt/
2015/10/20 15:56:15
Subject: Re:Misconceptions Regarding Age of Sigmar
First up, in a response to the "elephant in the room" question about wanting massed rank and file battles, you said this.
"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."
so here's three questions for you.
1. How much are players supposed to spend to continue playing a game? I'm genuinely curious, How much do you recommend that each individual player spend per year? I have heard this argument before so I really want to know your opinion as a games designer.
2. why is it the consumers fault that a product failed? if you put out a sourcebook, miniature, expansion, or DLC and it is not bought, well received, or a critical success, What do you as a games designer take from that particular endeavor?
3. Lastly, why would you go out of your way to support GW and AoS? You are a games designer in your own right so I'm not sure what benefit you get from clearing up misconceptions regarding AoS.
I wanted to answer my own questions, to let you know where i stand on everything as far as these points go.
1. I usually buy all resource books when they come out, and in the last year I've bought a 2000 point Kult of speed army, five of the new army carrying cases, 2500 points of guard, and 2000 points of imperial terrain. I support my local store so all that is from a GW store. I feel that for someone to play any given wargame they should buy what is needed for an "average" game along with the rules needed to play. assuming their models aren't phased out, keeping current with the rules for the game and their models should suffice.
2. It is not my fault as a consumer that a product fails, nor is it the consumer that can only afford a box set and paints in a years time. I'm pretty ignorant on business things, but I would think if I made a product and it didn't sell, I would look at WHY it wasn't selling, and adjust accordingly. Especially if my competition was capitalizing on my gaff! I think blaming the consumer only alienates the consumer.
3. I support GW because it's my current best option for my wargaming needs. I love my local GW store, there's a solid group of players, and wargaming with GW products has been a hobby of mine for quite a while. I have played a lot of AoS, my current plan for AoS is to wait and see how it evolves (assuming it doesn't get canceled) and focus on 40K. I am a scenario player but I still find AoS similar to eating spaghetti and meatballs without utensils. It gets the job done but its sloppy as hell.
+1 to Matt's topic and to RoperPG's post about AoS giving tons of options for new model options that weren't possible in the old world. (Besides, the old world's advancement would have either gone steampunk, stepping on warmahorde's territory, or high magic and gets complained that it's copying warcraft.)
@ Stormcrow, if you don't care for the rules the models are still nice or you can use them for parts. Lots of people didn't care for KoW in the past but still bought their models.
Heck, I bet several of the other miniature companies people buy from to use in GW games have their own games that people completely overlook.
2015/10/20 16:56:43
Subject: Re:Misconceptions Regarding Age of Sigmar
1. How much are players supposed to spend to continue playing a game? I'm genuinely curious, How much do you recommend that each individual player spend per year? I have heard this argument before so I really want to know your opinion as a games designer.
I am not the one to answer this - first because I am not privy (unfortunately) the the scales that GW is used to, and second because my company has never really released any line that required a constant buy in beyond successive books, which is kinda down to us and our release schedule.
2. why is it the consumers fault that a product failed? if you put out a sourcebook, miniature, expansion, or DLC and it is not bought, well received, or a critical success, What do you as a games designer take from that particular endeavor?
Heh
I am not sure there is any actual blame - sometimes stuff just happens.
For example, I once wrote (what I still consider to be) a brilliant sourcebook for Starship Troopers (the Klendathu Invasion). It had a complete army list in it covering the guys from the film, the background tracked the entire history of the invasion, and we had managed to link film, book and animated TV series into a cohesive whole.
Guess what SST supplement sold the least?
You can say that if more people had bought WFB, it would not have gone away. However, the reasons for that not happening are up for discussion and (unfortunately) there is no solid evidence for any argument. All we know for certain is that it was not performing.
The natural reaction is to blame GW because, well, that is what people like to do Mind you, we should also bear in mind that product lines have finite life spans and WFB had a very, very good run. * Shrug * Maybe it was just its time.
3. Lastly, why would you go out of your way to support GW and AoS? You are a games designer in your own right so I'm not sure what benefit you get from clearing up misconceptions regarding AoS.
Someone else asked me something similar the other day on another forum
Ultimately, it is because I like AoS and I like the products GW produces. I didn't buy into Execution Force, but I tend to pick up most games they produce.
I run a games company because I like games, I enjoy writing them, I appear to be at least above average in doing it, and I never wanted a real job. I could be earning six figures by making, oh, widgets or something - but how interesting would that be?
I enjoy playing games, and I enjoy talking about playing games. I like conversing with other people who play games, even if they do not play the same games as me. And I am fortunate to be in a job that allows me to do that.
On the other hand, you want to talk about Judge Dredd, Traveller, or any of our other games, past or present, and I will be all over that!
Back to the OP. The OP incorrectly assumes that many don't like AOS because of misunderstandings.
I understand perfectly what it is and realize that it isn't for me.
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions.
2015/10/20 17:12:39
Subject: Re:Misconceptions Regarding Age of Sigmar
I am not sure there is any actual blame - sometimes stuff just happens.
...
You can say that if more people had bought WFB, it would not have gone away. However, the reasons for that not happening are up for discussion and (unfortunately) there is no solid evidence for any argument. All we know for certain is that it was not performing.
The natural reaction is to blame GW because, well, that is what people like to do Mind you, we should also bear in mind that product lines have finite life spans and WFB had a very, very good run. * Shrug * Maybe it was just its time.
Releasing only two supplements to the rules in 18 months after a new edition, constantly raising prices to an untenable level, creating rules to benefit the player if they use more and more models... yet most of the time in the AOS defense threads the players get blamed for not buying enough.
Both Mario Maker and Minecraft are expressly about using your imagination to create new things. That is the point of those games.
You want to compare it properly, compare it to D&D 5e. Homebrew material is very common with D&D, and it works well because the developers actually published a finished, balanced, and good ruleset, not this sack of gak we all call Age of Sigmar.
ASIDE from that, the developers are fething paid to create a whole, complete game. They clearly can't be arsed to do so.
And wargames aren’t about using your imagination? You say compare it to RPGs – wargames and RPGs share a lot of players, and they both draw on, and share a lot of the same creative DNA in bringing things to life.
As to what developers are paid to do – they’re paid to adhere to a design brief. If that brief says ‘full, all encompassing, watertight tournament rules set’, then that’s what they’ll do. If that brief says ‘open ended book’, with an emphasis on putting the game in the hands of the players, then that’s what they’ll do. GW prefers the latter. Don’t like it. Then don’t play it. Vote with your feet and wallet. I sometimes get tired with all the criticism GW developers get. I really do. Outside of GW those same developers lambasted as ‘terrible’,’incompetent’ etc have gone on to create some brilliant rules sets. Its the corporate responsibilities and juggling priorities that puts a lid on them. You have so many other things to deal with - deadlines, limited resources and project briefs and all are somewhat necessary, especially for a company on the size of GW. Letting all that creativity and blue sky thinking off the hook wont necessarily lead to brilliant results either.
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.
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...
I’ll be honest. I never cared for WFB. Never liked the lore, or the models. I love my Simon Scarrow books etc about a bunch of roman legionnaires, and while my history brain knows their empire crashed and burned 1500 years ago, I can still enjoy books about the roman empire. Here’s the thing. I know its gone. I never had to lose it in the first place. I can appreciate someone being gutted that a stable setting got nuked. I’d be just as annoyed if some of my favourite IPs got canned. Don’t dismiss that so readily.
Age of Sigmar is failing
No one (except a few at GWHQ) 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!
Agreed. Annecdotal evidence could suggest both. I think its got a lot of pull and value for those that want a simple, straight forward game, and especially for currently-not-wargamers for whom all the intricacies and all the moving parts of games like WMH and Infinity are not present (I love those intricacies; but I know for a fact those same intricacies that I love make other people run a mile). Whether AOS has the stamina to go the distance is another question – my jury is still out, but im quite interested in the outcome.
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
To be fair: Nothing I’ve not seen before, or implemented better in other games. For me, this and the not-very-interesting rules mechanics is the deciding factor in why I don’t actually play AOS, even though I love the DIY gaming approach that AOS encourages. Nothing new... Personal opinion though.
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
Firing a longbow in the midst of a melee while a guy is hacking at you with a sword isn’t quite the same as pulling the trigger on an automatic weapon.
Now, if AOS actually had rules for (1)leaping over barricades, (2) kicking orks in the chest, (3)knocking them down, (4) stamping on their heads, and (5) reaction fire to charging enemy models (all of which is in Infinity FYI), we could talk. Right now though, we have rules where my dudes wound goblins as easily as dragons. Cheers, but it’s a bit silly, if you ask me.
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.
This risks fracturing the community though. It walks you down the road of every group supposedly playing AOS, but in reality theyre essentially playing different games. Its very hard to build beyond a local player group when things are like this; when you don’t have a defined and structured set of governing rules that define the game. Sport works like this.
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…
I’ve made this point before, but the main strength of tournaments is as organised play. Everyone doing their own thing risks all sorts of problems. AOS is not a tournament game. And that’s OK. But really, tournaments require a different, more structured, organised, and most importantly, a standard, defined and universal approach.
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.
Some will. With one of my gaming groups, we happily ignore points in favour of interesting match ups and home brewed scenarios and missions. And what exactly is wrong with a point based game? Everything you talk about can be achieved even with points.
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.
Then the presentation is poor.
Beyond that, It very well might be the ‘only way of playing 40k’. Let me explain. There is a reason for me saying that. To be honest, ‘how’ people play is a thing. For a lot of people, unfortunately they don’t have massive amounts of time to dedicate to gaming. the most accessible way of getting a few games in is to head to the shop, get a table for a few hours and default to a standard mission of a standard size. Pick Up and Play 101. For a lot of people, especially in the states. this is the only way they can afford to get involved and play. Hence a default.
All those clever missions people are ‘missing out on’ – well, yes they are. But they often take a huge amount of time, organisation and space to set up and enjoy. My mate has a garage with a 12” by 6” board and we get together most Fridays – we set up, and play out the game over two or three evenings. And its great fun. I presume you have the luxury of being able to play your wargames in a similar way. And I use the term ‘luxury’ deliberately. We can enjoy all those missions and get loads out of our hobby, but not everyone is in the same boat. Not everyone has the time, experience etc to negotiate and organise those epic encounters. I wish they were, and I encourage people to walk down this road, but its not always possible.
I would also argue that rather than dismissing how people play, and dismissing point-based games (which you do, and which I think is unfair – point based games have proved their worth)
I know this sounds ridiculous. But it is a very real thing, and it is very common.
There is a reality behind it too. As much as I believe the ‘lazy gamer’ wants to have a game presented to him on a plate, and wants 'lazy gamer design' instead of 'lazy game design', there is a reason why ‘default ways of play’ is a thing too.
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.
Or you walk away. Which is the last thing you want for a new, untested game and what too many people are doing if you want this to be the success it could be.
Here’s the thing. This is akin to You being chucked into the wilderness, and expected to survive on your own wits and cunning. Which is all well and good. But, as you infer earlier, this is being done to people with no skill or knowledge of surviving in the wilds. Don’t be surprised if they starve…. If they’ve never played a game where they’ve been in the driving seat, how are you expecting them to suddenly embrace it, ‘get it’, play that way and love it? If you’re putting people out of their comfort zone, at least give them some tools to show them the way. With my wilderness example, at least a tent, torch, flints, map&compass and a ‘how to build traps and skin a rabbit for idiots’ guide.
surely a helpful way is to present this ‘creative way of playing’ is with positive and empowering scenario design tools, suggestions , ideas, and an encouraging narrative behind it? As opposed to forcing people 'out of their comfort zone'. Their response will be a rather justified gtfo.
“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.
there are silly things like a goblin wounding a stormcast as easily as he wounds a dragon.
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.
Which is all well and good, until someone says ‘no’. And it doesn’t have to be a 12” base. It can be game size, the scenario, the terrain layout or any number of variables. Neither player need be wrong either, How about 60 peasants versus 60 knights? Both are fully entitled to enjoy the game a certain way, right? But one has to compromise and play down, thereby implying he is in the wrong for taking what he’s taking. It can end up being a race to the bottom, if you ask me. There are not a limitless number of opponents to choose from.
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.
Define ‘want to have a good time and play fairly’ please. That can vary between people. And again, not a limitless number of opponents to choose from.
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.
I do actually agree with you here. I appreciate ‘play with like minded opponents’ – hey, I do it myself. And I’ve walked away from players that I think are bad for the game. But expecting accommodation opens up its own can of worms as well. Part of me feels a more resilient, robust system would have solved this issue before it even came up...
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.
Because I don’t always trust gamers to do a good job? Gamers are often selfish and lazy. You're a professional. You're one of the few. Don't hold gamers to your standards. There are house rules forums throughout the internet littered with the corpses of terrible player designed solutions to 'balance'.
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...
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.
I would actually like to see this as well, for what its worth Matt. Genuine curiosity here – you seem like an interesting guy, and I’d like to see how you organise your games, and if there is anything I can learn from how you do yours.
It could. But it could also mean that 99% are just used to them. It is a ballsy approach to go against that kind of expectation but, surely, it is good to have something go against the status quo from time to tinme (I do understand the counter 'yes, but not in my favourite game!' http://www.dakkadakka.com/s/i/a/c944477abc92c1c101da485e07ff06d8.gif).
Being just used to them is a thing. But it could also be representative of game theory and game mechanisms evolving over time. And darwins survival of the fittest implying the successful traits last longer-Points have proved their worth. Going back to non-points based gaming in the 80s or earlier is quite different – with the benefit of hindsight, a lot of the things that flew back then wouldn’t fly now. Games were pretty terrible and god awfully clunky back then. And I say that as a player who quite happily ignores points and standard scenarios in favour of home brewed scenarios and ‘cool’ and more importantly, ‘interesting’ match ups. Being different for the sake of being different isn’t very clever.
Running a tiny gaming company myself (which I really should be attending to instead of typing this!) I can understand that GW has to do things in a different way. I (and the other companies you mention) have the luxury of jumping onto forums and chatting directly to gamers and we only have ourselves to answer to if something goes wrong. GW is a very different beast with a 'proper' company structure and shareholders to answer to. As companies, we all play with live ammunition on the Internet, but GW's shells are somewhat heavier and the is a bigger explosion if they drop them, so I can understand why they err towards caution.
Wow, that was a weird analogy, no idea where that came from!
It’s a good analogy though – I like it. Gw are so much bigger than their competition, a lot if people seem to forget that. Most gaming companies rely on what amounts to charity to get their product out - most playtesting is volunteer based in my experience. Huge success for a company like Corvus belli is a drop in the bucket for gw.
But, being a professional game designer, I do find it difficult not to take the next step - in short, I believe that if I could get you down here to play a few games, I could have at least a 50% chance of changing your mind http://www.dakkadakka.com/s/i/a/c944477abc92c1c101da485e07ff06d8.gifDoing that over the Internet is more difficult, but talking about games is almost as good as playing them, so why not explore that route.
This. This right here is the key. And being frank Matt, this is whats needed. I got into that whole ‘homebrew/diy’ wargaming scene courtesy of two old boys who I have the privelige of plaing against on Friday nights. Now, prior to this, I played my WMHs, my Infinities etc., and these guys introduce me to Flames of War, historicals and so on. More crucially to playing new wargames, they introduced me to playing wargames in new ways. I’ve seen the value in it, and as much as I love points based games, pugs and tournaments, I also genuinely love the DIY approach, and sitting in the driving seat with designing my own missions and scenarios. I’ve gotten a few other guys into playing this way as well, and it’s a huge amount of fun. My approachis simple: both approaches have value. Neither is perfect, and neither is the ‘go-to’ in every situation. Theres plenty times where I don’t want to have to deal with the hassle of a three-weekend DIY game – I just want a pick up and play one instead. Or vice versa.
But seriously. Reaching out. Getting people involved. Getting people actively involved. Showing the value of different ways of playing while being essentially ‘learning on the job’. That is the best way of 'selling' that style of play. And FYI, I'd be privileged to have a game with you - just not aos!
Put another way, you list all your issues with AoS, and I can respect and understand all of them. But if you like Warhammer and GW games as a whole (and I make the presumption that this applies to everyone who posts on these forums - otherwise it is just plain weird), then I also believe there is at least something in AoS that you can enjoy. And if you enjoy it, and I enjoy it, we can chat about it - and everyone wins!
you don’t need to enjoy Warhammer or GW games (I… don’t) to see the value in this. Its not an AOS thing so much as a gaming thing. Like I said, what you see as value in AOS – well I already do it, just in Infinity and Flames of War.
Suppose, just for a moment, that playing is not the core point of the game, just the end result. After all, we all put time in building and painting models before we play. We spend hours on forums discussing them. We spend time building army lists (for some games, anyway http://www.dakkadakka.com/s/i/a/c944477abc92c1c101da485e07ff06d8.gif). Suppose the idea of AoS is that this is all extended into creating (and I cannot believe I am about to use this word) a narrative for your games?
This is very familiar territory to anyone who plays RPGs.
But AoS is not an RPG, you say. Well, no. But suppose it is meant to bring that kind of creative element to miniatures games. Just suppose.
What I am saying is that AoS is clearly a departure from previous Warhammer games (except, actually, the first editions, thinking about it - in that respect it may be the 'truest' Warhammer in decades). Old assumptions might not necessarily apply...
RPGs and wargames share a lot of the same DNA. That creative approach can add a huge deal to both if you ask me. By the way, don’t forget ‘writing fluff’ as part of what people put into the game.
Now, you see, this is difficult to accept as an idea.
40k is the most widely played miniatures game in the world, by far, and has been for many, many years. Two strangers can meet up, pull out armies and begin playing immediately. Do you really think that happens just by accident, over all those Codexes and all those units?
This is becoming less and less true. They can play against each other, but can they play against each other as equals? More and more I'm seeing people who have never played gw games - unthinkable ten years ago. More and more, you see flgs's where gw games are simpky not played, and WMH or bolt action is the go-to.
WMH: Never played it, I have to say http://www.dakkadakka.com/s/i/a/c944477abc92c1c101da485e07ff06d8.gifI collected a little force a while ago (I want to say Khador, is that right? The red guys...), but the background just never appealed to me. I also have a little problem with the whole idea of 'play like you have a pair' but, again, that is my issue and not a reflection on the game.
The background is actually rather excellent if you’re interested. They’ve been writing it now for nearly 15 years. Huge depth and grit. I genuinely encourage the RPG material especially – I was quite shocked at how brilliant it really was when I dived in. it really is a hidden gem.
As to PLYGAP – read Page 5. Its actually a very empowering message at the end of the day. Play hard, play fair, don’t whine. Learn from your mistakes. Be creative. Be cool, whether you win or lose. And don’t be a bell end to anyone. We’re all here out of a common love for great games.
Cheers Matt.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/20 17:15:22
greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy
"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are"
2015/10/20 17:18:51
Subject: Re:Misconceptions Regarding Age of Sigmar
A further question to the statements of more options in AoS: how may that be true when AOS has taken away a majority of gear choices for every unit? No artifacts, no special gear, no banners for units or anyone not a standard Bearer model, etc. My orc warboss cannot get a sword of heroslaying, my dark elf sorceress a ring of Hotek, my Nurgle Lord his Palanquin of nurgle. Everyone is "choose you weapon" with the choices being minorly different from each other. So my sorceress with a knife in hand, wearing her hand converted cloak to represent a magic item now has no way to represent them in the game without making up rules
AOS is responsible for one of the worst ideas I've seen for measuring. Not only does it use true LOS, but it makes it even worse by having all measurement be from the model with the base being ignored. It sounds like a lot people ignore this, but that's what the rules actually say. And those rules are TERRIBLE.
2015/10/20 17:47:53
Subject: Re:Misconceptions Regarding Age of Sigmar
autumnlotus wrote: A further question to the statements of more options in AoS: how may that be true when AOS has taken away a majority of gear choices for every unit? No artifacts, no special gear, no banners for units or anyone not a standard Bearer model, etc. My orc warboss cannot get a sword of heroslaying, my dark elf sorceress a ring of Hotek, my Nurgle Lord his Palanquin of nurgle. Everyone is "choose you weapon" with the choices being minorly different from each other. So my sorceress with a knife in hand, wearing her hand converted cloak to represent a magic item now has no way to represent them in the game without making up rules
To be fair. In wfb (or gw games in general...), of all those hundreds and hundreds of 'potential' options, how many of them actually get fielded? A bare handful is the answer. In other words, it's not so much options as the illusion of options. I'd rather have five or six 'real' options than all that wasted paper and ink. Heck, in WMH, I don't get to customise my models loadouts at all, and it's fine and has a lot of options.
greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy
"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are"
2015/10/20 17:52:44
Subject: Re:Misconceptions Regarding Age of Sigmar
autumnlotus wrote: A further question to the statements of more options in AoS: how may that be true when AOS has taken away a majority of gear choices for every unit? No artifacts, no special gear, no banners for units or anyone not a standard Bearer model, etc. My orc warboss cannot get a sword of heroslaying, my dark elf sorceress a ring of Hotek, my Nurgle Lord his Palanquin of nurgle. Everyone is "choose you weapon" with the choices being minorly different from each other. So my sorceress with a knife in hand, wearing her hand converted cloak to represent a magic item now has no way to represent them in the game without making up rules
To be fair. In wfb (or gw games in general...), of all those hundreds and hundreds of 'potential' options, how many of them actually get fielded? A bare handful is the answer. In other words, it's not so much options as the illusion of options. I'd rather have five or six 'real' options than all that wasted paper and ink. Heck, in WMH, I don't get to customise my models loadouts at all, and it's fine and has a lot of options.
I think a lot of this is the desire to make AoS a simpler game to get started on than 40k. In 40k, people agonize over loadouts to models, which makes the modelling end difficult for the beginner (plasma, melta, or grav? three hours after reading forums, you still have no idea). You spend forever figuring out which of 5 weapon options to equip, and then curse yourself when you picked the "wrong" one after you lose your first game and think, "if only...".
2015/10/20 17:54:14
Subject: Re:Misconceptions Regarding Age of Sigmar
In my experience they only items that were NEVER used were the spell thieving blade and the flying carpet. But it is a fair counter point. But in AoS you have 3 choices max, the weapons in the model sprues, where the weapons don't change much. I don't ask for convoluted rules, but right now the game is GW-fan Warmachine, but with no facing no points and no actual balancing. Really the two things I like about Fantasy are customization of models and unique Lore of the armies. AOS has neither currently
2015/10/20 17:57:39
Subject: Re:Misconceptions Regarding Age of Sigmar
I am not sure there is any actual blame - sometimes stuff just happens.
...
You can say that if more people had bought WFB, it would not have gone away. However, the reasons for that not happening are up for discussion and (unfortunately) there is no solid evidence for any argument. All we know for certain is that it was not performing.
The natural reaction is to blame GW because, well, that is what people like to do Mind you, we should also bear in mind that product lines have finite life spans and WFB had a very, very good run. * Shrug * Maybe it was just its time.
Releasing only two supplements to the rules in 18 months after a new edition, constantly raising prices to an untenable level, creating rules to benefit the player if they use more and more models... yet most of the time in the AOS defense threads the players get blamed for not buying enough.
Pretty much this. these are good examples of why sales tanked in WHFB.
My point is that blaming customers for the failure of a game is the ultimate in arrogance. all the questions you asked are solved by market research, polls, interactions with customers, play-testing, and feedback. How ignorant can a company be to just shrug their shoulders and say "well, they hate what we sell. scrap it and try again," with no attempt to increase sales or to answer some of the very questions you posed.
If WHFB had reached market saturation as you imply, and there were no other possible new players or miniature buyers, why are alternative games seeing veritable explosions in sales and growth? Mantic cant print their rulebook fast enough to keep up with the demand for it.
And on a personal level, I have over 1,000 painted skaven. I've been collecting them for years, I got old metal that was released 20 years ago and new plastic that came out this year. I have somewhere near 15,000 points, which is useless in AoS. (I ran a clan Morrs list.) So I get WHFB is dead, and I get AoS is a new game that needs to work out the kinks and can stand on its own, But my point is this.
If GW cancelled WHFB because it wasn't making enough money in the same way that they did Bloodbowl, Man-o-War, Necromunda, Mordheim, Battlefleet Gothic, Epic, Space Marine, Gorka-Morka, and Inquisitor, whats to say they wont do it to AoS? or 40K? What incentive do I, as a customer, have to support this fledgling game that clearly can't stand on its own yet? and if I don't support it, will you again tell me it only failed because of me? I don't really have a dog in this race. its not my game, my company, or my problem. if it gets playable I'll play it. I choose to focus on 40K right now, and I don't think its due to any "misconceptions." I just really, really hate the concept that I somehow "failed" a company.
To me the only misconception is from GW itself about what their player base wants or needs from a wargame. They choose to not know or care what their customers need, and if their ignorance doesn't generate enough sales they will stop making the game.
Releasing only two supplements to the rules in 18 months after a new edition, constantly raising prices to an untenable level, creating rules to benefit the player if they use more and more models... yet most of the time in the AOS defense threads the players get blamed for not buying enough.
That point where releases stopped for 8e? I think that might well have been when the decision to create the End Times and AoS was made...
I am not dismissing the Old World (still playing there myself in both 8e and WFRP!). I am saying that, in terms of current support, it is gone - hence the spilt milk thing. We can continue to have conversations about what we are doing in the Old World, but I am not sure they are going to be productive to this particular topic. Too many bad memories
Right now though, we have rules where my dudes wound goblins as easily as dragons. Cheers, but it’s a bit silly, if you ask me.
Well this is where AoS is a bit deceptive. The to wound roll is the same, but the effects of that wound are different (different save, different number of wounds until model removal and, in the case of the dragon, degrading stats).
Get where you are coming from, but it is not the whole story. Another half chapter on top
This risks fracturing the community though. It walks you down the road of every group supposedly playing AOS, but in reality theyre essentially playing different games. Its very hard to build beyond a local player group when things are like this; when you don’t have a defined and structured set of governing rules that define the game..
I am not so certain about this - and this is more my field, as this is what RPGs have been dealing with since well, since D&D first appeared. No one plays the same way with any given RPG, but when you join a new group, you sit down, get familiar with the rules of the house, and then play on. Or not, if you find you are not getting on with them (in my experience, people are likely to be the main factor here, rather than rules).
Maybe AoS can forge ahead in a similar fashion.
Or not - I really don't have the answers here, I just raise it as a possibility. No one knows where AoS is going to be in five years time, if it is around at all.
I’ve made this point before, but the main strength of tournaments is as organised play. Everyone doing their own thing risks all sorts of problems. AOS is not a tournament game. And that’s OK. But really, tournaments require a different, more structured, organised, and most importantly, a standard, defined and universal approach.
But...
Talking about the 40k scene here, that hasn't been true for a while either - first the shift to 1,850 points from 1,500, but even today there are limitations based on formations, how many Codexes you can use, Lords of War, D Weapons and so on. Every tournament seems to have something different, built upon a common framework. But they list it all in their tournament packs.
AoS could do the same thing - it is not as if it would be complicated
* Should say, I am not advocating AoS as a tournament game, just saying if someone wanted to use it as such, they could *
Beyond that, It very well might be the ‘only way of playing 40k’. Let me explain. There is a reason for me saying that. To be honest, ‘how’ people play is a thing. For a lot of people, unfortunately they don’t have massive amounts of time to dedicate to gaming. the most accessible way of getting a few games in is to head to the shop, get a table for a few hours and default to a standard mission of a standard size. Pick Up and Play 101. For a lot of people, especially in the states. this is the only way they can afford to get involved and play. Hence a default.
By this rationale, AoS is not great as a pick up game.
Yeah, I might agree with that. In the very least, you could get me to say that there are better pick up games.
However, not my point Nor is the tournament side, really. My position is not that AoS can be all things to all gamers. My only point, in this thread at least, is that some of the things that have been said about the game are wrong and if those erroneous things are what has been stopping someone play, it might be good if they took another look.
As I said right at the beginning, if big heroic guys in shiny armour is not your thing, you are going to be wanting another game.
I would also argue that rather than dismissing how people play, and dismissing point-based games (which you do, and which I think is unfair – point based games have proved their worth)
I agree completely. I play 8e and 40k, and my own games are points-based. In fact, we are just turning Victory at Sea from no points to points-based.
Deadnight wrote: If you’re putting people out of their comfort zone, at least give them some tools to show them the way.
This is something I actually mentioned to a certain someone in the design studio - that I had thought there would have been various gudies and suggestions to show people how to do cool things in AoS. In fact, I had expected that in the first hardback.
I can sort of see why they didn't. On the other hand, I would not be surprised if something very much like this appeared within the next year or so.
Deadnight wrote: Define ‘want to have a good time and play fairly’ please.
We can debate about the good time. I am not so certain the playing fair need be up for discussion. I mean, we all know when we are taking the mick, right? You seem like a nice chap - surely you do?
I would actually like to see this as well, for what its worth Matt. Genuine curiosity here – you seem like an interesting guy, and I’d like to see how you organise your games, and if there is anything I can learn from how you do yours.
Another long post (yeah, you can tell I am a writer ), but I listed out a couple of Battleplans here;
Deadnight wrote: And FYI, I'd be privileged to have a game with you - just not aos!
You would be more than welcome - you anywhere near the southwest? Haven't had a decent game of 40k in a while. Or we could pull out Dredd, or Victory at Sea
Deadnight wrote: More and more, you see flgs's where gw games are simpky not played, and WMH or bolt action is the go-to.
The one thing I would say here (and I accept it is not particularly helpful to the discussion) is watch what happens over the next ten years. In 2025, it may be that GW games are still not being played. However, I would not be confident that any of the other games mentioned in this thread (including my own!) will be played either - it will be something new.
Something I have seen in our local club is that games like X-Wing and Infinity come and go, but the one constant that always swings back are the GW games. They have the longevity. That is their strength.
There is a lot of inertia there, and no one has come close to battling it in the long term. Maybe the seeds have already been planted for that with Bolt Action, perhaps, but we'll have to see.
Maybe (and this will be a terrifying thought for some), games of 2025 will have no points, be free form, and we will be looking at AoS as the Father of them all. We'll be talking about those weirdos who insist on archaic points systems
* No I don't think that will happen - but let's consider it! *
You would be more than welcome - you anywhere near the southwest? Haven't had a decent game of 40k in a while. Or we could pull out Dredd, or Victory at Sea
Cold white bitter north (aka Scotland) and originally from Ireland im afraid! One of your boys came to our con (warpcon) a few years back and demoed victory at sea - I thought it was a pretty nifty little game! also liked starship troopers but I think it was too limited an IP to do anything with. But really, it was the first properly 'modern' Wargame - even had reactions!
The one thing I would say here (and I accept it is not particularly helpful to the discussion) is watch what happens over the next ten years. In 2025, it may be that GW games are still not being played. However, I would not be confident that any of the other games mentioned in this thread (including my own!) will be played either - it will be something new.
You know, I started posting here about 3 or 4 years ago. I remember one of my first posts was having a go at a guy who was saying that gw games would be the only games still kicking about in five years time, and that all the other games with the possible exception of WMH would be gone by then. Well, we are almost at his five years and WMH is stronger, infinity is stronger, malifaux is stronger and a whole host of smaller games have come through and grabbed their own space. Of all the games he mentioned that would be dead - I think anima tactics was the only one that bit the dust. And of those gw games? yeah. Wfb. Dead. Hobbit. Doa. Lotr. Dead. Specialist games. Dead. Shrug...
Now here is a guy saying the exact same thing: in ten years time, go will still be there and everyone else will be gone. :p
Pp have been there 15years now. Think about that Matt. Thats a long, long time. And they've been getting bigger the whole time. Fifteen years? That's as long as 40k was around when I hopped onboard. Corvus belli are come on about ten, and both are going strong and looking to succeed. Their rpg finally looks to bring their IP to life. Wyrd are solid. I don't see gw disappearing in ten years time. But I can see them shrinking. I'm not one for doomsaying, but Theyve been bleeding goodwill and customers massively over five years and it's starting to bite. that 400lb gorilla is no longer the 800lb gorilla it was. Back around 2003 when I started war gaming (eye of terror campaign!), you played 40k, or your alternative was wfb. You'd know about 'other games' as these things that were plyted 'somewhere', but you'd never even heard of it third hand d. Now, it's nowhere near that simple. Gw have retreated in their market share and space ship games and skirmish games and mass battle games have all stepped in to fill the void- it's never been a better time to be a gamer.
So I'll take your statement with a pinch of salt Matt - call me sceptical.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/10/20 18:46:03
greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy
"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are"
2015/10/20 19:06:35
Subject: Re:Misconceptions Regarding Age of Sigmar
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?
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.
I'm a Dogs of War player, and literally *ALL* of my favorite characters are gone. Same with my favorite units. And my non-favorites, too. Complaining about losing "official" rules for a handful of very old characters would be like me being upset that GW isn't supporting the original Regiments of Renown from waaay back when GW used leaded pewter. If your army had been Squatted, I think you take a different tack over losing a few models versus the whole fething thing. It's really fething petty is what it is.
Coming up with good backgrounds is not easy. Tolkien spent years refining Middle Earth, much as GW spent years building up the Old World. They are rich worlds, and the average gamer simply does not have the time, ability or inclination to make something like this in their spare time. Also, the Old World is awfully full. The very richness of detail that GW has added over the years has progressively removed places for players to make their own. With the broad development of Fluff and emphasis on hordes, Fantasy had become more pseudo-historical gaming than actual "fantasy" gaming.
Being able to make stuff up allows me to play my Dogs of War without "points" cost issues. For me, that's a good thing. I don't see what's gone too far.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jack Flask wrote: My problem with people's conduct is something the moderators have consistently refused to address, so why bother.
I respect the time and effort they put in, but at the same time I can help but feel a little annoyed. What are all these negative posts actually adding to this board? What are they adding to the conversation? Why is it that apparently only people who like AoS the ones who have to put up with this? No other board has a contigent of the same people who admit to not liking the game, and have no intention to ever like the game, constantly filling their threads with a constant stream of the same opinions stated like facts.
I called out the Mods for their passive aggressive support of passive aggressive neg spam across all AoS topics, and they basically admitted they weren't going to do gak about it, then locked it. To me, the big surprises were: a) that the thread lasted as long as it did, and b) that the thread wasn't memory holed.
I've mostly walked away from the Dakka AoS forums, because they're a mostly useless disaster, and it's mostly due to the Mods not reining in the nonsense. I appreciate Matt posting these little gems from time to time, but it's largely a waste of time as Dakka is so poisonous toward AoS. I simply don't enjoy the AoS forums or threads, so I don't bother with them.
So, honest question:
- Where are people having polite, "grown up" conversations about AoS?
You know, somewhere that isn't overrun by constant anti-AoS spam, with the implicit support of the mod team?
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/10/20 19:26:02
Probably not warseer no. *glances into warseer* - no there are a few locked threads there now with rage going back and forth and mud slinging at epic levels still.
2015/10/20 19:40:35
Subject: Re:Misconceptions Regarding Age of Sigmar
- Where are people having polite, "grown up" conversations about AoS?
Just a thought, but why don't you try Matt's blog where he usually posts these articles? Or another blog. Someone said that eventually AoS fans will find their own places away from the more traditional forums.
2015/10/20 19:41:59
Subject: Re:Misconceptions Regarding Age of Sigmar
- Where are people having polite, "grown up" conversations about AoS?
I am not going to leave Dakka, but I would be interested in knowing this too (have a feeling it is not Warseer )
AOS only sites with a strong dedicated fan base and plenty of interested people... oh wait I don't think they exist. I wonder why? (I looked, could not find one).
If AOS talk is not what you like here it's probably worth making your own website that way you can have a echo chamber. Im sure you will have plenty of fans rallying to enjoy parroting there. WHich will be great for all of us. That way the mods are not unnecessarily attacked by a few people here in the AOS subforums for incompetence and even better you guys get what it seems like you desire.
Making a website is easy too. Win Win.
Reddit sub is pretty dead and also allows no down votes (which is bad unless you like happy pat your back for everything places).
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/10/20 19:47:47
2015/10/20 19:42:32
Subject: Re:Misconceptions Regarding Age of Sigmar
- Where are people having polite, "grown up" conversations about AoS?
The Reddit group is pretty civil and I hear there is a Facebook group (no FB account, so I haven't seen it), but most of the communities I've found have just been a bunch of grumpy grognards taking turns insulting AoS and AoS fans.
I still have hope for this community. Despite the "Boo. Boo Age of Sigmar. Boo." derailments, there are several posters here who positively contribute and discuss the game. I mean, every thread gets derailed, but almost all of them start from a positive contribution... unlike Warseer.
2015/10/20 19:43:40
Subject: Re:Misconceptions Regarding Age of Sigmar
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?
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.
I'm a Dogs of War player, and literally *ALL* of my favorite characters are gone. Same with my favorite units. And my non-favorites, too. Complaining about losing "official" rules for a handful of very old characters would be like me being upset that GW isn't supporting the original Regiments of Renown from waaay back when GW used leaded pewter. If your army had been Squatted, I think you take a different tack over losing a few models versus the whole fething thing. It's really fething petty is what it is.
Coming up with good backgrounds is not easy. Tolkien spent years refining Middle Earth, much as GW spent years building up the Old World. They are rich worlds, and the average gamer simply does not have the time, ability or inclination to make something like this in their spare time. Also, the Old World is awfully full. The very richness of detail that GW has added over the years has progressively removed places for players to make their own. With the broad development of Fluff and emphasis on hordes, Fantasy had become more pseudo-historical gaming than actual "fantasy" gaming.
Being able to make stuff up allows me to play my Dogs of War without "points" cost issues. For me, that's a good thing. I don't see what's gone too far.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Jack Flask wrote: My problem with people's conduct is something the moderators have consistently refused to address, so why bother.
I respect the time and effort they put in, but at the same time I can help but feel a little annoyed. What are all these negative posts actually adding to this board? What are they adding to the conversation? Why is it that apparently only people who like AoS the ones who have to put up with this? No other board has a contigent of the same people who admit to not liking the game, and have no intention to ever like the game, constantly filling their threads with a constant stream of the same opinions stated like facts.
I called out the Mods for their passive aggressive support of passive aggressive neg spam across all AoS topics, and they basically admitted they weren't going to do gak about it, then locked it. To me, the big surprises were:
a) that the thread lasted as long as it did, and
b) that the thread wasn't memory holed.
I've mostly walked away from the Dakka AoS forums, because they're a mostly useless disaster, and it's mostly due to the Mods not reining in the nonsense. I appreciate Matt posting these little gems from time to time, but it's largely a waste of time as Dakka is so poisonous toward AoS. I simply don't enjoy the AoS forums or threads, so I don't bother with them.
So, honest question:
- Where are people having polite, "grown up" conversations about AoS?
You know, somewhere that isn't overrun by constant anti-AoS spam, with the implicit support of the mod team?
Warseer is even more toxic. and I feel like people are having adult conversations on the topic, people are just going to always talk about where they disagree rather than where they agree, its the nature of the beasts that are internet boards. There are a lot of threads on here that discuss the gameplay, lore, house rules and comp systems.
I think the issue is people are polarized, you're either a hater or a fanboy with nothing in between. I know I still post because I do want to see how to make it work. for good or for bad, GW is really my only gaming option. so even though Matt started the thread with good intentions, even the title suggests that people are misunderstanding which is kinda a weird way to start a conversation.
I do play AoS, and I have had fun playing it. It just has a lot to be desired and I like to see where people have dealt with that. I don't just mean rules issues, there's also a grieving process over WHFB being gone, and sometimes people just need to explain why they are upset.
again to make it personal, I have three AoS armies I bring. I have a good melee mix of pestilence and stormvermin, I have a big creature army thats a ton of fun, a clan eshin fast moving list, and I have a skryre gun line. they are easy to bring and fun to play, I can usually match the power of what my opponent wants to bring. It still isn't ranked battle, I have hundreds of models that will never be fielded again and that was the core of my old army. (100 slaves and 256 clan rats.)
I don't think its hopeless, but I also don't think there's nothing wrong with sharing my reservations about both the state of their currently supported products and having fears about what is to come in the future.
OK, thanks. Glad to know I wasn't going crazy at there not being obvious places to discuss. ____
@KK - that one thread doesn't really address the underlying issue, when, in theory, the entire discussion board is supposed to be spam / troll free. Given where Dakka sits on WFB, you should simply separate AoS discussion from WFB discussion into 2 separate fora, and then clamp down on spam. Or maybe just close the whole thing down.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/10/20 20:10:18
I called out the Mods for their passive aggressive support of passive aggressive neg spam across all AoS topics, and they basically admitted they weren't going to do gak about it, then locked it. To me, the big surprises were:
a) that the thread lasted as long as it did, and
b) that the thread wasn't memory holed.
I've mostly walked away from the Dakka AoS forums, because they're a mostly useless disaster, and it's mostly due to the Mods not reining in the nonsense. I appreciate Matt posting these little gems from time to time, but it's largely a waste of time as Dakka is so poisonous toward AoS. I simply don't enjoy the AoS forums or threads, so I don't bother with them.
So, honest question:
- Where are people having polite, "grown up" conversations about AoS?
You know, somewhere that isn't overrun by constant anti-AoS spam, with the implicit support of the mod team?
I seem to remember that thread, and the reason is was locked had to do with you being just as passive aggressive and nasty. I recall you referred to those who disliked aos as 'toolbags', amongst others.
And by the way, you call for grown up conversations but Dismiss the negative opinions as 'spam'. You don't get to do that. Grown up conversations dont work that way.
greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy
"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are"
) but if the price for that is 
-- $k 
-- 9k 
-- 6k 
-- 4k 
-- 
