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.

 Swastakowey wrote:

It's just a minority of casual players who can't think about the bigger picture who think having worse rules is better because it forces all but the dozens of them to quit and move on.

And who, exactly, would that minority be?

MongooseMatt wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:

It's just a minority of casual players who can't think about the bigger picture who think having worse rules is better because it forces all but the dozens of them to quit and move on.

And who, exactly, would that minority be?

The few people who refer to all who want a game to reach it's potential as WAAC players who should quit X game. Usually they are full of hatred and constantly attempt to get on a high horse and are contrarian in nature.

Ah, you mean a high horse like the people who say their game is the kingslayer of 8th and will inevitably overtake the glorified garagehammer game that is 9th.

 Sqorgar wrote:

WTF dude? Don't be a dick.

Pot. Kettle. Black. plenty of your own comments have been flat out rude, crude, nasty and downright insulting. Do t be surprised when people get angry and annoyed at some of your comments.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Look, if you feel insulted by what I said, then my apologies.

Keep them. Your apologies are worthless to me. This isn't the first time I've called you out on some of your appalling and narrow minded comments and attitudes. how about not saying nasty things in the first place, like your constant belittling comments regarding those people who play games differently to you? Just a thought, mind.
Just above, you equated tournament players with being Waac players. You even declared that you use the term 'tournament player' as a derogatory reference. Waac is one of the worst behaviour thst exists in our hobby, and you just tarred one huge segment of the playerbase with that label. And I seriously doubt you've met all tournament players in order to decide on that judgement. How about your reaction to someone saying 'narrative players are tools'. Not so nice, is it? How about growing up, and not playing such juvenile games.

 Sqorgar wrote:

I thought WAAC was one of those, "If you don't know a WAAC player, you are the WAAC player" sort of deals, where you could complain about them at length because the very people you were complaining about would nod in agreement, thinking you were talking about someone else. Given the vitriol and open contempt in your response, this is obviously not true. So my bad for misjudging the situation.

And yet You just said Waac and tournament player were one and the same thing. Stop moving goalposts. Guess why there is vitriol and open contempt in my voice. Read what you wrote. Replace 'tournament player' with 'aos player'. Red flag in front of a bull for me. Outright nasty, hostile and nasty comments like these have no place in this hobby. They are demeaning and insulting do nothing but drag up bitter feeling and divisive attitudes.

Oh we all know Waac players. I know several and I refuse to play agains them and warn others away from them. They are negative play experiences and are outright bad for the community. But I don't go around and tarring whole sections of the playerbase (whose only 'crime' is to play wargames in a different manner to me) with such derogatory terms and liken 'all of them' to Waac players like you just did above. There is a difference.

 Sqorgar wrote:

I will say this though, maybe Age of Sigmar isn't ever going to be your cup of tea...

And yet, I genuinely enjoy that whole style of play that aos encourages. So let's get thst clear and stop you misrepresenting me. Again.

My reasons for disliking aos (whilst enjoying the 'narrative'/'diy' style war gaming immensely) are simple:
1. I don't like the models. I dislike gw's aesthetic. They're crude, squat and out of proportion.
2. I dislike the game mechanics. it uses the the same clunky, crude and unwieldy warhammer Dna that's been there since the 80s as a game engine. In game mechanics, it's a fossil. There are far more interesting game mechanics developed In The last thirty years. If it had been based on the lotr game mechanics instead, or squad based game with genuine reaction mechanisms to promote fluid gameplay along the lines of mongoose's old starship troopers, then I would be hugely interested.
3. Crucially. Aos does nothing new for me. I am very enthusiastic about diy/ narrative/player driven wargames. I so it most Friday evenings. If anything, I do it more than warmachine. We generally so it with flames of war, historical rules sets, infinity, dropzone commander (sometimes), and we have some ideas for firestorm armada home brews as well. Aos gives me nothing thst I can't already get. Along with models I don't like, game mechanics I find dull and uninteresting, and lore that doesn't grab me, I have no reason to jump on that boat.

But diy/narrative/player driven wargames. Very much 'my cup of tea'. Which is why I post here as posters like mongoosematt provide some very interesting insights that I can get value from.

Excellent, had a nasty feeling you might have meant AoS players in general.

Shall we just agree to ignore the hate-filled?

MongooseMatt wrote:
Excellent, had a nasty feeling you might have meant AoS players in general.

Shall we just agree to ignore the hate-filled?

No this happens with a lot of games. Ignoring is boring. Especially in a flame thread.

Baron Klatz wrote:
Ah, you mean a high horse like the people who say their game is the kingslayer of 8th and will inevitably overtake the glorified garagehammer game that is 9th.

Where have you read this? I have not even finished making my game and it is likely my game will be my own garage game. AOS killed 8th and everybody knows/says this.

Deadnight wrote:
squad based game with genuine reaction mechanisms to promote fluid gameplay along the lines of mongoose's old starship troopers,

Out of interest have you tried Judge Dredd? I ask, as it is a direct descendant of the Starship Troopers rules...

MongooseMatt wrote:

Excellent, had a nasty feeling you might have meant AoS players in general.

Nope. . If I'd have wanted to say that, I'd have said something along the lines of 'aos players are tools'. Which I've never done. I have no issues with aos players in general. Just the ones making snide comments and belittling players who play other games and other ways. And to be fair, I have my issues with snide commends on the 'aos is terrible' in equal measure. I've stood out against both attitudes here whilst trying to be positive and honest about the merits and disadvantages of both these styles.

MongooseMatt wrote:

Shall we just agree to ignore the hate-filled?

Thing is Matt - you are reasonable. You say something's that I disagree with, and some of your points can seem to be a bit blinkered at first glance, but when you're pushed to explain, you are quite forthright, open, honest and inclusive in how you expand on your points. You don't just casually dismiss the other perspective. Like me, you seem to play a variety of games in a variety of different ways. Added to that, and crucially for me, you promote an appealing, positive and proactive attitude to gaming. I'll respect you and listen to you for that reason alone.

Thst said - some of the fellows on the 'yay aos' side have some really blinkered opinions that are outright hostile and derogatory and really have no place here. Don't expect me to stay quiet on them.

MongooseMatt wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
squad based game with genuine reaction mechanisms to promote fluid gameplay along the lines of mongoose's old starship troopers,

Out of interest have you tried Judge Dredd? I ask, as it is a direct descendant of the Starship Troopers rules...

With respect, while I enjoyed victory at sea, I've been burned by mongoose in the past, with various wargames and RPGs. I'm wary of investing again. Plus, I never really read much into dreads lore or followed its comics. All I really know is the Karl urban movie (which is brilliant)

Starship troopers was great, but flawed and severely limited in scope. But it was brilliant in other ways and probsbly a decade ahead of its time. If anything, I'd lean towards Corvus belli and their infinity game as my absolute favourite Wargame and miniature range.

MongooseMatt wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

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

You really aren't. If I decide the limit myself to one Wraithknight per 2,000 points, I am not altering the rules, I am just being a reasonable human being. If I decide to make Heavy D-Cannon S10 instead of SD, then I am changing the rules.

What Bottle is doing is just deciding what army to take using whatever principles seem appealing at the time.

Except he wasn't. The post I referenced was talking about using altered army creation rules to set up the game. It was only after he claimed to want to play the game by the rules that the story shifted to just him limiting his own army.

Which, as I said, is a different thing to agreeing with your opponent to alter the rules.

 insaniak wrote:

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

Messed up quote there... I never said that.

 insaniak wrote:

MongooseMatt wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

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

You really aren't. If I decide the limit myself to one Wraithknight per 2,000 points, I am not altering the rules, I am just being a reasonable human being. If I decide to make Heavy D-Cannon S10 instead of SD, then I am changing the rules.

What Bottle is doing is just deciding what army to take using whatever principles seem appealing at the time.

Except he wasn't. The post I referenced was talking about using altered army creation rules to set up the game. It was only after he claimed to want to play the game by the rules that the story shifted to just him limiting his own army.

Which, as I said, is a different thing to agreeing with your opponent to alter the rules.

No, you misread. Both me and my opponent can take whatever we want, those are the rules, and if we both agree on a limitation that's fine and also in the rules in my opinion.

At the end of day, I wonder why you are even arguing this against me? What does it matter to you? It's incredibly petty and unbefitting of a moderator in my opinion.

@Swastakowey
Sorry for the anger, your previous topic really riled me and I apologize.

I've heard several Mantic players call their game the kingslayer but perhaps they were talking about GW in general and not just 8th.

I despise fanning the flames on these kinds of arguments so I'll stop.

Baron Klatz wrote:
@Swastakowey
Sorry for the anger, your previous topic really riled me and I apologize.

I've heard several Mantic players call their game the kingslayer but perhaps they were talking about GW in general and not just 8th.

I despise fanning the flames on these kinds of arguments so I'll stop.

Don't worry about it, honestly im just bored. Boredom + Internet = annoying me.

MongooseMatt wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
squad based game with genuine reaction mechanisms to promote fluid gameplay along the lines of mongoose's old starship troopers,

Out of interest have you tried Judge Dredd? I ask, as it is a direct descendant of the Starship Troopers rules...

I think after reading quite a bit of this discussion and trying to understand both sides, I came to two conclusions.

1. The bulk of AoS is not for me, I'll probably keep it as a back-up game and play it in small warbands. A lot of the players who really like it don't seem like the kind of player I would want to play.

2. I should by proxie avoid any and all Mongoose Publishing games. As a player and customer, I don't really want to be talked down too, and Osprey seems to be pushing out a lot more smaller "niche" games that can be easily picked up and played.

 Swastakowey wrote:

Baron Klatz wrote:
@Swastakowey
Sorry for the anger, your previous topic really riled me and I apologize.

I've heard several Mantic players call their game the kingslayer but perhaps they were talking about GW in general and not just 8th.

I despise fanning the flames on these kinds of arguments so I'll stop.

Don't worry about it, honestly im just bored. Boredom + Internet = annoying me.

Bored huh? Sounds like you need a hobby.

 Bottle wrote:
...and if we both agree on a limitation that's fine and also in the rules in my opinion.

If you both agree on the limitation that isn't present in the rules, then that is pretty much the definition of changing the rules.

It wasn't a part of the game until you made it a part of the game.

At the end of day, I wonder why you are even arguing this against me? .

Because you had made two statements that seemed contradictory, and your subsequent clarification of those points didn't make any sense.

It's not a big deal. Just a point of discussion.

 insaniak wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
...and if we both agree on a limitation that's fine and also in the rules in my opinion.

If you both agree on the limitation that isn't present in the rules, then that is pretty much the definition of changing the rules.

It wasn't a part of the game until you made it a part of the game.

At the end of day, I wonder why you are even arguing this against me? .

Because you had made two statements that seemed contradictory, and your subsequent clarification of those points didn't make any sense.

It's not a big deal. Just a point of discussion.

Again. Let's end this as we can't agree. The rules say we can bring whatever we want. To me that's an open invitation to place any limitations or none at all, it's all good. To you that means I am altering the rules. Whatever. It doesn't matter.

 pox wrote:
2. I should by proxie avoid any and all Mongoose Publishing games. As a player and customer, I don't really want to be talked down too, and Osprey seems to be pushing out a lot more smaller "niche" games that can be easily picked up and played.

I don't think it was Matt's intention to talk down to anyone. He just tends to be fairly passionate about his gaming.

Which is all well and good. At the end of the day, if people are playing this game and enjoying it, that's great. I think for myself, when I do finally get around to dusting off my WHFB stuff, I'll be digging out the 4th edition books that I started with.

 Mymearan wrote:

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.

It comes from having not much of a life and too much time on my hands.

coldgaming wrote:Almost all games end up being split in two communities of varying sizes: casual players and competitive players. Neither is "better" but they are different.

Actually I'd say no games do this other than GW games. Pretty much everything else I have tried on the market is balanced enough that a tourney player will have the advantage over a casual player, but there is no great split down the middle of the community where both stides have to avoid each other for their own good.

Sqorgar wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

And that's your major failing showing its face. You equate competitive with WAAC. Very biased and makes proper discussion with you very difficult.

No, I associate players referred to as "tournament players" with WAAC. I think tournaments encourage and reward WAAC playing, and I think that WAAC players are most at home in that environment. Just like psychopaths are four times more likely to be found in middle management, I think WAAC are four times more likely to be found in tournaments. And yeah, I think the derogatory term "tournament players" is referring to these people specifically.

I don't have a problem with people who like to play competitively. I have a problem with people who can only see a game as competitive and refuse to acknowledge, or simply can't, the many other qualities and play styles that exist.

Tourney's are the WORST environment for WAACs and it is insulting to lump all tourney players in with them. WAACs are just that, they mean to win at ALL costs, that means bending the rules, fudging dice rolls and picking fights with people weaker than them (or brand new to the game). They want to steamroll over an opponent who had no chance of winning with a list that plays itself so they don't have to do anything. To a tourney player there is no better game than one who's outcome isn't decided until the final moments, where victory is snatched from the jaws of defeat by superior playing against a superior opponent.
Actually I think the infamous page 5 of Warmachine covers this very well. There is no honour in picking on the smallest kid in the playground, go find the biggest, meanest SOB around and punch him right in the face. That's the competitive mindset.

A tourney environment has skilled players who know the rules and TOs who can make judgement calls if the WAACer starts demanding that a rule interpretation means X instead of Y. Players across from them will be looking to see what their dice rolled, not allowing them to get away with rolling, quickly sweeping the dice back up and simply declaring 'I made all my saves'.

WAACers thrive on grey areas in the rules and loose restrictions. Say what you want about points systems but never before has anyone been able to buy and field a potentially limitless amount of bloodthirsters.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Tourney's are the WORST environment for WAACs and it is insulting to lump all tourney players in with them. WAACs are just that, they mean to win at ALL costs, that means bending the rules, fudging dice rolls and picking fights with people weaker than them (or brand new to the game).

I was under the impression that the gamers who bend rules, fudge rolls, play your turns for you, use rules differently for themselves than for others, and pick fights were TFG. And yeah, I imagine having judges there would prevent them from getting away with that sort of stuff.

WAACers are gamers who will go to tournaments with a cheese heavy list they downloaded from the internet, buying six dozen of the same unit to exploit loopholes in the rules, using hyper-literal interpretations of the rules that run counter to the spirit in which they were written, and generally minmaxing everything to such an extreme that the game becomes an open mockery of itself. They put their own victory ahead of the intended experience of the game designers (and any gamer who doesn't also subscribe to the same philosophy). Basically, if the game allows an advantage, even by accident, then they will take it without hesitation. I think they refer to such behavior as "being the better gamer".

That's the competitive mindset.

I believe the competitive mindset is, I can run a cheese list to gain a lazy advantage because the rules allow it, and besides, everyone else is doing it too.

No. A WAAC gamer is basically just a TFG, both of which are very different from competitive.

Is there a wargaming company whose players are more divided and vitriolic towards each other?

If we try hard enough we may be able to find one , there are certainly rpg groups like this.

jonolikespie wrote:No. A WAAC gamer is basically just a TFG, both of which are very different from competitive.

Unsure of myself, I went around a bit and looked at how it was being used, and I saw several places using it to mean TFG and several places using it to describe cheesy tournament players. To avoid future confusion, I'll avoid using the term. But I can't refer to them as tournament players, because people start going #NotAllTournamentPlayers, so I'll just call them MinMaxHoles.

Eldarain wrote:Is there a wargaming company whose players are more divided and vitriolic towards each other?

I couldn't say, but it's a gamer thing. Video games are FILLED with this sort of stuff. MMO communities can get downright gruesome (oh, I how miss the solo versus group player threads). Certain fandoms, like the No Mutants Allowed community having quite different opinions on Bethesda's Fallout vision. Ask a gaming community about the difference between translation and localization some day. And recently, someone decided to introduce fourth wave feminism to gaming, and it's just been a horrible place ever since. Board gamers tend to be a pretty genial bunch though...

thekingofkings wrote:If we try hard enough we may be able to find one , there are certainly rpg groups like this.

D&D players around the same time as 4th ed/3.5 arguments were a thing maybe.

Sqorgar wrote:

jonolikespie wrote:No. A WAAC gamer is basically just a TFG, both of which are very different from competitive.

so I'll just call them MinMaxHoles.

Yeah that's not insulting at all

 Sqorgar wrote:

jonolikespie wrote:No. A WAAC gamer is basically just a TFG, both of which are very different from competitive.

Unsure of myself, I went around a bit and looked at how it was being used, and I saw several places using it to mean TFG and several places using it to describe cheesy tournament players. To avoid future confusion, I'll avoid using the term. But I can't refer to them as tournament players, because people start going #NotAllTournamentPlayers, so I'll just call them MinMaxHoles.

Eldarain wrote:Is there a wargaming company whose players are more divided and vitriolic towards each other?

I couldn't say, but it's a gamer thing. Video games are FILLED with this sort of stuff. MMO communities can get downright gruesome (oh, I how miss the solo versus group player threads). Certain fandoms, like the No Mutants Allowed community having quite different opinions on Bethesda's Fallout vision. Ask a gaming community about the difference between translation and localization some day. And recently, someone decided to introduce fourth wave feminism to gaming, and it's just been a horrible place ever since. Board gamers tend to be a pretty genial bunch though...

You're very prejudiced against people that enjoy a different type of game than you do. I suggest try seeing it from their perspective before you continue insulting anyone that enjoys a fair and well fought game.

For example, I think there is absolutely a space in the gaming world for a game like AOS, a relaxed rules, just enjoy it kind of game. I don't think AOS is that game, but I understand why people would be drawn to it. You on the other hand thinks that anyone who likes a tactical challenge is the son of perdition.

 jonolikespie wrote:

thekingofkings wrote:If we try hard enough we may be able to find one , there are certainly rpg groups like this.

D&D players around the same time as 4th ed/3.5 arguments were a thing maybe.

Sqorgar wrote:

jonolikespie wrote:No. A WAAC gamer is basically just a TFG, both of which are very different from competitive.

so I'll just call them MinMaxHoles.

Yeah that's not insulting at all

4th ed to 5th is pretty ugly too

I have to say I always thought competitive meant you played to win the game.

In the new semantics, this seems to be the opposite of narrative gaming, where you play to enjoy a mutual story development. I do enjoy that kind of playing, but it seems to me more of an RPG thing than a tabletop wargame thing.

I don't regard the development of a battle as a story, as such, I regard it as a battle. However, playing out a battle is a very enjoyable pastime whether you win or lose, providing it isn't a walk-over for either side.

Similarly a campaign is a campaign, not the life story of the people involved.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

I do enjoy that kind of playing, but it seems to me more of an RPG thing than a tabletop wargame thing.

Traditionally, yes, but worth mentioning that RPGs grew from wargames. However, it is really just another style of gaming, like tournament play versus map-based campaigns.

All part of the rich tapestry!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I have to say I always thought competitive meant you played to win the game.

There's nothing wrong with the goal of victory, but it is how you choose to achieve it. Minmaxing isn't cheating, but taken to an extreme, it goes against the spirit of the experience and makes for an unpleasant time. There's a reason why there's articles written, condemning such behavior and dozens of threads complaining about them. It's why there are multiple derogatory nicknames for them across the entire spectrum of gaming. If it was the "one true way", people would recognize their "tactical superiority" rather than curse them out of the side of their mouth. In fact, I think that it is an eternal mystery to them why other players don't respect them for being the superior gamers.

In the new semantics, this seems to be the opposite of narrative gaming, where you play to enjoy a mutual story development. I do enjoy that kind of playing, but it seems to me more of an RPG thing than a tabletop wargame thing.

RPGs are directly descended from wargames. DnD was a spinoff of a Chainmail module. And, I guess it should be noted, RPGs also have problems with this sort of players, although they are called Munchkins. I've heard them described as "their own ambition outstrips their sense of fair play", which sounds about right. Hell, that's better than MinMaxHole anyway, so I'll use it.

I don't regard the development of a battle as a story, as such, I regard it as a battle.

There aren't just two sides. It's not narrative gamers versus competitive gamers. There's a wide variety styles and natures to the players of games, and there is room for all sorts - even Munchkins. It's just that they are so loud and so numerous in wargaming, to the point that some wargames literally are created for their pleasure, that they tend to make the genre unwelcoming to players who don't agree with their... let's call it "life philosophy". I'll bet if you went around and asked everybody what they liked least about wargaming as a hobby, the first thing would be... well, price. The second would be Games Workshop. But no doubt that the third thing would be the WAAC players.

Wargames, being explicitly competitive in nature, tend to have a much more vocal, and possessive group of Munchkins who think the entire genre is about them, demanding that games change to suit their needs, and believing that anybody who isn't a Munchkin is just a bad player. I'd say the majority of the people who are STILL arguing against AoS have been Munchkin players faced with the unusual situation of not being able to minmax a game. All the other types of players have moved on, but they're still here because they consider it a personal insult that someone would intentionally design a game with loopholes so big and obvious that the only way to actually enjoy the game is to choose NOT minmax it. I suspect a large part of their arguing is trying to find some chink in the philosophy - some element that can be minmaxed, thus justifying their continued belief that wargaming, because it is competitive and involves numbers, is all about them. It's why the lack of points is so confounding to them - you can just create any army you want? How do you minmax that?