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 am finally approaching my 60th game of AoS, I am not a "fanboy" but I am not a "hater" either. But some of my observations from this experience is, this game is awful. It really is hack work. they did nothing new or original here. They sold us a watered down version of warhammer and then half/arsed it. That doesn't make it not fun to play from time to time and we do. It is not "fast" so far it has taken us just as long to play it as it did warhammer. They are completely different games in the same way that mordheim and warhammer were different. It does have some really nice parts to it, while I despise the aesthetics of the warscrolls, they are nice and convenient. the models are still the ones we know and love (and better yet, we all have) While the fluff made some..."changes" to the setting, its really not important to the game. there are a lot of awful games that can be really fun, take "Carnage" for example, or even Dark Heaven: apocalypse. these were also pretty awful games that can be fun to play. That is my post 50 game assessment and its my opinion, AoS is FUN, but its a pretty shoddy product. having been a GW customer for a long time, I am also convinced AoS will not survive in its current form, we have 7 editions of 40k and 8 editions of warhammer, AoS is pretty much doomed. it will go through edition hacks and we will be right back here argueing about which AoS edition is better in a few years. That is if GW doesnt go down to being a second or third tier company, which is very possible. I use the examples of White Wolf, TSR, and FASA to prove that point, all three were THE titans of their day, all three are extinct. AoS will survive and change. I like it about as much as I liked warhammer fantasy, but in no way am I giving GW a pass for this "effort" its bad, and they could have done a hell of a lot better, the talent is there. That said my vampires are looking forward to fighting the hated sigmarines wednesday night for game #60.

 Bottle wrote:
Tbh, I not fussed for points with or without. The only important thing for me is total unbound is a must.

I honestly hate this.

Not because I am some WAAC player who can't handle losing, but because I find it horribly unfluffy.

Some of GW's best codices/army books are the ones that allow a lot of themes within their rules themselves, like the 5th ed Imperial Guard army allowing conscript regiments, veteren regiments, airborne regiments, mechanized, armour, artillery, etc. They had a LOT of different ways to build fluffly lists. Throw in ally mechanics with a better matrix than the ones we were given in 40k and you have a good system.

Unbound on the other hand allows sigmarines charging into battle alongside khornites to kill those nasty high elves.

I think the first example of something unbound used in white dwarf was someone saying in the magazine they were eager to run a list of all riptides, again not fluffy were Farsight had a way to bring lots of riptides already and had them supported by other suits, much fluffier.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
Tbh, I not fussed for points with or without. The only important thing for me is total unbound is a must.

I honestly hate this.

Not because I am some WAAC player who can't handle losing, but because I find it horribly unfluffy.

Some of GW's best codices/army books are the ones that allow a lot of themes within their rules themselves, like the 5th ed Imperial Guard army allowing conscript regiments, veteren regiments, airborne regiments, mechanized, armour, artillery, etc. They had a LOT of different ways to build fluffly lists. Throw in ally mechanics with a better matrix than the ones we were given in 40k and you have a good system.

Unbound on the other hand allows sigmarines charging into battle alongside khornites to kill those nasty high elves.

I think the first example of something unbound used in white dwarf was someone saying in the magazine they were eager to run a list of all riptides, again not fluffy were Farsight had a way to bring lots of riptides already and had them supported by other suits, much fluffier.

I agree. On the odd occasion fluffy armies could not be catered for reasonably that was when we house ruled ruled those in. We did not need unbound or no points to tell us we can take some imperial guard troops in our Tau army as Gauvesa or to have re-spawning orks charge us until we died or ran out of time etc. The idea that points prevents this is a really weird one to me. If anything points keeps this in check so people don't go overboard.

Structure creates an amazing way to do fluffy armies because you have structure to begin with and can take away structure when needed. You dont have to work backwards like in AOS.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Not because I am some WAAC player who can't handle losing, but because I find it horribly unfluffy. .

Indeed. This is what I was referring to earlier with the Clix comparison. While yes, it technically allows people to create unusual themed armies, for the most part I would expect it to just wind up being used to field armies with no theme, just a collection of whatever miniatures someone happens to own.

You're all being too negative. The unbound element of AoS allows for incredibly cool concepts that could never be catered for before, for example combining Sylvaneth with Vampire Counts spirits to create a "Haunted Forest" theme. Or the recently featured Shadow army in Visions that was an amazing combination of Dark Elves, Vampire Counts, High Elves and some Empire/Elf converted counts as.

If an opponent was fielding a bizarre mix of models, I would ask them what's the story about those guys all ending up together. I get these questions all the time myself as my army now includes Empire, High Elves, Dwarves and a sprinkle of summoned Vanpire Counts. (My Warhammer Quest themed army)

If someone truely played with a random collection of models with no passion for the narrative aspect of the game, then I probably wouldn't play them very much, but I have never seen it happen in real life.

 Bottle wrote:
You're all being too negative. The unbound element of AoS allows for incredibly cool concepts that could never be catered for before, for example combining Sylvaneth with Vampire Counts spirits to create a "Haunted Forest" theme. Or the recently featured Shadow army in Visions that was an amazing combination of Dark Elves, Vampire Counts, High Elves and some Empire/Elf converted counts as.

If an opponent was fielding a bizarre mix of models, I would ask them what's the story about those guys all ending up together. I get these questions all the time myself as my army now includes Empire, High Elves, Dwarves and a sprinkle of summoned Vanpire Counts. (My Warhammer Quest themed army)

If someone truely played with a random collection of models with no passion for the narrative aspect of the game, then I probably wouldn't play them very much, but I have never seen it happen in real life.

I see nothing that stops me from doing this ever... I personally think it takes a closed mind to need to be given permission to do this.

I agree if it's just a hodge podge of models that had no reason to be there it sucks but you are more likely to see those in a system like AOS or unbound 40k etc.

Well, the rules used to stop you from doing it before.

Sure you can break them, but people like to play by the rules (including me).

Have a little faith in your opponent. Would you use the unbound rules to play a discordant mix of models that doesn't match the background? No? Then why presume your opponent will?

 Bottle wrote:
You're all being too negative. The unbound element of AoS allows for incredibly cool concepts that could never be catered for before, for example combining Sylvaneth with Vampire Counts spirits to create a "Haunted Forest" theme.

That's a cool theme, that I would have just made in 8th ed by fielding treekin models and calling them ghouls mechanics wise. No need to really use unbound for that and it would most likely have been tourney legal too (some TOs might take issue with it, but all the ones I have met are always willing to let things slide if they are cool, it is the times people are trying to use blank bases or grabbing something from one of their other armies to stand in that look out of place and are blatantly just trying to save time/money by not using the real models that TOs take issue with).

 Bottle wrote:
Well, the rules used to stop you from doing it before.

Sure you can break them, but people like to play by the rules (including me).

Have a little faith in your opponent. Would you use the unbound rules to play a discordant mix of models that doesn't match the background? No? Then why presume your opponent will?

I do have faith in my opponents since I play with friends, but I also want structure in my games. Rules have never prevented me from either using counts as or simply ignoring 1 or 2 rules to make the game work. I certainly did not have to finish writing the rules of a game to have fun.

regardless even if the rules prevent you, with a tiniest amount of imagination you can simply use whatever models you want for whatever rules you want.

Everything special about AOS is redundant (and unbound) if you think about it for a second.

thekingofkings wrote:
I am finally approaching my 60th game of AoS, I am not a "fanboy" but I am not a "hater" either. But some of my observations from this experience is, this game is awful. It really is hack work. they did nothing new or original here. They sold us a watered down version of warhammer and then half/arsed it. That doesn't make it not fun to play from time to time and we do. It is not "fast" so far it has taken us just as long to play it as it did warhammer. They are completely different games in the same way that mordheim and warhammer were different. It does have some really nice parts to it, while I despise the aesthetics of the warscrolls, they are nice and convenient. the models are still the ones we know and love (and better yet, we all have) While the fluff made some..."changes" to the setting, its really not important to the game. there are a lot of awful games that can be really fun, take "Carnage" for example, or even Dark Heaven: apocalypse. these were also pretty awful games that can be fun to play. That is my post 50 game assessment and its my opinion, AoS is FUN, but its a pretty shoddy product. having been a GW customer for a long time, I am also convinced AoS will not survive in its current form, we have 7 editions of 40k and 8 editions of warhammer, AoS is pretty much doomed. it will go through edition hacks and we will be right back here argueing about which AoS edition is better in a few years. That is if GW doesnt go down to being a second or third tier company, which is very possible. I use the examples of White Wolf, TSR, and FASA to prove that point, all three were THE titans of their day, all three are extinct. AoS will survive and change. I like it about as much as I liked warhammer fantasy, but in no way am I giving GW a pass for this "effort" its bad, and they could have done a hell of a lot better, the talent is there. That said my vampires are looking forward to fighting the hated sigmarines wednesday night for game #60.

60 games is pretty incredible. I don't think I've played more than 30-40 games of 40k in the 2 years I've been playing it.

 Bottle wrote:
Well, the rules used to stop you from doing it before.

Sure you can break them, but people like to play by the rules (including me).

Really?

Because, just a little while ago, I could have sworn you said:

 Bottle wrote:

Like I said, it's bespoke to every game. Sometimes I play the 4 page rules "deployment poker" sometimes I choose a model count, sometimes a wound count, sometimes with GWs school league rules, sometimes with the battleplan specific set up.

So if you're altering the rules for army creation in this game, what was stopping you from doing so in the other game?

Have a little faith in your opponent. Would you use the unbound rules to play a discordant mix of models that doesn't match the background? No? Then why presume your opponent will?

Because people who aren't me quite often do things that I wouldn't, due to not being me?

 insaniak wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
Well, the rules used to stop you from doing it before.

Sure you can break them, but people like to play by the rules (including me).

Really?

Because, just a little while ago, I could have sworn you said:

 Bottle wrote:

Like I said, it's bespoke to every game. Sometimes I play the 4 page rules "deployment poker" sometimes I choose a model count, sometimes a wound count, sometimes with GWs school league rules, sometimes with the battleplan specific set up.

So if you're altering the rules for army creation in this game, what was stopping you from doing so in the other game?

How am I altering the rules? The rules state you can bring whatever models you want. That's what I am doing.

So if I choose to bring all the models on my shelf, that's in the rules. If I chose to bring my entire collection, that's in the rules. If i decide to bring models that don't exceed a certain amount of wounds, that's in the rules.

Have a little faith in your opponent. Would you use the unbound rules to play a discordant mix of models that doesn't match the background? No? Then why presume your opponent will?

Because people who aren't me quite often do things that I wouldn't, due to not being me?

That's very pessimistic. I give my opponent the benefit of the doubt. I am not approaching AoS with the intent of spoiling another's fun, and I don't presume my opponent is either.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
You're all being too negative. The unbound element of AoS allows for incredibly cool concepts that could never be catered for before, for example combining Sylvaneth with Vampire Counts spirits to create a "Haunted Forest" theme.

That's a cool theme, that I would have just made in 8th ed by fielding treekin models and calling them ghouls mechanics wise. No need to really use unbound for that and it would most likely have been tourney legal too (some TOs might take issue with it, but all the ones I have met are always willing to let things slide if they are cool, it is the times people are trying to use blank bases or grabbing something from one of their other armies to stand in that look out of place and are blatantly just trying to save time/money by not using the real models that TOs take issue with).

There's a difference between me and you then. For me, GW make flavoursome rules rather than well balanced rules, and so I would like to use the rules that add flavour (i.e. the rules for the models rather than counts as).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Swastakowey wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
Well, the rules used to stop you from doing it before.

Sure you can break them, but people like to play by the rules (including me).

Have a little faith in your opponent. Would you use the unbound rules to play a discordant mix of models that doesn't match the background? No? Then why presume your opponent will?

I do have faith in my opponents since I play with friends, but I also want structure in my games. Rules have never prevented me from either using counts as or simply ignoring 1 or 2 rules to make the game work. I certainly did not have to finish writing the rules of a game to have fun.

regardless even if the rules prevent you, with a tiniest amount of imagination you can simply use whatever models you want for whatever rules you want.

Everything special about AOS is redundant (and unbound) if you think about it for a second.

As above I would prefer to play with the actual model rules than 'counts-as'. GW rules for specific models add flavour to games.

And the original point that you are contesting is not that AoS is special, just that I do not care if points exist or not, but do prefer the unbound playing style. I am not saying this a unique plus of AoS, but instead if Age of Sigmar was to include points I wouldn't be fussed. But if it was to remove the free unit choice I would be because I have come to embrace it.

 Bottle wrote:


How am I altering the rules? The rules state you can bring whatever models you want. That's what I am doing.

So if I choose to bring all the models on my shelf, that's in the rules. If I chose to bring my entire collection, that's in the rules. If i decide to bring models that don't exceed a certain amount of wounds, that's in the rules.
.

If you are imposing limitations on army selection that aren't present in the rules, then you are altering the rules.

The fact that the community is coming up with a bunch of different systems for doing that has been touted in this thread as one of the selling points of this game. But altering rules is apparently a bad thing if you do it in a different game...

Just seems like an odd double standard.

Again, when the rules say I can bring whatever I want and I do just that, I don't see how I am altering them tbh.

The thing about the set up rules in AoS is almost everything has "can" written before it. Players can choose the sudden death rules, players can choose what models they bring etc.

That's why it's bespoke to the game at hand in my opponent.

Again, not saying this is some amazing unique aspect of AoS, just something I am enjoying.

 Bottle wrote:
Again, when the rules say I can bring whatever I want and I do just that, I don't see how I am altering them tbh..

Can you point out the rules that cover limiting your force to a specific number of scrolls, or a specific wound count?

If you're just choosing to only put three units on the table, then that's just you choosing to only put three units on the table.

But if you're agreeing with your opponent before the game to each only play with three scrolls, then you're changing the game... Because that's not how the rules say to play.

 insaniak wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Not because I am some WAAC player who can't handle losing, but because I find it horribly unfluffy. .

Indeed. This is what I was referring to earlier with the Clix comparison. While yes, it technically allows people to create unusual themed armies, for the most part I would expect it to just wind up being used to field armies with no theme, just a collection of whatever miniatures someone happens to own.

It is not just unfluffy, more importantly Unbound removes the balance factor built into codexes and the Force Org Chart.

 Bottle wrote:
You're all being too negative. The unbound element of AoS allows for incredibly cool concepts that could never be catered for before, for example combining Sylvaneth with Vampire Counts spirits to create a "Haunted Forest" theme. ...
...
.

You could always do that. No-one forces you to play with points and lists and equal armies in WHFB or 40K. It was always an option to throw the codex out the window and go crazy; Tau Battlesuit Training Army link up with Ork Biker Hordes to fight Chaos Tyranid menace, etc. Vets could play N00bs with a 50% points handicap to make the game more even.

AoS does nothing to create or enhance those options. It just removes any guidance for how to work out the value of an army, which is a useful yardstick for designing scenarios.

It's true that you COULD change rules, make up your own points, play without points etc in any game ever, you don't need AoS for that... except most people never do it. The big difference is that AoS encourages or even demands those things, because there is no official framework to fall back on. So I find myself playing more narrative games, using points sometimes and sometimes not... something I would not do in other games simply because like most people, I go the path of least resistance, which is using the official framework because it's convenient. So the end result is that these things are done in AoS but not nearly as often, if ever, in other games.

insaniak wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
Again, when the rules say I can bring whatever I want and I do just that, I don't see how I am altering them tbh..

Can you point out the rules that cover limiting your force to a specific number of scrolls, or a specific wound count?

If you're just choosing to only put three units on the table, then that's just you choosing to only put three units on the table.

But if you're agreeing with your opponent before the game to each only play with three scrolls, then you're changing the game... Because that's not how the rules say to play.

No because there isn't. I suggest ending this line of discussion because we are not agreeing. For me when the rules say you can bring whatever you want, that means me and my opponent are free to bring what we want - even if - what we want has self imposed limitations. The end.

Kilkrazy wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Not because I am some WAAC player who can't handle losing, but because I find it horribly unfluffy. .

Indeed. This is what I was referring to earlier with the Clix comparison. While yes, it technically allows people to create unusual themed armies, for the most part I would expect it to just wind up being used to field armies with no theme, just a collection of whatever miniatures someone happens to own.

It is not just unfluffy, more importantly Unbound removes the balance factor built into codexes and the Force Org Chart.

 Bottle wrote:
You're all being too negative. The unbound element of AoS allows for incredibly cool concepts that could never be catered for before, for example combining Sylvaneth with Vampire Counts spirits to create a "Haunted Forest" theme. ...
...
.

You could always do that. No-one forces you to play with points and lists and equal armies in WHFB or 40K. It was always an option to throw the codex out the window and go crazy; Tau Battlesuit Training Army link up with Ork Biker Hordes to fight Chaos Tyranid menace, etc. Vets could play N00bs with a 50% points handicap to make the game more even.

AoS does nothing to create or enhance those options. It just removes any guidance for how to work out the value of an army, which is a useful yardstick for designing scenarios.

So are you for or against playing with whatever you want? Because your post says both.

 Bottle wrote:
Well, the rules used to stop you from doing it before.

Sure you can break them, but people like to play by the rules (including me).

Have a little faith in your opponent. Would you use the unbound rules to play a discordant mix of models that doesn't match the background? No? Then why presume your opponent will?

Because nothing in the rules is stopping you! That's the thing!




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mymearan wrote:
It's true that you COULD change rules, make up your own points, play without points etc in any game ever, you don't need AoS for that... except most people never do it. The big difference is that AoS encourages or even demands those things, because there is no official framework to fall back on. So I find myself playing more narrative games, using points sometimes and sometimes not... something I would not do in other games simply because like most people, I go the path of least resistance, which is using the official framework because it's convenient. So the end result is that these things are done in AoS but not nearly as often, if ever, in other games.

As I have stated before - nothing stopped players from playing WHFB/whatever game uses points/a universal balancing measurement exactly like AoS is being played and ignoring points/balancing measures. Nothing. You can toss the rules out and go full on lulz "look at my khornate skink army".

You are only playing AoS like this because GW is telling you to play it like this.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Bottle wrote:





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mymearan wrote:
It's true that you COULD change rules, make up your own points, play without points etc in any game ever, you don't need AoS for that... except most people never do it. The big difference is that AoS encourages or even demands those things, because there is no official framework to fall back on. So I find myself playing more narrative games, using points sometimes and sometimes not... something I would not do in other games simply because like most people, I go the path of least resistance, which is using the official framework because it's convenient. So the end result is that these things are done in AoS but not nearly as often, if ever, in other games.

As I have stated before - nothing stopped players from playing WHFB/whatever game uses points/a universal balancing measurement exactly like AoS is being played and ignoring points/balancing measures. Nothing. You can toss the rules out and go full on lulz "look at my khornate skink army".

You are only playing AoS like this because GW is telling you to play it like this.

That's exactly my point though... you COULD do the same in WHFB or any game ever... but almost no one did. They use the official framework because it's easier and more convenient. So no matter the reason why, the end result is that people play Age of Sigmar in ways they did not play WHFB. Which I personally enjoy.

 Mymearan wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Bottle wrote:





Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mymearan wrote:
It's true that you COULD change rules, make up your own points, play without points etc in any game ever, you don't need AoS for that... except most people never do it. The big difference is that AoS encourages or even demands those things, because there is no official framework to fall back on. So I find myself playing more narrative games, using points sometimes and sometimes not... something I would not do in other games simply because like most people, I go the path of least resistance, which is using the official framework because it's convenient. So the end result is that these things are done in AoS but not nearly as often, if ever, in other games.

As I have stated before - nothing stopped players from playing WHFB/whatever game uses points/a universal balancing measurement exactly like AoS is being played and ignoring points/balancing measures. Nothing. You can toss the rules out and go full on lulz "look at my khornate skink army".

You are only playing AoS like this because GW is telling you to play it like this.

That's exactly my point though... you COULD do the same in WHFB or any game ever... but almost no one did. They use the official framework because it's easier and more convenient. So no matter the reason why, the end result is that people play Age of Sigmar in ways they did not play WHFB. Which I personally enjoy.

*Watches his point flying waaaay up in the air, ungrasped*

Maybe you could explain instead? I don't see what you're saying that's different from whay I'm saying.

 Mymearan wrote:
It's true that you COULD change rules, make up your own points, play without points etc in any game ever, you don't need AoS for that... except most people never do it. The big difference is that AoS encourages or even demands those things, because there is no official framework to fall back on. So I find myself playing more narrative games, using points sometimes and sometimes not... something I would not do in other games simply because like most people, I go the path of least resistance, which is using the official framework because it's convenient. So the end result is that these things are done in AoS but not nearly as often, if ever, in other games.

It forces people too, which is bad as it restricts playstyles and player compatibility. There is no standard so people will have to come up with compromises every time they play with new people etc. Even in AOS you will have next to nobody (of the few who even play it) make much use of this "forced freedom" since people will fall back onto the comp system instead.

All this means one thing... it would have been better for everybody if it had a nice decent structure to begin with, and the people who want to be creative can do so. This method is the most inclusive method as it eases access and allows for randoms to play each other when needed.

There is no downside for a non historical game to have structure, because you can always remove rules easily... adding rules however is literally a job. This would be better for the company making the rules and also better for the player base. GW has made it a job to have a standard game for all to play on a whim, not many people want more jobs in this hobby and if they do very few will waste that effort on a game like this which by 99% of accounts (even by fans) is a subpar game.

If you like that, that is fine. But structure is an objectively better way of doing things for all players. Having structure will not stop you playing how you want to play however having no structure makes it harder to play any way you want to play.

The only reason most of you are playing this is because GW has their logo on it.

 Mymearan wrote:
Maybe you could explain instead? I don't see what you're saying that's different from whay I'm saying.

Fine.

Answer me this: how many people did you see campaigning in the forums that points/balancing systems are bad before AoS hit? Not campaigning that FB/40/Wmh/Infinity were unbalanced, but outright stating that balancing systems were horrible to begin with and that you should never use balancing tools in tabletop games - you should eyeball it all because it's "so much better that way and so much fluffier too!" (e.g khornate skinks). What happened between then and now?

I really can only remember Jervis in that beautiful article he wrote all those years before this gak fest...

Also... what was the initial reaction to Unbound? Note: not Apocalypse. Unbound. And what is the overall agreement that Unbound is? And what is the prefered way to play 40k matches still worldwide - is it Unbound or that horrible, horrible points system option? What did the 40k playerbase decide was the best playing option when given a choice?

And now... AoS. And all fething hell went loose. The Pied Piper's tune started going wrong...

People are defending AoS's system because it's what GW has implemented. End of. However, when presented with an option between that Free For All gak and an internal, singular balancing system, I bet you they will go for the points system first and then, if they so desire it, throw it out the window. It's just that simple - they are following because they are afraid to step out of Holy GW's plastic crack. If AoS would have had a full points/singular internal balancing system and 4 pages in the back of the rulebook saying "look play this here if going for full lulz level", I would bet you Jervis Johnson and his pals would still be the only ones playing things like that. Hell, I can even bet you that if Mantic did a system exactly like this, many of the AoS defenders would outright mock it to hell. Period.

I will repeat what I said earlier in this thread (and apparently was called a troll for saying it) - this AoS schism and the gakstorm that followed is just a fallout of GW bullying their way of playing on their customer base. "Play it like this - like we tell you to - or gtfo"

Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Swastakowey wrote:
The only reason most of you are playing this is because GW has their logo on it.

Blam! Nailed it! Have an Exalt.

 chaosmarauder wrote:
I like how AOS does it - it states that the players are responsible for making a balanced game.

In 40k, instead of justifying the scatterbike list against the imperial guard theme list because of = points - the players could arbitrarily decide that the IG player should have an army double the size - without it feel like they were taking a handicap due to 'half the points'.

And that is exactly why GW is pushing this so hard lol. That and to sell more big kits across army lines... but not having a structure to build the army around kills it for me personally.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Answer me this: how many people did you see campaigning in the forums that points/balancing systems are bad before AoS hit? Not campaigning that FB/40/Wmh/Infinity were unbalanced, but outright stating that balancing systems were horrible to begin with and that you should never use balancing tools in tabletop games - you should eyeball it all because it's "so much better that way and so much fluffier too!" (e.g khornate skinks). What happened between then and now?

They saw an alternative they had never considered before?

I don't think points are really the issue here. I think most people would agree that points are a tool, and not the only tool, and it can be used in good ways and bad ways. Where people disagree on the lack of points is largely the lack of guidance, not balance. If AoS had something that gave that guidance, even if it wasn't points (pre-planned scenarios, some sort of deployment guidelines), people would be less hateful towards it. But lacking that guidance, people are uneasy - most seem to have little practical experience, and their uneasiness seems to give them anxiety that prevents them from seeking it out.

I think that's one of two major points against AoS. The other is that it replaced WHFB on short notice, without a proper mourning period. To people who hate that, AoS will always be GW's Shemp. There's not really much anyone can do about that one.

People are defending AoS's system because it's what GW has implemented.

I assure you, I'm not. I'd never bought a GW product before AoS. But where some people see a lack of guidance, I see a lack of restrictions. It's like open world video games. Some people require linearity to not get lost and feel anxious about what they are supposed to be doing, and some people see a mountain on the horizon and think, "I'm going to jump off that thing".

Hell, I can even bet you that if Mantic did a system exactly like this, many of the AoS defenders would outright mock it to hell. Period.

Why would this be the case? I've seen nothing to suggest that AoS fans are anti-Mantic, much less because they are AoS fans. Heck, I just ordered Deadzone last night. If they did a system like AoS, I'd find it intriguing as well. The people who would complain would be the people who left GW for Mantic because GW was doing a system like this. That betrayal would be the stuff of legends.

I will repeat what I said earlier in this thread (and apparently was called a troll for saying it) - this AoS schism and the gakstorm that followed is just a fallout of GW bullying their way of playing on their customer base. "Play it like this - like we tell you to - or gtfo"

But your complaints are, literally, that GW doesn't tell you how to play...

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:


I really can only remember Jervis in that beautiful article he wrote all those years before this gak fest...

I like that article (don't agree 100%, but still find it an interesting read). It shows why GW went for something like AoS.

They haven't followed through on their end of the bargain though. Jervis talks about how influential they can be on the style of games most often played and yet they focus 0% nowadays on actually how to play the games. It's the biggest mistake GW make in my eyes, and being able to read articles or watch videos about the developers having fun with the AoS ruleset would work wonders. As it is we only have the noble efforts of MongooseMatt.

 Bottle wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:


I really can only remember Jervis in that beautiful article he wrote all those years before this gak fest...

I like that article (don't agree 100%, but still find it an interesting read). It shows why GW went for something like AoS.

They haven't followed through on their end of the bargain though. Jervis talks about how influential they can be on the style of games most often played and yet they focus 0% nowadays on actually how to play the games. It's the biggest mistake GW make in my eyes, and being able to read articles or watch videos about the developers having fun with the AoS ruleset would work wonders. As it is we only have the noble efforts of MongooseMatt.

And, as unfortunately somewhat expected, you're completely ignoring how he pretty much paints competitive players as the cancer of wargaming and writes the article in a way that is looks more like an act of division instead of inclusion.

And I have trouble seeing on how they haven't followed on their end of the bargain. How more uncompetitive can you get apart from AoS? They pretty much just said "Here, our company stance is now to do whatever you want. We don't care as long as you purchase our models to play this."

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

And, as unfortunately somewhat expected, you're completely ignoring how he pretty much paints competitive players as the cancer of wargaming and writes the article in a way that is looks more like an act of division instead of inclusion.

I thought the dislike of WAAC players was a pretty common sentiment, not just in wargaming but in gaming in general?

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Answer me this: how many people did you see campaigning in the forums that points/balancing systems are bad before AoS hit? Not campaigning that FB/40/Wmh/Infinity were unbalanced, but outright stating that balancing systems were horrible to begin with and that you should never use balancing tools in tabletop games - you should eyeball it all because it's "so much better that way and so much fluffier too!" (e.g khornate skinks). What happened between then and now?

They saw an alternative they had never considered before?

Holy gak! Really? I saw that alternative when I was 5 year old playing with army men Guess what? I am not 5 anymore and I like my games to have decent structure. Or else it's not really a game, it's just moving miniatures around while making funny noises - an activity something that GW encourages, apparently.

 Sqorgar wrote:
I don't think points are really the issue here. I think most people would agree that points are a tool, and not the only tool, and it can be used in good ways and bad ways. Where people disagree on the lack of points is largely the lack of guidance, not balance. If AoS had something that gave that guidance, even if it wasn't points (pre-planned scenarios, some sort of deployment guidelines), people would be less hateful towards it. But lacking that guidance, people are uneasy - most seem to have little practical experience, and their uneasiness seems to give them anxiety that prevents them from seeking it out.

I think that's one of two major points against AoS. The other is that it replaced WHFB on short notice, without a proper mourning period. To people who hate that, AoS will always be GW's Shemp. There's not really much anyone can do about that one.

I won't go through all this again. Not with you.

 Sqorgar wrote:

People are defending AoS's system because it's what GW has implemented.

I assure you, I'm not. I'd never bought a GW product before AoS. But where some people see a lack of guidance, I see a lack of restrictions. It's like open world video games. Some people require linearity to not get lost and feel anxious about what they are supposed to be doing, and some people see a mountain on the horizon and think, "I'm going to jump off that thing".

Comparing open world video games to tabletop = fail. In so many ways it's not even funny. Moving on

 Sqorgar wrote:

Hell, I can even bet you that if Mantic did a system exactly like this, many of the AoS defenders would outright mock it to hell. Period.

Why would this be the case? I've seen nothing to suggest that AoS fans are anti-Mantic, much less because they are AoS fans. Heck, I just ordered Deadzone last night. If they did a system like AoS, I'd find it intriguing as well. The people who would complain would be the people who left GW for Mantic because GW was doing a system like this. That betrayal would be the stuff of legends.

Cute little twist there, but in case you didn't figure it out, the point isn't "GW players hate Mantic". The point is "This game is being treated differently because it was released by GW". You can replace Mantic with any other model company out there that the results would be the same.

 Sqorgar wrote:

I will repeat what I said earlier in this thread (and apparently was called a troll for saying it) - this AoS schism and the gakstorm that followed is just a fallout of GW bullying their way of playing on their customer base. "Play it like this - like we tell you to - or gtfo"

But your complaints are, literally, that GW doesn't tell you how to play...

You truly are a red herring fan, I see.