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.

I've found the Facebook groups are much more positive/active than the forums now.

Deadnight wrote:
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.

In his defense, he isn't the only person who has been complaining about it and it is EXTREMELY annoying, to the point where I left this forum for over a month because I had a hard time remaining civil in the face of constant "Boo. Boo Age of Sigmar. Boo."

There's having opinions and there's having discussions, and this forum doesn't do a lot to differentiate the two. Personally, I think that when you derail a discussion by espousing your opinion, you aren't contributing anything except your own masturbatory need for attention at any cost.

Kilkrazy wrote:We've got a thread about people liking AoS and telling each other how they like it.

A WHOLE thread! Score!

 Sqorgar wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
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.

In his defense, he isn't the only person who has been complaining about it and it is EXTREMELY annoying, to the point where I left this forum for over a month because I had a hard time remaining civil in the face of constant "Boo. Boo Age of Sigmar. Boo."

There's having opinions and there's having discussions, and this forum doesn't do a lot to differentiate the two. Personally, I think that when you derail a discussion by espousing your opinion, you aren't contributing anything except your own masturbatory need for attention at any cost.

Kilkrazy wrote:We've got a thread about people liking AoS and telling each other how they like it.

A WHOLE thread! Score!

Are you not seeing any hypocrisy in how you post...?

Or does it only matter when people of a differing opinion do it?

coldgaming wrote:
I've found the Facebook groups are much more positive/active than the forums now.

Same, the Age of Sigmar facebook groups that I am in are pretty prolific and a great source of inspiration.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
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.

Not sure what can be done about this. If people want to make some more threads about how great AoS is, there's nothing to stop them. The anti-AoS people have kept out of the thread I mentioned, as far as I know. Do we need two threads about how great AoS is, with people who dislike it not making any posts?

It's a bit unreasonable to join a discussion forum and think that no-one will ever disagree with one's opinions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

coldgaming wrote:
I've found the Facebook groups are much more positive/active than the forums now.

Facebook pages are not discussion forums. They are like personal blogs where you go because you like the same stuff as the guy who runs the page.

You cannot expect to join in a discussion forum and not have people discuss things. Sometimes other people's opinion will not be the same as yours.

coldgaming wrote:
I've found the Facebook groups are much more positive/active than the forums now.

Well yes, that's because only people who like AoS join the FB page, while people on dakka mostly hate AoS but still go to the sub-forum because it's there and they want to vent. I read FB more than dakka nowadays because each FB page is a community of people who actually like and are enthusiastic about the thing they're discussing, which is the reason why I'm in this hobby in the first place. Discussion among people with polarized opinions can be great, but there's a point where negativity and repetition means I learn nothing new and reading more stuff does nothing but bring me down and sap my enthusiasm, which is completely pointless. I heard all the arguments in the first week after release. Only problem is most FB pages are pretty badly moderated, but dakka has such loose moderation already that it isn't that much of a loss.

 mugginns wrote:

 pox wrote:
for good or for bad, GW is really my only gaming option.

That's rough man

Edit: there are quite a few 'negative' threads in the 40k gen pop area too. It's just not a Pollyanna time for GW games.

It basically boils down to placement. I have three stores in town, a card store, a longbeard store, and a GW store. The Card store has moved to Magic and is filled with teens that really don't like the wargamers so its a no go. the longbeard store is filled with older gamers that just hate every game they play, no matter the age or type of game. Even the D&D players aren't cheerful in there. At the opposite end of the spectrum, my GW store is bright and clean, our local redshirt is an awesome guy and the players there are a good mix of vets and new players.

Add to that that I was out of the game for a while so I never played eighth edition and all my models are GW, and you have the recipie for sunk cost fallacy even if I am aware of it. This makes me look for ways to make it work. I dont wanna be a longbeard!

@KK - just pretend for a moment that every WMH thread had a group of 40k diehards telling the WMH players how much they sucked for being stupid enough to play a gak game. Multiple such posts on every fething page of every fething thead. Would the mods really stand for that?

Those 40k diehards should be allowed to gak all over the WMH players day and night, as it's just a minor difference of opinion that they're entitled to express, right?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
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.

Not sure what can be done about this. If people want to make some more threads about how great AoS is, there's nothing to stop them. The anti-AoS people have kept out of the thread I mentioned, as far as I know. Do we need two threads about how great AoS is, with people who dislike it not making any posts?

It's a bit unreasonable to join a discussion forum and think that no-one will ever disagree with one's opinions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

coldgaming wrote:
I've found the Facebook groups are much more positive/active than the forums now.

Facebook pages are not discussion forums. They are like personal blogs where you go because you like the same stuff as the guy who runs the page.

You cannot expect to join in a discussion forum and not have people discuss things. Sometimes other people's opinion will not be the same as yours.

Simples.
Split AoS off into it's own sub forum, then either keep WFB or merge it with GW specialist / unsupported.

The issue is not differing opinions.
The issue is people who are flirting with the troll moniker by persistently posting negativity in discussions of a game that they have no intention of ever playing - and even more confusingly in some cases, haven't played a GW product for years.
This is baiting, pure and simple.
I could just as easily start derailing threads in WMH, Infinity - any of the other Dakka sub-forums with persistently negative opinions. The same opinions. Ad Nauseum. Regardless of general topic of discussion. Because apparently, there is nothing* to stop me doing that.
That is precisely what is happening with this forum.
With the separation of WFB & AoS, those who are continuing with/missing WFB have a forum to continue with.
Those who have an interest in AoS have a forum to continue with.

*"This behavior is known as "trolling" and can take many forms. In some cases, the behavior is blatant, such as spam or inflammatory comments. Other times, the content posted is seemingly innocuous at first glance but is designed to incite a negative response from other users and create a flame war."

Please report comments that break the site rules.

@KK - Why? It's not like anything comes of it. Swasty is still constantly stirring the pot, for example.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
@KK - Why? It's not like anything comes of it. Swasty is still constantly stirring the pot, for example.

No, I left for ages ish from here, then this flame baity thread came out. Unfortunately I am moth to a flame. Without flame posts I will be gone.

If a thread wants a discussion on AOS that opinion based I can certainly come here and say it. If it's flamey I certainly will come and do whatever.

I would say you stir the pot more than most people with your constant insults and mod attacks... but hey it's not my place to decide.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
@KK - Why? It's not like anything comes of it. Swasty is still constantly stirring the pot, for example.

Aside from the fact that many posts in this thread are derailing...this thread...

Most times you will not know if something happened in terms of Moderation as most Moderation, outside of in thread warning and such, is conducted in private.

So again, if you see a post that breaks the rules of the site - report it.

I GUARANTEE that EVERY one gets looked at by a Moderator.

RoperPG wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
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.

Not sure what can be done about this. If people want to make some more threads about how great AoS is, there's nothing to stop them. The anti-AoS people have kept out of the thread I mentioned, as far as I know. Do we need two threads about how great AoS is, with people who dislike it not making any posts?

It's a bit unreasonable to join a discussion forum and think that no-one will ever disagree with one's opinions.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

coldgaming wrote:
I've found the Facebook groups are much more positive/active than the forums now.

Facebook pages are not discussion forums. They are like personal blogs where you go because you like the same stuff as the guy who runs the page.

You cannot expect to join in a discussion forum and not have people discuss things. Sometimes other people's opinion will not be the same as yours.

Simples.
Split AoS off into it's own sub forum, then either keep WFB or merge it with GW specialist / unsupported.

The issue is not differing opinions.
The issue is people who are flirting with the troll moniker by persistently posting negativity in discussions of a game that they have no intention of ever playing - and even more confusingly in some cases, haven't played a GW product for years.
This is baiting, pure and simple.
I could just as easily start derailing threads in WMH, Infinity - any of the other Dakka sub-forums with persistently negative opinions. The same opinions. Ad Nauseum. Regardless of general topic of discussion. Because apparently, there is nothing* to stop me doing that.
That is precisely what is happening with this forum.
With the separation of WFB & AoS, those who are continuing with/missing WFB have a forum to continue with.
Those who have an interest in AoS have a forum to continue with.

*"This behavior is known as "trolling" and can take many forms. In some cases, the behavior is blatant, such as spam or inflammatory comments. Other times, the content posted is seemingly innocuous at first glance but is designed to incite a negative response from other users and create a flame war."

I really wish they'd done this. It'd make looking for any WFB content a lot easier. Instead anything previously WFB is now under the AoS forum. Irritating.

MongooseMatt wrote:

 TheCustomLime wrote:
Maybe I'm wrong about the OP and he does recognize that AoS has problems but he just doesn't think that these are necessarily issues.

Oh, that is a good point to raise...

Let me see if I can explain my position on this.

I can understand that AoS has caused some problems with other people - I have seen that in my own gaming group. I can understand that some were annoyed about how their old game is gone (it is a tough thing, but that is probably spilt milk now), and I can understand how people can't or simply don't want to get to grips with a point-absent system.

However.

It works for me (and enough of my gaming group for it to work). And that is all I need to play it and chat about it on a forum.

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 Doing that over the Internet is more difficult, but talking about games is almost as good as playing them, so why not explore that route?

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!

As for the contrarian thing, I am honestly not too fussed about that. I just get irritated when people get downright rude over a game.

(not you incidentally, but I am sure you have seen one or two others who have stepped over the line).

Oh, I'm sure if I came down to play with you and your group (Across the frickin' world, mind you) I would have a great time. Age of Sigmar is a fun game with excellent models and some of the best terrain GW has. I wholeheartedly appreciate the effort people put into their custom rule sets like the Azyr comp.

I can see that you are a devoted fan of this game and you are trying to make it work. I don't think you deserve some of the downright hate you get ITT.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sqorgar wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
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.

In his defense, he isn't the only person who has been complaining about it and it is EXTREMELY annoying, to the point where I left this forum for over a month because I had a hard time remaining civil in the face of constant "Boo. Boo Age of Sigmar. Boo."

There's having opinions and there's having discussions, and this forum doesn't do a lot to differentiate the two. Personally, I think that when you derail a discussion by espousing your opinion, you aren't contributing anything except your own masturbatory need for attention at any cost.

Isn't that what you are doing right now?

At this point, I don't think Age of Sigmar is misunderstood. It is simply hated because of misplaced nerdrage.

It's like the Star Wars prequels. There is pretty much no place on the internet where the sentiment "I thought they were pretty good" won't instantly result in a hundred people trying to explain to you, at length, what a complete hack George Lucas is and how he ruined Star Wars forever with Jar Jar. All that time and energy that could be spent talking about movies you do like, but it is wasted complaining about the prequels because for some reason, whatever George Lucas did was the Worst Thing Ever, and you must let people know because even though everybody already agrees with you and nobody actually cares what you, personally, think about Attack of the Clones, your anguish must be heard! It is proof of your... um... having opinions?

Actually, I'm don't really understand the nerdrage. I rather liked the prequels. They weren't perfect - they had flaws, I admit - but they are a fun time and there's no other experience quite like it. It took some time, but the story issues were eventually worked out, and if you want it, there are fan versions which fix the most egregious problems. I know people had certain expectations for what the movies were going to be or should've been, but they are what they are, and it has always seemed silly to me to hold a grudge over what something isn't rather than over what it is. Just like it is okay to like something different, it is okay to dislike something as well, but holding onto a petty grudge for weeks, months, years, and decades seems like it can't really be healthy. Surely, one can not find happiness by wallowing in negativity...

Age of Sigmar will become like the Star Wars prequels. Twenty years from now, it will still sell and be popular with those who don't care what others think, but there will still be a cadre of nerds that consider themselves the biggest, most informed fans acting on the most irrational negativity, gaining only bitterness for their efforts.

There's no middle ground here. There's no explaining misconceptions. There's no differing perspective that will be heard. Because this isn't actually about Age of Sigmar, and it never was. This is about grievances unchecked, and there's never going to be the closure that some people need to move on.

Methinks that's a bit black & white. There's lots of people that were interested in a Fantasy reboot. I was. 8E had a largely solid core ruleset with a couple of glaring (but fixable) issues, it was really the prices, army size, and emphasis on gigantic things that killed it, and a reboot of sorts was in order. Quite frankly, I kind of liked the idea of the end times and a new fluff paradigm. The problem is that AoS scratches none of those itches.

The problem is that GW didn't make a reboot that addressed the problems of the old game to deliver a better experience, they came out with something that delivered and entirely different, and largely unasked-for, experience, and background that increasingly feels phoned-in and Marketing driven.

That's not misplaced nerd-rage or unchecked grievances. It's an issue of square-peg-round-hole, an incorrect solution to a previous problem.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Because this isn't actually about Age of Sigmar, and it never was. This is about grievances unchecked, and there's never going to be the closure that some people need to move on.

At least you finally admitted it.

JohnHwangDD wrote:@KK - just pretend for a moment that every WMH thread had a group of 40k diehards telling the WMH players how much they sucked for being stupid enough to play a gak game. Multiple such posts on every fething page of every fething thead. Would the mods really stand for that?

Those 40k diehards should be allowed to gak all over the WMH players day and night, as it's just a minor difference of opinion that they're entitled to express, right?

While I'm sympathetic that AoS fans should be able to discuss the game without having to fight off challenges when they just want to discuss Stormcast tactica, this thread is specifically set up to call out the nonbelievers so complaining that they're present in a thread specifically directed at them rings hollow.

Sqorgar wrote:At this point, I don't think Age of Sigmar is misunderstood. It is simply hated because of misplaced nerdrage.

Oh, I don't think Age of Sigmar is misunderstood. I think we all quite "get it", but OP is laboring under the assumption that we would all want it if that was the case. I can only speak for myself in this specific case, but AoS isn't really doing anything new that other more established games haven't already done and better, and what it does do differently tends to stink of corporate cynicism (no point values being the logical endpoint to the general care and regard GW seems to give its rulesets, Ground Marines).

And while we can sit back and blame grognard nerdrage, it cuts both ways: I'm not the only person who has made the observation that if AoS was someone's Kickstarter or garage game, the very idea that the community would bend over backwards with scoring systems and comp packets to "improve" it would be utterly absurd. There's a non-trivial level of denial in the pro-AoS camp about how much GW's name on the box actually means, and it tends to manifest as trying to talk the game up into being more than it actually is.

Age of Sigmar will become like the Star Wars prequels. Twenty years from now, it will still sell and be popular with those who don't care what others think, but there will still be a cadre of nerds that consider themselves the biggest, most informed fans acting on the most irrational negativity, gaining only bitterness for their efforts.

If we look back a few years on this forum you can find people going to the mat for Dreadfleet, talking about how people who disliked it were just the standard GW haters looking to get their shots in. This also strikes me as a bold prediction when GW has established that any of their games that isn't 40k is ultimately expendable.

MongooseMatt wrote:

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...

See, for me, the 'all my favourite characters are gone' idea is entirely secondary to the fact that the reason those characters are gone is that the setting is now something completely different to what it was.

Specific characters come and go. They always have. But the setting of WHFB is what appealed to me. I liked the fact that it was a largely generic fantasy world with Elves and Dwarfs and Orcs all duking it out. So for me, the removal of Gotrek is far less of an impact than the removal of the Old World, and the rebranding for Trademarkableness of all of the races.

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.

And that's exactly the problem.

As others have pointed out, if anyone else released a new game that required the community to devise rules systems just to make it actually playable, they would cop all sorts of stick for it. But for some reason, we're all supposed to praise GW for it?

Nope, that's not going to happen. The end result is a fractured system that is useless for any sort of pick-up gaming, as you're never going to be able to depend on a prospective opponent playing the same rules as you.

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.

That wasn't my experience.

The vast majority of games were played using Dawn Assault simply because it was the least complicated scenario, and people didn't want to have to think about scenario rules. For the same reason, only about half of my 2nd edition games used the mission cards rather than just playing 'kill the other army' and the majority of my 4th edition games were Meat Grinders.

It was only really with 5th edition that I started to see people outside of tournaments actually show an interest in playing the game using the scenarios... as in, the way the designers had said to play it.

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.

In 40k, they got around that by making alternate game modes that were interesting. Cityfight saw a fair amount of play, and for a time Apocalypse was (ahem) huge.

Seems a bit odd to go from that experience to 'Meh, just throw out all of the rules governing army composition and let people throw everything they own on the table...'

By taking the points out of Age of Sigmar (and by the way they present scenarios), there is no ‘standard’ way of playing.

Er... yes, there is. As you poitned out just above here, it's defined by the rules as presented to the players. The 'standard' way of playing AoS is to put as much or as little of your collection on the table as you feel like, pending available table space.

“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.

I haven't seen anyone suggest that a goblin and a Stormcast are equivalent in the game. The issue that I've seen people complain about there is that the rules treat them as being equivalent for army building when they are clearly not actually equal.

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.

Given all of the discussion over the impact of using different sized bases in WHFB and 40K over the last 30 years, I find it extremely hard to believe that that designers couldn't conceive of anyone trying to garner an in-game advantage by changing the size of their model's base.

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.

And that's an easy thing to say when you use an extreme example. But reduce the size of that base to something more normal, and exactly how do you determine where to draw the line?

You don't even have to specifically change models for this... there are models on standard bases that in certain pair-ups can't actually reach other models on standard bases due to their normal base size. This is something that people noticed about three and a half seconds after the rules were released into the wild.

And you're seriously expecting people to believe that guys who actually write games rules for a living couldn't conceive of this ever happening?

 Sqorgar wrote:
...
Actually, I'm don't really understand the nerdrage. I rather liked the prequels. They weren't perfect - they had flaws, I admit - but they are a fun time and there's no other experience quite like it. ...

I...
I mean I don't like AOS but you can argue that it's ok for lulz, but THE PREQUELS?
It's like reading a discussion on why people like or don't like blue cheese and then someone defends murder.

(Please note for the habitually constipated this is a statement of jest)

I like and enjoy AoS, what others see as flaws in the game I may not. Calling something a flaw is an OPINION and while some opinions may be supported by facts (I believe climate change in real, this opinion is supported by facts) when it comes to liking or disliking something it will ultimately be an emotional response (I like AoS because blah blah is not supported by fact, but by emotion)

Matt this was a brave post and I agree with you but ultimately a waste of time. People who dislike AoS fit into three main categories. They have tried AoS and didn't like it, refuse to try it because it replaced Fantasy, or they are anti-GW and will never like anything it puts out. None of these groups are going to be swayed by arguments for AoS so it is a waste of time. Similarly there are people that like AoS that wont be swayed by the arguments of people that don't like it... hence waste of time..

I cant believe I wasted my time posting in this thread... eh, its a slow work day.

Nerm86 wrote:
I like and enjoy AoS, what others see as flaws in the game I may not. Calling something a flaw is an OPINION and while some opinions may be supported by facts (I believe climate change in real, this opinion is supported by facts) when it comes to liking or disliking something it will ultimately be an emotional response (I like AoS because blah blah is not supported by fact, but by emotion)

Matt this was a brave post and I agree with you but ultimately a waste of time. People who dislike AoS fit into three main categories. They have tried AoS and didn't like it, refuse to try it because it replaced Fantasy, or they are anti-GW and will never like anything it puts out. None of these groups are going to be swayed by arguments for AoS so it is a waste of time. Similarly there are people that like AoS that wont be swayed by the arguments of people that don't like it... hence waste of time..

I cant believe I wasted my time posting in this thread... eh, its a slow work day.

Or a fourth group. People that understand what the game is and don't like it for what it is. Sometimes people legitimately don't like something.
I get AOS. Read through the rules, the books, the scrolls. I do get it.
What don't I like about it?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
You know, somewhere that isn't overrun by constant anti-AoS spam, with the implicit support of the mod team?

/sneaky 4chan /tg/, reddit ageofsigmar /lurk back in to shadow

 JohnHwangDD wrote:


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.

One could argue that all our armies have been squatted. They no longer receive any official support for Warhammer Fantasy Battles.

Dogs of War were pretty neat! I liked the concept of adding mercenaries to armies and can remember going up against them once or twice. Good games, even if they ended horribly for my wolfboyz. If you don't like points as a concept, well, I guess that's your preference, but I never had an issue with squaring off against the Dogs of War. Did they get an updated list for Age of Sigmar?

I'd think it would be obvious losing the setting overall is more important than losing special characters. Not trying to be petty, just trying to give a counter-point to Matt's first point. Sorry if that offended you.

Now, as for the rest of the post...

Warhammer's basically always been pseudo-historical, at least in the background. Apart from the obvious real-world parallels - have you looked at any of the old, OLD WHFRP stuff? Lots of interesting little bits. In fact, I'd argue that recent developments moved it closer and closer to 'fantasy' gaming, what with the focus on giant monsters and magic and people turning into demigods because of said magic and all the other things that bothered me about End Times That was it's own unique flavor, and it's sad for me to see that be swapped out for some loosely inspired Norse mythology/Warcraft hybrid.

The fullness of the Old World never stopped me from writing background. It inspired it, actually. I'd poke around the map and see what looked interesting, then see if anything had already been written for it, and bam! Incorporate that. This character's a goblin warlord living in the Border Princes who picks on caravans going to Malko. That one's a Bretonnian knight who believes himself to be the rightful lord of the Hautmont. For me, it's always easier to build interesting background with a seed to work with. And, on that subject, I know I'm not alone. I was involved for years with a series of online campaigns that did just that - picked up on bits and pieces of fluff, then really fleshed them out, made them its own, and made Warhammer magic. In, by the way, the GM team's spare time. We hit Araby (twice!), Cathay and Nippon, Estalia, and Norsca...and each time, the GM team had an enormous resource pool to draw on. From maps to concept art to fan-based speculation...and that was a massive help, not an impediment. That argument just doesn't make sense to me.

It's a matter of ongoing development though.
I completely get the frustration that to all intents and purposes that whole background has been wiped.
However, look at what we have had for AoS so far, just a couple of months in;
We already have potted history from day one in the 'live' warzones, we have maps, timelines, even rules for realms, areas within those realms and locations within those areas.
That's not a bad rate for a setting 3 months old.

In fluff terms, AoS is still year one using the assault on the realm of fire as 'd-day'. There are references to what went before etc., but the focus of the writing is obviously very much focussed on expansion and 'current events', rather than history.
So I'd say that yes, the quantity of background is low, but the depth of that background thus far is quite significant.
(Avoided using the term quality because flamebait)

 MWHistorian wrote:

Or a fourth group. People that understand what the game is and don't like it for what it is. Sometimes people legitimately don't like something.
I get AOS. Read through the rules, the books, the scrolls. I do get it.

You've just read through the rules? You haven't actually played it? Reminds me of an an article (NSFW) I read recently...

 Sqorgar wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

Or a fourth group. People that understand what the game is and don't like it for what it is. Sometimes people legitimately don't like something.
I get AOS. Read through the rules, the books, the scrolls. I do get it.

You've just read through the rules? You haven't actually played it? Reminds me of an an article (NSFW) I read recently...

Amazingly enough, some people do know themselves well enough to know in advance what kind of game they will or will not like...

Interesting post, indeed.

Yes, AoS is trying to put players out of their comfort zone. And that is why it's risky - people can't ignore this and must react, either by accepting it...or refusing it.

That is certainly a reason why the reactions are so extreme.

I'm wondering if AoS's success means a lot more to you than the game itself, MongooseMatt? I feel like it's a core concept that means a lot to you, as a game designer. If it can work, then that means you have the proof that it's feasable.

But then, if that's the case, don't you think that, by trying to make it work no matter what, you're not willing to see / trying to minimize the flaws such a concept may have?


It's true the way a game is designed dictates a lot of things for players; after all, they're the rules meant to play. So following them is natural to get a game working "as intended". The flaws of point systems are known and you described them quite well. But do you think a "no point system" is without flaws?

After all, a game system can always be exploited, no matter what. Rules may change, but players stay the same. And it is the players who exploit a game system, according to the rules. As long as their opponent agrees with their logic...having no point will not solve the problem. It will only move it.


Sure, AoS is fine when you have players agreeing with your standards (since the balance is now totally in the hands of players, it's only up to their standards). That is the truth for any other game.

Trouble is, if Humanity didn't manage to live without conflicts, it's certainly because we have some trouble to agree on the same things, even with strict rules. Remove these and you only have the people alone with their personal points of view.

That's why AoS is really risky and it may be the very good reason your playtesters asked for a point system; because they know it's difficult to agree with a complete stranger without an objective common ground. "Play with your collection" is quite a weak one to have balanced games, IMHO.

But then, if you only play in your gaming circle and don't bother to go outside of it, it's not really bothersome. Trouble is you may have difficulties to spread the game, especially when you play with another circle using totally different ways of playing. Lack of common ground is then a hindering.


But then, that's only my humble opinion on the matter, as a gamer of many games playing with a lot of different people.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Amazingly enough, some people do know themselves well enough to know in advance what kind of game they will or will not like...

So you haven't played it either?