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.

 Sarouan wrote:


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?

The only investment I have with AoS is in the models I have painted. That really is it.

Its overall success only matters to me in terms of being able to continue getting hold of new minis for it in the next 2, 5, or 10 years.

However, it would be cool if I had as many people to play with as with 40k...

 Sqorgar wrote:

 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?

I have indeed played it a couple of times to test the system for myself, though I admit I was already biased against it when I tried it, When I tried it out I found far too many things lacking. I just wanted to test it for myself to confirm a few things I was already suspecting (model interaction and model-to-model balance issues, mostly).

I do, however, understand that a player can simply look at the rules, fluff and/or overall aesthetics of any given game and understand that that game is not meant for them without even playing a match - it's happened to me before a couple of times (with Dreadfleet, for instance).

Personally, I find Mordheim to be a far superior skirmish game to AoS, so that will still be my go to game if I want to play a fantasy Skirmish game. I also find it ironic, to say the least, that it was made by the very same company that has made AoS, fits into the same "game type slot", but still manages to scratch all my itches, so to say.

MongooseMatt wrote:

The only investment I have with AoS is in the models I have painted. That really is it.

Its overall success only matters to me in terms of being able to continue getting hold of new minis for it in the next 2, 5, or 10 years.

However, it would be cool if I had as many people to play with as with 40k...

All right, sorry for my hypothesis.

And yes, the lack of players is quite the problem. I'm not sure it will manage to get to 40k levels in that matter, but we still have time to see.

Would be great if they give more information about what will come later...for now, it's all for Tau. It sures puts back the focus on 40k....

 Sarouan wrote:
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.
...

The same could be said of people who love AoS because it's simple, and hate WHFB because it's too complex, etc.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

I have indeed played it a couple of times to test the system for myself, though I admit I was already biased against it when I tried it, When I tried it out I found far too many things lacking. I just wanted to test it for myself to confirm a few things I was already suspecting (model interaction and model-to-model balance issues, mostly).

So... confirmation bias, then? People see what they want to see, and there's no easy defense for that, but don't go around pretending that your opinion is objective and informed when it is histrionic and preconceived.

I think the first post to this thread was about clearing up misconceptions about AoS precisely to combat confirmation bias. He is literally saying, "this is what you expect, but really, it's like this". It won't work, obviously, but good on him for trying to convince others by talking about the actual game itself, which he has played many times, rather than comparing it to different games, complaining about rules he's never tried, or dwelling in a biased theoretical bubble with no basis in reality.

I do, however, understand that a player can simply look at the rules, fluff and/or overall aesthetics of any given game and understand that that game is not meant for them without even playing a match - it's happened to me before a couple of times (with Dreadfleet, for instance).

Yes, this is possible. But that isn't what is going on here. Someone who simply realizes that a game isn't for them doesn't then spend months complaining about it. And MWHistorian has spent MONTHS complaining about this game, almost daily as near as I can tell. That is someone who obviously feels strongly about something, and I don't think it is fair to anybody, himself especially, to feel that strongly without having any practical experience on the subject. It's like a child who won't eat broccoli without tasting it, only in this situation, nobody is actually making him eat his broccoli. He's going over to other kids who are eating, and enjoying, their broccoli and going, "What the feth is wrong with you?"

Personally, I find Mordheim to be a far superior skirmish game to AoS, so that will still be my go to game if I want to play a fantasy Skirmish game. I also find it ironic, to say the least, that it was made by the very same company that has made AoS, fits into the same "game type slot", but still manages to scratch all my itches, so to say.

Age of Sigmar is not Mordheim. It's not WHFB either. It isn't Warmachine or 40k or Infinity or anything else. It is its own thing, going its own way, and yet people seem to expect it to apologize for it. I just don't understand the need to tell people that play and enjoy Age of Sigmar that you'd rather play something else, frequently and at length. You're like Comic Book Guy sitting there repeating "Worst. Game. Ever." as you watch other people play.

You really can't grasp that sometimes people don't like something.
I didn't like the Notebook.
I didn't like the Star Wars prequels either.

I have yet to watch a full episode of My Little Pony but I've seen enough to realize that I really don't like it.
Sqorgar, you have to accept that sometimes something you really like, isn't going to be liked by others.

I haven't played it because after reading the rules and all the other stuff, I didn't like the style of game, the aesthetics, the core concept and what little fluff there was. Not everything is for everybody.

It's called being an adult. This is a discussion board. You're going to get different opinions. Either accept that or go to an echo chamber elsewhere.

So... confirmation bias, then? People see what they want to see, and there's no easy defense for that, but don't go around pretending that your opinion is objective and informed when it is histrionic and preconceived.

I think the first post to this thread was about clearing up misconceptions about AoS precisely to combat confirmation bias. He is literally saying, "this is what you expect, but really, it's like this". It won't work, obviously, but good on him for trying to convince others by talking about the actual game itself, which he has played many times, rather than comparing it to different games, complaining about rules he's never tried, or dwelling in a biased theoretical bubble with no basis in reality.

So what if I tested the game with a confirmation bias? What does that mean? I came to 40k with the exact same fear, and yet here I am, 11 years later, with a healthy Dark Angels army and eagerly awaiting the day FW releases DA Contemptors, the Lion, Corswain, etc.... It is exactly because I ended up liking the 40k that I even bothered to try AoS to begin with.
Also this thread is made to clear misconceptions from a certain point of view - the OP is actually saying "this is what you expect, but really, it's like this because I see it like this." Which is all fine and dandy, until they clash with other people's opinions, who believe the misconceptions aren't misconceptions at all...

A good game needs no defense for it defends itself.

Yes, this is possible. But that isn't what is going on here. Someone who simply realizes that a game isn't for them doesn't then spend months complaining about it. And MWHistorian has spent MONTHS complaining about this game, almost daily as near as I can tell. That is someone who obviously feels strongly about something, and I don't think it is fair to anybody, himself especially, to feel that strongly without having any practical experience on the subject. It's like a child who won't eat broccoli without tasting it, only in this situation, nobody is actually making him eat his broccoli. He's going over to other kids who are eating, and enjoying, their broccoli and going, "What the feth is wrong with you?"

Sorry, but that is a horrible comparison to begin with and tbh MWHistorian is quite tame compared to some rabid/offensive defenders of AoS that label anyone that doesn't like AoS or raises criticism against the game as tools or morons. The thing is, for MWHistorian (just like with me) the grievance is past the game system. As I have stated before (I think it was in a different thread but I can't remember where) I could even try to stomach AoS as it is (even if I prefer Mordheim) if they hadn't destroyed the setting itself so utterly. But they did.

Call it being butthurt, call it being unable to cope with change or moving on, but for some of the WHFB crowd - me included -, decades of immersion and involvement in a setting do leave their mark, and GW's brand is no longer enough to make us follow like the mice in the Pan Piper of Hamelin - the sweet music isn't there anymore. And, like good plastic cracks addicts in withdrawal, we are angry and lashing out at the reason why FB was so utterly destroyed - AoS.

Now... is it unfair on the AoS crowd? I am sure it is, but in the end ALL of this is collateral damage - this is "just" fallout from GW's decision. I would like to ask you this - would you have any issues with MWHistorian or me say... about two years ago? I would like to think there would be none whatsoever. Do note I am not trying to excuse the people who dislike AoS or the to label AoS supporters as villains. Far from it, as we are responsible for every single action we take (unless completely fething wasted). I really want to point at the true source of this endless war that will clearly go into the M41.

Age of Sigmar is not Mordheim. It's not WHFB either. It isn't Warmachine or 40k or Infinity or anything else. It is its own thing, going its own way, and yet people seem to expect it to apologize for it. I just don't understand the need to tell people that play and enjoy Age of Sigmar that you'd rather play something else, frequently and at length. You're like Comic Book Guy sitting there repeating "Worst. Game. Ever." as you watch other people play.

I will keep saying it as I play other games, mind you, for many, many reasons.

But regardless and yet again - this is a public forum and people are free to post their opinions even if they are divergent. If you have any problem with what people who dislike AoS are saying, report us to the Mods. Feel free to do it now, to this very post, if you want - label it as Harassment. I leave myself to the Mods' mercy. Until then, this endless circle will continue.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Personally, I find Mordheim to be a far superior skirmish game to AoS, so that will still be my go to game if I want to play a fantasy Skirmish game. I also find it ironic, to say the least, that it was made by the very same company that has made AoS, fits into the same "game type slot", but still manages to scratch all my itches, so to say.

Age of Sigmar is not Mordheim. It's not WHFB either. It isn't Warmachine or 40k or Infinity or anything else. It is its own thing, going its own way, and yet people seem to expect it to apologize for it. I just don't understand the need to tell people that play and enjoy Age of Sigmar that you'd rather play something else, frequently and at length. You're like Comic Book Guy sitting there repeating "Worst. Game. Ever." as you watch other people play.

Just because AoS isn't other games doesn't mean people can't dislike it. Nor does it mean people can't draw comparisons to other games and voice their concerns about where it falls short. This is a discussion board. Things like movies, video games and so on get compared to other, similar products all the time. If AoS is as good as some think it is it should stand up on it's own without people telling the haters to get out.

After all, do you see this kind of behavior on the forums for Infinity, Malifaux and so on? Do they tell people who voice criticisms to leave because they are just mindless haters? No, of course not. So, why does AoS need such ardent defenders if it was so great?

I have actually looked through the Infinity forums and others, and what is different here is that as far as I can find, the people in those forums who express negative opinions still play the game.

That's the difference and frankly I can't understand why anyone would want to do what is regularly occurring here.

It's like going out of your way to go into an Apple Store to shout about how Apple is overpriced and rubbish and not as good as Samsung.
Just...why?
There is plenty of discussion on balancing (as an example), but it's for the most part by people who want to play. That's fine. Christ, Warseer is basically the home of the bitter gamers, but at least they still play the stuff they are whining abou-BOO! BOO AGE OF SIGMAR. BOO!

RoperPG wrote:
I have actually looked through the Infinity forums and others, and what is different here is that as far as I can find, the people in those forums who express negative opinions still play the game.

That's the difference and frankly I can't understand why anyone would want to do what is regularly occurring here.

It's like going out of your way to go into an Apple Store to shout about how Apple is overpriced and rubbish and not as good as Samsung.
Just...why?
There is plenty of discussion on balancing (as an example), but it's for the most part by people who want to play. That's fine. Christ, Warseer is basically the home of the bitter gamers, but at least they still play the stuff they are whining abou-BOO! BOO AGE OF SIGMAR. BOO!

And yet when people that dislike AoS come to debate a thread specifically made to convince AoS dislikers that they are wrong... this is what they get?

I find the game totally uninspiring. If I buy a car I would like it to be well designed and work. Sigmar is like buying a kit car. Sure it could be nice if I spent the time to fully assemble and fix it. Driving the car as delivered is impossible. Playing the Sigmar rules as written is impossible. Dump your collection on the table and go for it? Are they aware some of us have been collecting for decades?

The game requires a massive amount of house rules/comp to get anything reasonable. Which is why it seems so lacking.

I do not see how this is a misconception. The real misconception might be deliberately ignoring the rules as written. It is a very flimsy system with holes big enough to drive a truck through. And the only solution is to use peer pressure to ensure a decent game. But who decides what is decent? Who is the one to determine what works and what does not work? Is that not the job of the professional designers? What are they getting paid for?

If some players have indeed polished this turd enough to make it shiny, I salute you. If players are willing to do that, who needs the design team? This marks the end of Games Workshops participation in the Warhammer hobby. They have moved in to the Sigmar hobby and this will become a blessing. Fans are going to pick up the standard dropped by the company and carry it onward.

At this point they are simply another company making models. Very, very expensive models that I have been too poor to purchase for many years now. GW might as well cut costs, fire the entire rules writing team, and simply post links on the GW web site to fan based rules systems.

RoperPG wrote:

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.
In game terms, we've already had more location specific rules than WFB managed in 30 years.

This can't be true.

Yes, you've got rules for fighting in various realms, and fighting in them is going to be fundamentally different in a way that fighting in Nuln wouldn't be from fighting in Bordeleaux, but I feel like you're not quite aware of the number of scenarios and rules Warhammer has had over the years. Off the top of my head, Warhammer has given us rules for:

- Fighting in Lustria
- Fighting in the Chaos Wastes
- Campaigning in Bretonnia and the Border Princes, complete with specific scenarios for certain areas (Malko, the ruined elven tower, and so forth)
- The Winter of Woe, ending with a massive greenskin horde assaulting the Oak of Ages
- Grom's war against the Empire, complete with the siege of Nuln
- Tunnel fighting
- Adding tunnel fighting to campaigns (twice, I believe!)
- Fighting in ash wastes (perfect for the Dark Lands!)
- Fighting in ice storms and winter conditions (Kislev, Troll Country, Naggaroth...)
- Fighting in deserts (Khemri and Araby)
- The destruction of Bugman's Brewery
- All the skirmish scenarios, some of which got extremely specific (this is how a snotling raid on a mushroom farmer is fought!)
- Conquering a specific mystery island somewhere in the vicinity of Lustria (involving a GM)
- All the specific scenarios from Albion and Storm of Chaos

And that's just off the top of my head. I'm sure people with an extensive collection of elderly White Dwarf magazines could add more to it.

And I would argue that a setting focused on 'current events' with only little asides as to the past (such as glossing over the ruined civilizations that the factions are fighting on top of...) doesn't exactly have a ton of depth. It could theoretically still be good, but I wouldn't call it deep.

 insaniak wrote:


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.

Great post.

This point above I find particularly important. Since I don't get much time to actually play I spend a lot of time on the forums looking over and discussing lists and strategies.
The lack of limits makes "should I take this or this" irrelevant since you can take both. Same type of thing for "is this better than this?".

Alternatively if players are using limits there are now so many different rule sets and comps that it makes these types of discussions difficult to the point of irrelevance.
If I'm used to playing Azyr comp and people are discussing a 30 wound list, I'd have to be familiar with all the armies and the # of wounds on each model, plus the OP's character and monster limits. Or if someone else chimes in, but they play with model count limits, and not wound counts.
Or I've seen this a lot - someone poses a problem and the answer is the outnumbering sudden death rules, but then the OP says they don't use those.

How are we to know what rules are being used to have an informed discussion? Even if the poster lays out all the rules they use up front many of the comps and limit systems change the game so drastically that experience isn't cross compatible.

MWHistorian wrote:I haven't played it because after reading the rules and all the other stuff, I didn't like the style of game, the aesthetics, the core concept and what little fluff there was. Not everything is for everybody.

That's perfectly fine. So why are you here, month after month, complaining about it? Literally no one in this forum does not already know your opinion on Age of Sigmar and your contributions to each thread rarely amount to more than "I don't like thing" these days. What do YOU get out of such behavior?

Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:The thing is, for MWHistorian (just like with me) the grievance is past the game system. As I have stated before (I think it was in a different thread but I can't remember where) I could even try to stomach AoS as it is (even if I prefer Mordheim) if they hadn't destroyed the setting itself so utterly. But they did.

So you admit that you are biased as hell and that your grievances have little to do with the game itself. So why continue to bash the game, especially given that you've admitted that you haven't given the game a fair shake and that you are really angry at something else? Does that sound like a well adjusted person to you?

Call it being butthurt, call it being unable to cope with change or moving on, but for some of the WHFB crowd - me included -, decades of immersion and involvement in a setting do leave their mark, and GW's brand is no longer enough to make us follow like the mice in the Pan Piper of Hamelin - the sweet music isn't there anymore. And, like good plastic cracks addicts in withdrawal, we are angry and lashing out at the reason why FB was so utterly destroyed - AoS.

But AoS isn't the reason WHFB was destroyed. It's more like the phoenix that rose from WHFB's ashes. Regardless of what they think about AoS, pretty much everybody agrees that WHFB was dying or dead long before it was killed. Even then, here's the world's tiniest violin playing for you. Find whatever closure you need to move on, then do it. Personally, I think giving AoS a fair chance and potentially coming to enjoy it is the best closure you'll ever get.

Now... is it unfair on the AoS crowd? I am sure it is, but in the end ALL of this is collateral damage - this is "just" fallout from GW's decision. I would like to ask you this - would you have any issues with MWHistorian or me say... about two years ago?

I don't have a problem with either of you now. The reason why MWHistorian isn't on my ignore list, but Swastakowey is, is because he can (occasionally) contribute to a discussion. It seems to be happening less and less as the same tired arguments are repeated over and over again. I think we are ALL tired of this happening, but neither side seems to be walking away. My end game is to be able to talk about a miniatures game that I actually enjoy among others who share my passion (but not always my opinions) on a forum dedicated to discussions about the game - and seeing how rare this is for AoS and the quality of some of the posters here, it seems like Dakka is a better place to aim for it than most. What's your end game?

But regardless and yet again - this is a public forum and people are free to post their opinions even if they are divergent. If you have any problem with what people who dislike AoS are saying, report us to the Mods. Feel free to do it now, to this very post, if you want - label it as Harassment. I leave myself to the Mods' mercy. Until then, this endless circle will continue.

With all due respect, whenever you resort to the "it's a free country and if you don't like it, tell on me" defense, you've pretty much admitted you are trolling. There's this fine line that trolls walk that skirts the edge of bannable, but never quite crosses it, but becomes rather obvious when they basically dare you to force them to shut up. That's the mark of someone who knows they are unwanted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

kenofyork wrote:
I find the game totally uninspiring. If I buy a car I would like it to be well designed and work. Sigmar is like buying a kit car. Sure it could be nice if I spent the time to fully assemble and fix it. Driving the car as delivered is impossible. Playing the Sigmar rules as written is impossible. Dump your collection on the table and go for it? Are they aware some of us have been collecting for decades?

Age of Sigmar, and indeed all miniature games, are hobbies. You don't get assembled and painted figures. You get pieces and you glue together. You can even get upgrade kits or alternate weapons to customize your models. You then get to paint them in any manner of your choosing. You have to build your own tables and place your own terrain. AoS just applies this philosophy to the game rules as well.

 Spinner wrote:

This can't be true.

I'll take that, I stand corrected. Been playing Fantasy for nigh on 20 years and was unaware of all but 3 of those you listed!
Original post edited.

 Spinner wrote:

And I would argue that a setting focused on 'current events' with only little asides as to the past (such as glossing over the ruined civilizations that the factions are fighting on top of...) doesn't exactly have a ton of depth. It could theoretically still be good, but I wouldn't call it deep.

WFB was always human-centric in how it framed things. AoS has a certain mythological feel tonit for me, scattered peoples remembering the golden age, the world that was when gods walked amongst men, the world tree of realms.
I don't really know how to explain it, but it strikes a chord for me.

RoperPG wrote:

 Spinner wrote:

This can't be true.

I'll take that, I stand corrected. Been playing Fantasy for nigh on 20 years and was unaware of all but 3 of those you listed!
Original post edited.

 Spinner wrote:

And I would argue that a setting focused on 'current events' with only little asides as to the past (such as glossing over the ruined civilizations that the factions are fighting on top of...) doesn't exactly have a ton of depth. It could theoretically still be good, but I wouldn't call it deep.

WFB was always human-centric in how it framed things. AoS has a certain mythological feel tonit for me, scattered peoples remembering the golden age, the world that was when gods walked amongst men, the world tree of realms.
I don't really know how to explain it, but it strikes a chord for me.

I'd recommend that you try and get hold of a copy of the General's Compendium, then, seeing as that's where a good chunk of those came from! Even if you don't play Warhammer any more, maybe you can adapt out some of the rules to be used in Age of Sigmar. It's a wonderful toolbox-type book, and I can see the ash wastes/Chaos Wastes special rules really working for the game.

And if the feel of the game works for you, then it works for you. I can certainly see the appeal of that kind of setting, and maybe I'd even be interested in it if it didn't replace the Old World and the focus was on the remnants of the lost civilizations rather than the deathless warrior gods battling among them. That strikes a chord for me. Your people have been starving and on the run, telling tales of lost glory, perhaps looting the ruins of dead cities for equipment to survive -

Why the frak didn't they just reskin Mordheim come on it would have been PERFECT -

"I'm not booing your gaming group, I'm booing the company. No one even knows what a 'Seraphon' is."

 Sqorgar wrote:
So you admit that you are biased as hell and that your grievances have little to do with the game itself. So why continue to bash the game, especially given that you've admitted that you haven't given the game a fair shake and that you are really angry at something else? Does that sound like a well adjusted person to you?

Holy gak. That's... just wow.

That's really all I have to say. And considering just that, this little interchange is over.

 Spinner wrote:

I'd recommend that you try and get hold of a copy of the General's Compendium, then, seeing as that's where a good chunk of those came from! Even if you don't play Warhammer any more, maybe you can adapt out some of the rules to be used in Age of Sigmar. It's a wonderful toolbox-type book, and I can see the ash wastes/Chaos Wastes special rules really working for the game.

And what is utterly embarrassing here is the fact I'm 80% sure my copy of that book is in a box back in my folks' loft.
Wow, the memory really is the first thing to go...

"So why are you here, month after month, complaining about it? Literally no one in this forum does not already know your opinion on Age of Sigmar and your contributions to each thread rarely amount to more than "I don't like thing" these days. What do YOU get out of such behavior? "

Would like to know this as well. The "I have a right to complain, be an adult" response doesn't explain why you would complain using the exact same arguments, month after month, about a game you hate. We know you can, because moderation allows it here. Some even go so far as to mock those of us who enjoy the game because we have a thread where we try to discuss something we enjoy with others who enjoy it. It's completely absurd. But WHY? It benefits literally no one, least of all yourself. I have been on forums where most of my posts where complaints and angry arguments. All it did was make me angrier. In the end I stopped visiting those forums because I realized I was doing myself a disservice.

Lithlandis admitted that he is "angry and lashing out". Is that the basis of good discussion? I think most people would say no, there's no point and you need to move on.

 Mymearan wrote:
"So why are you here, month after month, complaining about it? Literally no one in this forum does not already know your opinion on Age of Sigmar and your contributions to each thread rarely amount to more than "I don't like thing" these days. What do YOU get out of such behavior? "

Would like to know this as well. The "I have a right to complain, be an adult" response doesn't explain why you would complain using the exact same arguments, month after month, about a game you hate. We know you can, because moderation allows it here. But WHY? It benefits literally no one, least of all yourself. I have been on forums where most of my posts where complaints and angry arguments. All it did was make me angrier. In the end I stopped visiting those forums because I realized I was doing myself a disservice.

Lithlandis admitted that he is "angry and lashing out". Is that the basis of good discussion? I think most people would say no, there's no point and you need to move on.

And constantly insulting and degrading those who don't share your opinion is?

Spot on Mymearan. Spot on.

 Sqorgar wrote:
But AoS isn't the reason WHFB was destroyed. It's more like the phoenix that rose from WHFB's ashes. Regardless of what they think about AoS, pretty much everybody agrees that WHFB was dying or dead long before it was killed. Even then, here's the world's tiniest violin playing for you. Find whatever closure you need to move on, then do it. Personally, I think giving AoS a fair chance and potentially coming to enjoy it is the best closure you'll ever get.

It was injured, for sure, but could have been saved. Instead they shoved it off the fourth floor window and all their customers with it. Most people are aiming for closure by playing other games.

WFB was always human-centric in how it framed things. AoS has a certain mythological feel tonit for me, scattered peoples remembering the golden age, the world that was when gods walked amongst men, the world tree of realms.
I don't really know how to explain it, but it strikes a chord for me.

And its very hard to relate to for many people. Do sigmarines eat or talk? Are they just statues? When a sigmarine dies, does anyone really care?

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
"So why are you here, month after month, complaining about it? Literally no one in this forum does not already know your opinion on Age of Sigmar and your contributions to each thread rarely amount to more than "I don't like thing" these days. What do YOU get out of such behavior? "

Would like to know this as well. The "I have a right to complain, be an adult" response doesn't explain why you would complain using the exact same arguments, month after month, about a game you hate. We know you can, because moderation allows it here. But WHY? It benefits literally no one, least of all yourself. I have been on forums where most of my posts where complaints and angry arguments. All it did was make me angrier. In the end I stopped visiting those forums because I realized I was doing myself a disservice.

Lithlandis admitted that he is "angry and lashing out". Is that the basis of good discussion? I think most people would say no, there's no point and you need to move on.

And constantly insulting and degrading those who don't share your opinion is?

Spot on Mymearan. Spot on.

Of course not, where did I say that? And why are you avoiding my question? You only commented on the very last sentence in my post.

 Mymearan wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:
"So why are you here, month after month, complaining about it? Literally no one in this forum does not already know your opinion on Age of Sigmar and your contributions to each thread rarely amount to more than "I don't like thing" these days. What do YOU get out of such behavior? "

Would like to know this as well. The "I have a right to complain, be an adult" response doesn't explain why you would complain using the exact same arguments, month after month, about a game you hate. We know you can, because moderation allows it here. But WHY? It benefits literally no one, least of all yourself. I have been on forums where most of my posts where complaints and angry arguments. All it did was make me angrier. In the end I stopped visiting those forums because I realized I was doing myself a disservice.

Lithlandis admitted that he is "angry and lashing out". Is that the basis of good discussion? I think most people would say no, there's no point and you need to move on.

And constantly insulting and degrading those who don't share your opinion is?

Spot on Mymearan. Spot on.

Of course not, where did I say that? And why are you avoiding my question? You only commented on the very last sentence in my post.

The funny thing is that, if you read all the posts made by me about AoS, in the couple of threads since I am here (not for months and months, like someone else says) you'll see I will consistently point out what I find to be flaws in the game, pretty much like many others that share the same opinion as I do. There is rarely any anger from us, even though there should be. The anger is not directed at the players who like AoS - as I mentioned previously, I am willing to believe to believe that tw years ago I wouldn't have been insulted... but hey maybe I'm being overly optimistic. It's directed at this sorry little excuse of a game that rose "like a phoenix" (pfft) after breaking a playerbase apart.

We have calmly, collectedly pointed flaws or weaknesses in:

- rules;
- fluff;
- overall aesthetics.

We have also pointed out flaws in the basis for the game's marketing strategies, and the very reason why it came to be. Heck, we have even - many times over - pointed out and suggested what could've been done right regarding AoS, what would have made the game the breath of fresh air that would not have split a player base in half.

I am here to talk and discuss wargames (as you might notice I don't post in the AoS forums alone).
What I am NOT here to do is to call people who don't share my opinion tools, trolls, spammers, or pretty much flying rodent gak insane. Get my drift?

 Mymearan wrote:
"So why are you here, month after month, complaining about it? Literally no one in this forum does not already know your opinion on Age of Sigmar and your contributions to each thread rarely amount to more than "I don't like thing" these days. What do YOU get out of such behavior? "

Would like to know this as well. The "I have a right to complain, be an adult" response doesn't explain why you would complain using the exact same arguments, month after month, about a game you hate. We know you can, because moderation allows it here. Some even go so far as to mock those of us who enjoy the game because we have a thread where we try to discuss something we enjoy with others who enjoy it. It's completely absurd. But WHY? It benefits literally no one, least of all yourself. I have been on forums where most of my posts where complaints and angry arguments. All it did was make me angrier. In the end I stopped visiting those forums because I realized I was doing myself a disservice.

Lithlandis admitted that he is "angry and lashing out". Is that the basis of good discussion? I think most people would say no, there's no point and you need to move on.

The answer to that is a response to the thread title. MattMongoose put forth the idea that there was a list of misconceptions around AoS and that possibly players hadn't seen it from a different point of view or they didn't understand some things. The "negative" responses has been from players who feel they did take these ideas into mind and don't agree with them, or did understand the game and came to different conclusions. I play, I have grave misgivings about the game, and I enjoy discussions about these problems I see. I do look for other points of view and solutions to some of these problems.

 mugginns wrote:

It was injured, for sure, but could have been saved. Instead they shoved it off the fourth floor window and all their customers with it. Most people are aiming for closure by playing other games.

First, I don't think WHFB could be saved. I think that it had its fans, but I think it would've been an uphill battle gaining new ones. It's kind of like MMOs. Over time, they hemorrhage players. Every expansion pack brings back new players, but less and less each time. After a while, the number of players who come back are less than the number of players who leave, and the game (as a service) enters the downward spiral where releases and updates are fewer, staff are moved to other projects, and you basically have a skeleton crew trying to keep what few players still there happy. Eventually, they just close the servers. Once a MMO reaches "maintenance mode", it is very rare for it to ever bounce back and become popular.

Or, to put it in terms of WHFB, they could maintain the game with the players that remained (many of which were older than 40) but they could not grow it again without a major investment - and even then, it would likely only buy a few more years before it went into maintenance mode again. So they had two options. They could launch a sequel, which could allow them to appeal to new players and keep the old players around (which they did, and it didn't work), or they could move outside of their tightly controlled distribution system to reach a wider audience, which wouldn't work because of the hobby aspect. If they wanted to gain new players, they would need to release cheaper figures in places like Barnes and Nobles that were probably pre-assembled and pre-painted (meaning they'd compete against X-Wing Miniatures, which would also anger FFG who does all of GW's board games).

Frankly, launching a sequel to WHFB was a good idea because it did draw new blood (like me) who preferred skirmish systems and were drawn to the idea of a new miniatures game with heavy support, but which didn't have 30 years of baggage with it. Starting a new universe where they could slowly reintroduce older characters and races kept me from being overwhelmed - I look at 40k, and while I love some of the models and would love to play it, I have absolutely NO idea how to start the game. I thought the rumored Horus Heresy starter set would be a good chance to jump in, but now the rumors are saying that it is even more complicated than 40k and presumably would be more difficult to get outside of the Forge World online store.

Anyway, I'm saying WHFB probably couldn't have been saved. It was in maintenance mode, and to a company that answers to investors, the ability to get out of it quickly and cheaply was probably impossible. So they chose the option which they thought (mistakenly, I guess) would gain new players while keeping the old ones invested. All your models work in the new game. They assumed that it was the models the players were attached to rather than the rules - which was probably a fair assumption at the time.

And second, playing another game isn't closure. It's a rebound. It's like dating a girl who looks like your ex-girlfriend.

 Sqorgar wrote:
So they had two options. They could launch a sequel, which could allow them to appeal to new players and keep the old players around (which they did, and it didn't work), or they could move outside of their tightly controlled distribution system to reach a wider audience, which wouldn't work because of the hobby aspect. If they wanted to gain new players, they would need to release cheaper figures in places like Barnes and Nobles that were probably pre-assembled and pre-painted (meaning they'd compete against X-Wing Miniatures, which would also anger FFG who does all of GW's board games).

Or they could make the game more affordable, offer a skirmish mode as introduction to the real game, and offer actual support for the game.

Frankly, launching a sequel to WHFB was a good idea because it did draw new blood (like me) who preferred skirmish systems and were drawn to the idea of a new miniatures game with heavy support, but which didn't have 30 years of baggage with it.

And get rid of the existing fanbase who did like the '30 years of baggage' as well as the way the game was played.

And second, playing another game isn't closure. It's a rebound. It's like dating a girl who looks like your ex-girlfriend.

Its like dating a girl who might look like your ex-girlfriend, but doesn't throw you down the stairs.

 mugginns wrote:

Or they could make the game more affordable, offer a skirmish mode as introduction to the real game, and offer actual support for the game.

Making the game affordable and better support would make existing players happy - it wouldn't bring in new players. The miniature games market is relatively small, and absolutely dominated by Games Workshop. It's fair to say that anybody who plays miniature games already knows what WHFB is and if they aren't playing it, made the decision to not play it. Since 40k is doing well, price is obviously not the objection. Even then, GW does have stuff like Island of Blood which has small skirmishes for a (more) reasonable price, but my guess is that it wasn't selling as well as Dark Vengeance or it wasn't causing players to further invest after the starter box.

And get rid of the existing fanbase who did like the '30 years of baggage' as well as the way the game was played.

But they didn't get rid of the baggage. It's all there and the way the AoS universe is set up, almost all of it could potentially come back at some point. It's just not relevant to the initial release of the game.

For instance, it appears that AoS will get another release window in December, which some people are saying will be two new factions for Order and Chaos. If they introduce the Dwarves, for example, it will undoubtedly come with the backstory of what happened between End Times and Age of Sigmar. And then, part of the Old World mythology will be connected with the AoS mythology, bridging the two. If it feels like everything from the Old World is gone, it's only because they are taking their time introducing the new factions and explaining where they went.

To someone like me, not having the backstory for the Dwarves initially allows me to focus on the world and main conflict of the AoS time period. Introducing each race slowly gives me time to acclimate to their own individual heroes, stories, and purpose without overwhelming me with 30 years of history all at once. And I get that it must seem frustrating to feel like you've lose that universe - but you haven't. Just learn a little patience and at least make it to the next release window and see what happens.

Public warning, folks: if you can't discuss your points without either ascribing motives to those with differing opinions, or actively calling them names, I strongly suggest you refrain from posting.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 mugginns wrote:

Or they could make the game more affordable, offer a skirmish mode as introduction to the real game, and offer actual support for the game.

Making the game affordable and better support would make existing players happy - it wouldn't bring in new players. The miniature games market is relatively small, and absolutely dominated by Games Workshop. It's fair to say that anybody who plays miniature games already knows what WHFB is and if they aren't playing it, made the decision to not play it.

While GW is still the largest player, they are not the dominating force they once were. Likewise, I've known multiple people that thought about getting into Fantasy that didn't because of the cost, and the cost was definitely a factor in myself dropping out of Fantasy play. If people look at a game and realize it's going to be a 4 digit investment to get a 2500pt (standard play level) army, that's going to shut that down real quick.

Since 40k is doing well, price is obviously not the objection.

We don't know if 40k is doing "well", it's just bigger. GW's overall revenues have been declining for over a decade and to assume that 40k is not taking hits would be unrealistic. 40k armies also tend to be a bit lighter on the wallet than Fantasy armies were, and with bigger, easier to paint models (like tanks), and could be played much more fluidly at 500 or 1000pts than Fantasy did at say 1000 or 1500pts (and a 500pt game of Fantasy basically didn't exist). 40k is far easier to "build up to" than Fantasy was.

Even then, GW does have stuff like Island of Blood which has small skirmishes for a (more) reasonable price, but my guess is that it wasn't selling as well as Dark Vengeance or it wasn't causing players to further invest after the starter box.

Because it only had two factions and felt like a portion of an army rather than a complete force. Nobody I knew ever bought it (or Dark Vengeance) to play just with those sets, it was always to get a grip of models for a relatively cheap price if you wanted to play those specific factions. Nobody ever actually played games using just those models.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Making the game affordable and better support would make existing players happy - it wouldn't bring in new players.

That's uh, yeah, citation needed. Cost was a HUGE factor in a lot of people not playing the game.

Since 40k is doing well, price is obviously not the objection

Lower volume of sales every year for years definitely doesn't show that.

But they didn't get rid of the baggage. It's all there and the way the AoS universe is set up, almost all of it could potentially come back at some point. It's just not relevant to the initial release of the game.

I mean, I don't really see Beastmen coming out of the Drakwald any time soon. They recreated everything so they can copyright every single piece of it. Chapterhouse touched a nerve for sure.