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.

Gunman006 wrote:

The opposition to AoS as the successor of WHFB should be judged on the merits of it's arguments and not automatically invalided because there may or may not be an underlying hatred of GW. And vice versa.

That's fine, but I think AoS is such a fundamentally different game from WHFB that judging it as a successor will only lead to complaints about what AoS is not, and not what it is. And it will undoubtedly bring forth a lot of resentment that belongs as much on the doorstep of the fanbase as it objectively does with GW.

GW still makes the best models, or at least has the best quality/price in the quantity packages, not many other manufacturers even taking in http://unsupported-armies.blogspot.cz/ into account. if you want to build up a regiment of 20+ units GW is still the best way to go for price and comparative quality. As someone who is invested in 8th edition and potentially a future 9th Age player it will totally break the future prospects of this hobby for these systems if GW adopts a skirmish based unit package system for sale, and that is one of the things I fear with AoS being a skirmish game at core.

That's a GW complaint, not an AoS complaint. GW no longer produces the models of the type and format that you want them to.

As for AoS if you are fine with skirmish or prefer it then it's great. But if you want regiments and huge armies then it sucks compared to 8th. And yes KoW is a good alternative but like pointed out by others KoW is not a Heroic Fantasy Game, it's not the setting or races we have come to love over the last 30 years and it is quite a different game (still good though). I understand GW strategy in pursuing AoS with regards to getting younger players, and yes it is easier to just set up a casual AoS game with new people than it is with 8th, people don't really care about balance the first matches.

So, because AoS is fine, even great, it still sucks because it isn't a different game? Again, that doesn't sound like a complaint against AoS so much as it is a personal preference for something else. You also blame KoW for being a different game as well. Is it really King of War's fault that it doesn't have the Warhammer IP?

So for the players like myself that liked 8th, would have love to see it continue in that direction just more balancing it is a real and credible reason to be pissed off at AoS because it is making harder to continue building existing and new armies to our system, and with the new CopyRight races underway it will be interesting to see if AoS really will kill off 8th. Because if the old races will go the way of the Chaos Dwarves then it will have essentially killed 8th and potentially 9th age.

You may think you are pissed at AoS, but obviously, you are pissed at GW. And that's fine. I'm sure you have your reasons. But so far you have complained that AoS isn't WHFB, that AoS isn't WHFB, and that AoS isn't WHFB.

And for the fluff, the WHFB old world fluff that they flushed down the drain, yes it still exist, they can't delete history. But it isn't ours, because GW has already sent cease and desist letters to the 9th Age developers for making a free non-profit real successor to 8th edition. So no we are not allowed to continue with our own system in WHFB, GW will sue you if you do. And if that is not a transgression that is evil, petty and corrupt against a company own fanbase then I don't know what is...

How is it a transgression when that was OBVIOUSLY going to happen? It's not your own system. It is a highly derivative work of a company well known for litigating against IP infringement. Absolutely nobody should be surprised by this. And from what I can tell, the 9th Age team just changed some of the names and terms used in it, and it's still available and being played.

Gunman006 wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

MOST of the complaints against AoS are complaints against Games Workshop, and I'd argue that we'd be seeing the exact same complaints - possibly from the exact same posters. Because nothing Games Workshop ever does is good enough, and some injustice in the past put them on people's dog house, and even if GW was just walking down the street, minding its own business, people would still find a reason that it was the most evil, corrupt piece of walking that has ever been walked. Because only toy companies walk like that.

I don't think Games Workshop did alienate WHFB players. I think they were already alienated. And the reason they are so upset isn't because of what GW did, so much as whatever GW didn't do. Whatever insane, half baked idea they have that is the One True Way to run a company that GW doesn't follow to the letter is some sort of personal insult. If only they'd done the thing I wanted them to do!

Seriously, I'm realizing now that it isn't about AoS. It never was. It's all just an excuse to sling gak at Games Workshop. And it doesn't matter which game was released, it still would've been a gak slinging excuse to the people who actively seek to hate and punish Games Workshop for whatever the hell transgression.

The opposition to AoS as the successor of WHFB should be judged on the merits of it's arguments

Quoting this bit as a reminder for AoS optimists worldwide.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sqorgar wrote:

Gunman006 wrote:

The opposition to AoS as the successor of WHFB should be judged on the merits of it's arguments and not automatically invalided because there may or may not be an underlying hatred of GW. And vice versa.

That's fine, but I think AoS is such a fundamentally different game from WHFB that judging it as a successor will only lead to complaints about what AoS is not, and not what it is. And it will undoubtedly bring forth a lot of resentment that belongs as much on the doorstep of the fanbase as it objectively does with GW.

GW still makes the best models, or at least has the best quality/price in the quantity packages, not many other manufacturers even taking in http://unsupported-armies.blogspot.cz/ into account. if you want to build up a regiment of 20+ units GW is still the best way to go for price and comparative quality. As someone who is invested in 8th edition and potentially a future 9th Age player it will totally break the future prospects of this hobby for these systems if GW adopts a skirmish based unit package system for sale, and that is one of the things I fear with AoS being a skirmish game at core.

That's a GW complaint, not an AoS complaint. GW no longer produces the models of the type and format that you want them to.

As for AoS if you are fine with skirmish or prefer it then it's great. But if you want regiments and huge armies then it sucks compared to 8th. And yes KoW is a good alternative but like pointed out by others KoW is not a Heroic Fantasy Game, it's not the setting or races we have come to love over the last 30 years and it is quite a different game (still good though). I understand GW strategy in pursuing AoS with regards to getting younger players, and yes it is easier to just set up a casual AoS game with new people than it is with 8th, people don't really care about balance the first matches.

So, because AoS is fine, even great, it still sucks because it isn't a different game? Again, that doesn't sound like a complaint against AoS so much as it is a personal preference for something else. You also blame KoW for being a different game as well. Is it really King of War's fault that it doesn't have the Warhammer IP?

So for the players like myself that liked 8th, would have love to see it continue in that direction just more balancing it is a real and credible reason to be pissed off at AoS because it is making harder to continue building existing and new armies to our system, and with the new CopyRight races underway it will be interesting to see if AoS really will kill off 8th. Because if the old races will go the way of the Chaos Dwarves then it will have essentially killed 8th and potentially 9th age.

You may think you are pissed at AoS, but obviously, you are pissed at GW. And that's fine. I'm sure you have your reasons. But so far you have complained that AoS isn't WHFB, that AoS isn't WHFB, and that AoS isn't WHFB.

And for the fluff, the WHFB old world fluff that they flushed down the drain, yes it still exist, they can't delete history. But it isn't ours, because GW has already sent cease and desist letters to the 9th Age developers for making a free non-profit real successor to 8th edition. So no we are not allowed to continue with our own system in WHFB, GW will sue you if you do. And if that is not a transgression that is evil, petty and corrupt against a company own fanbase then I don't know what is...

How is it a transgression when that was OBVIOUSLY going to happen? It's not your own system. It is a highly derivative work of a company well known for litigating against IP infringement. Absolutely nobody should be surprised by this. And from what I can tell, the 9th Age team just changed some of the names and terms used in it, and it's still available and being played.

I admire your ability to spin.

 Sqorgar wrote:
How is it a transgression when that was OBVIOUSLY going to happen? It's not your own system. It is a highly derivative work of a company well known for litigating against IP infringement. Absolutely nobody should be surprised by this. And from what I can tell, the 9th Age team just changed some of the names and terms used in it, and it's still available and being played.

I think you may be missing the point by just a few miles.

GW has been known to send C&Ds to their own fan sites. That is why people are jaded and don't like them as a company, because those kinds of things, including this, are actively hostile towards the consumer (us).

 jonolikespie wrote:

I'm curious where you got this idea that WHFB players are older. I can only speak for myself and my local area but we were older than the 40kers yes, but definitely not 30+ family and kids types.

There's been discussion about it elsewhere. For example, this BoLS article. In my personal experience, mini gamers are generally older as well. Most of the people in my Warmachine group have graying hair (myself included, what little I have left). And there's the fact that so many people like to remind you that when they bought a box of space marines in 1997, it was a buck fifty. Or hold grudges against things GW said 15 years ago.

I'd assume that if the audience was much younger on average, the online presence of the hobby would be much, much different. I hang around a lot of video game communities and the discussions are much different. It's like, "I just discovered this game called Shadow of the Colossus and it was awesome. You guys should play it."

They can't do anything about it legally because it wasn't illegal. There was not even evidence of people being confused and thinking CH was GW properly. GW were even asked if they had evidence of this and they had no repose. And, as the court case settled once and for all, no they would not have to state it as "pauldrons for space guy", it was decided that is is perfectly legal to advertise as compatible with GW models, just like it has been for after market bits in other industries for decades now.

It is legal to say that they are compatible with GW models, but it is not legal to use GW's trademarks directly. It was decided that GW's trademarks were not sufficiently unique enough to prevent people from using words like "space marine" or "lizardmen". So you could absolutely call something a space marine because there was a lot of prior art suggesting that GW didn't own the term - which is why GW now calls them Adeptus Astartes.

Honestly, when it comes to the name changes in AoS I can't not attribute them to overzeleaous copyright protection just because of this one little offhand comment from Merrit in that trial about how they should have copywrited the whole 28mm scale when they had the chance. GW's head of IP (and IP protection) said that. That's frankly ed up.

First off, since I've seen this mistake several times, it's "copyright". As in, the right to copy. To copywrite something is to write advertising materials for it.

Second, you can't copyright a something like that. Copyright is something that is bestowed automatically on a work, but only applies to that specific work and its derivatives. Basically, it is the legal rights to copy and distribute a work, as well as the rights to create derivative works from it (like an RPG version of Pretty Woman). Copyrights can be given to other entities, so you can give permission to someone to distribute copies of your work (usually in exchange for money). A trademark is a legally identifying aspect of your product to the market you sell it to. Trademarks have to be applied for and are limited in scope. For instance, you can create a window cleaning business called "Windows" but you can't make computer software named "Windows".

What this guy was likely talking about was patenting, and patenting is something where you can claim a particular innovation in a particular market as exclusively yours. And you can patent damn near anything. LEGO had a patent on how their bricks fit together. Someone has a patent for pepperoni and cheese pizza with an interior crust built in concentric circles. There is literally a patent on which way to hang your toilet paper. And when we get into the realm of software patents, well, the sky is the limit there. Capcom has a patent on expansion packs, created about twenty or thirty years after expansion packs were a thing.

So, if nobody else was doing 28mm miniatures, then GW could easily patent it. Hell, GW could patent miniatures in general, if the patent office was feeling particularly lazy that day, and it would be up to whomever sued them to show that it was unnecessarily broad and that there existed prior art. As you can tell, I kind of think patents are a bunch of crap, but unfortunately, that's kind of the third leg of intellectual property. At one point, it did a lot of good, but as technology progressed and the nature of innovation became muddled, they haven't really figured out what to do with patents. So I guess if GW could patent the 28mm scale, it would only benefit them to do so.

I'm not really sure there's all that much of a point arguing the nuances between a "direct AoS complaint", a "GW complaint" and a "successor to WHFB complaint".

AoS is fine for what it tries to be in and of itself, a skirmish game with an emphasis on saving trees when it came to writing rules. The game itself is brief enough that any analysis if it in a vacuum is also going to be brief.

However AoS is not going to be judged in a vacuum and I'm not sure why it should be judged in a vacuum.

Fact is, AoS is a fantasy skirmish game in a market with significant competitors in the fantasy skirmish department so it will be judged as such. It is a successor to WHFB and it will be judged as such because GW in either their wisdom or stupidity decided to kill WHFB and give us AoS. Of course it's going to be judged as such because that's what it is.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
How is it a transgression when that was OBVIOUSLY going to happen? It's not your own system. It is a highly derivative work of a company well known for litigating against IP infringement. Absolutely nobody should be surprised by this. And from what I can tell, the 9th Age team just changed some of the names and terms used in it, and it's still available and being played.

I think you may be missing the point by just a few miles.

GW has been known to send C&Ds to their own fan sites. That is why people are jaded and don't like them as a company, because those kinds of things, including this, are actively hostile towards the consumer (us).

Well, I am sure MCA Hogarth clearly had it coming, too.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
How is it a transgression when that was OBVIOUSLY going to happen? It's not your own system. It is a highly derivative work of a company well known for litigating against IP infringement. Absolutely nobody should be surprised by this. And from what I can tell, the 9th Age team just changed some of the names and terms used in it, and it's still available and being played.

I think you may be missing the point by just a few miles.

GW has been known to send C&Ds to their own fan sites. That is why people are jaded and don't like them as a company, because those kinds of things, including this, are actively hostile towards the consumer (us).

Well, I am sure MCA Hogarth clearly had it coming, too.

Of course. If GW doesn't vigorously defend trademarks (or copyrights, whatever it's not like they knew the difference in the Ch case either) they don't own then however will they prove they own such unique and creative concepts as grenade launchers and rounded shoulder plates!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sqorgar wrote:
For example, this BoLS article.

That's.... not a very good article.

Do you think he cares?

 jonolikespie wrote:

GW has been known to send C&Ds to their own fan sites. That is why people are jaded and don't like them as a company, because those kinds of things, including this, are actively hostile towards the consumer (us).

And GW isn't the only one that does it. Apple, Nintendo, Microsoft, Google, Sony, and so on. FFG, for example, sent a C&D to a netrunner fan site. PP sends C&Ds to sites the publish model stats. Mantic sent a C&D to a fan selling Dreadball summary cards (even stating that while they don't mind what he did, it could get them into a sticky legal situation later). Corvus Belli has sent C&Ds to fans creating terrain for Infinity. Ikea sent a C&D to a major fansite for using the trademarked "Ikea" name. Bethesda Software sent a C&D to the largest (and craziest) Fallout fan site.

What I'm saying is that this kind of gak happens all the time. It's not just GW that does it, yet for some reason, GW is held to some sort of standard that nobody else seems to be. When everybody else does it, it's annoying and frustrating, but it passes. When GW does it, a new twenty year grudge is born.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

GW has been known to send C&Ds to their own fan sites. That is why people are jaded and don't like them as a company, because those kinds of things, including this, are actively hostile towards the consumer (us).

And GW isn't the only one that does it. Apple, Nintendo, Microsoft, Google, Sony, and so on. FFG, for example, sent a C&D to a netrunner fan site. PP sends C&Ds to sites the publish model stats. Mantic sent a C&D to a fan selling Dreadball summary cards (even stating that while they don't mind what he did, it could get them into a sticky legal situation later). Corvus Belli has sent C&Ds to fans creating terrain for Infinity. Ikea sent a C&D to a major fansite for using the trademarked "Ikea" name. Bethesda Software sent a C&D to the largest (and craziest) Fallout fan site.

What I'm saying is that this kind of gak happens all the time. It's not just GW that does it, yet for some reason, GW is held to some sort of standard that nobody else seems to be. When everybody else does it, it's annoying and frustrating, but it passes. When GW does it, a new twenty year grudge is born.

Translation:

"Murders happen all the time - why are you so mad at the guy for killing your brother?"

Trying to excuse a company by saying that others engage in the same behaviour is horrible, at best.

Spin away

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

GW has been known to send C&Ds to their own fan sites. That is why people are jaded and don't like them as a company, because those kinds of things, including this, are actively hostile towards the consumer (us).

And GW isn't the only one that does it. Apple, Nintendo, Microsoft, Google, Sony, and so on. FFG, for example, sent a C&D to a netrunner fan site. PP sends C&Ds to sites the publish model stats. Mantic sent a C&D to a fan selling Dreadball summary cards (even stating that while they don't mind what he did, it could get them into a sticky legal situation later). Corvus Belli has sent C&Ds to fans creating terrain for Infinity. Ikea sent a C&D to a major fansite for using the trademarked "Ikea" name. Bethesda Software sent a C&D to the largest (and craziest) Fallout fan site.

What I'm saying is that this kind of gak happens all the time. It's not just GW that does it, yet for some reason, GW is held to some sort of standard that nobody else seems to be. When everybody else does it, it's annoying and frustrating, but it passes. When GW does it, a new twenty year grudge is born.

Translation:

"Murders happen all the time - why are you so mad at the guy for killing your brother?"

Trying to excuse a company by saying that others engage in the same behaviour is horrible, at best.

Spin away

Lol. I dunno about all those examples though, I was under the impression CB hired on people they found making terrain for infinity as official partners and actually promoted their stuff since it is a hole in the current market they aren't looking to fill (almost like shoulder pads for less popular marine chapters ).

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I'm not really sure there's all that much of a point arguing the nuances between a "direct AoS complaint", a "GW complaint" and a "successor to WHFB complaint"

I think it is important for the people who hold a grudge against AoS to know where their true frustration lies.

I think the worst thing you can say about AoS, as a game, is that it isn't for you and that you'd rather play something else. But as a GW product, it is a soulless cash grab that cynically manipulates people into buying overpriced models. And as a successor to WHFB, it is a slap in the face to long term fans - a ruthless buggering of everything they've ever held dear and an obstacle to their one true happiness.

And that's all fine. It becomes problematic when people say AoS, as a game, is a ruthless buggering of everything they've ever held dear. I mean, it's just a game. It can't hurt you.

Gunman006 wrote:
But it isn't ours, because GW has already sent cease and desist letters to the 9th Age developers for making a free non-profit real successor to 8th edition. So no we are not allowed to continue with our own system in WHFB, GW will sue you if you do. And if that is not a transgression that is evil, petty and corrupt against a company own fanbase then I don't know what is...

Can you share a source for this? No mention of it on the 9th age site and Google isn't turning anything else up either.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Lol. I dunno about all those examples though, I was under the impression CB hired on people they found making terrain for infinity as official partners and actually promoted their stuff since it is a hole in the current market they aren't looking to fill (almost like shoulder pads for less popular marine chapters ).

Whatever the reason, Terracutters received a C&D.

 Sqorgar wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I'm not really sure there's all that much of a point arguing the nuances between a "direct AoS complaint", a "GW complaint" and a "successor to WHFB complaint"

I think it is important for the people who hold a grudge against AoS to know where their true frustration lies.

I think the worst thing you can say about AoS, as a game, is that it isn't for you and that you'd rather play something else. But as a GW product, it is a soulless cash grab that cynically manipulates people into buying overpriced models. And as a successor to WHFB, it is a slap in the face to long term fans - a ruthless buggering of everything they've ever held dear and an obstacle to their one true happiness.

And that's all fine. It becomes problematic when people say AoS, as a game, is a ruthless buggering of everything they've ever held dear. I mean, it's just a game. It can't hurt you.

Judging AoS in a vacuum, I'd still say it's a mediocre game. It's decent for what it is... which is a game with it's core rules covered in a free 4 page document... but it has more holes than swiss cheese. It's like saying "He's decent for a 3rd grader", it's not actually saying all that much

Mediocre games can still be fun, hell, even BAD wargames can be fun if you approach them with the right attitude, but ideally we want GOOD wargames, especially when they are huge investments of time and money (a cheap off the shelf board game tends to be judged less harshly than a game that typically uses hundreds of dollars of miniatures with hundreds of hours of preparation time).

 Sqorgar wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I'm not really sure there's all that much of a point arguing the nuances between a "direct AoS complaint", a "GW complaint" and a "successor to WHFB complaint"

I think it is important for the people who hold a grudge against AoS to know where their true frustration lies.

I think the worst thing you can say about AoS, as a game, is that it isn't for you and that you'd rather play something else. But as a GW product, it is a soulless cash grab that cynically manipulates people into buying overpriced models. And as a successor to WHFB, it is a slap in the face to long term fans - a ruthless buggering of everything they've ever held dear and an obstacle to their one true happiness.

And that's all fine. It becomes problematic when people say AoS, as a game, is a ruthless buggering of everything they've ever held dear. I mean, it's just a game. It can't hurt you.

wait, are we talking about true frustration?!! I'm pretty sure I have a good idea of where my frustration for AoS lies, as a fully functioning human with the powers of reason.


Deleted because I'm a child

If AoS wasn't a GW product, noone would play it so there's that.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
If AoS wasn't a GW product, noone would play it so there's that.

One would think that alone would be testimony to the product's quality.

Seems a pretty unknowable statement.

And no one played dread fleet and that was a GW product :p

 Bottle wrote:
Seems a pretty unknowable statement.

And no one played dread fleet and that was a GW product :p

Dreadfleet sunk because it was immediately compared to Man O'War, and failed its characterists test.

And that makes it the exception, not the rule, really.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
If AoS wasn't a GW product, noone would play it so there's that.

That's an interesting point. While you can say the volume of griping is due to GW's existing base of disgruntled customers.... I'd say the vast majority of the of it's popularity also comes from GW's huge existing customer base.

when I said I think it's a mediocre game, I think any success it currently has is riding off both the existing WHFB range and also the existing GW customers who are all too happy to have a new flavour of Spehss Mareenz to play with.

I don't think "no one" would play it. It has (subjectively) nice models and I'm sure that would carry it to an extent, but if we were viewing AoS in a vacuum, ignoring it's predecessor in WHFB and ignoring GW in general, it's a mediocre game that would struggle to gain traction with other good loose formation skirmish games around.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
Seems a pretty unknowable statement.

And no one played dread fleet and that was a GW product :p

Dreadfleet sunk because it was immediately compared to Man O'War, and failed its characterists test.

And that makes it the exception, not the rule, really.

AoS sunk because it was immediately compared to WHFB, and failed its morale check.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
If AoS wasn't a GW product, noone would play it so there's that.

There's no way to know for sure, but I think it is fair to say that the people who didn't like that style of gaming wouldn't have felt quite as obligated to share their opinion on it, at length, every day, for months.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
If AoS wasn't a GW product, noone would play it so there's that.

There's no way to know for sure, but I think it is fair to say that the people who didn't like that style of gaming wouldn't have felt quite as obligated to share their opinion on it, at length, every day, for months.

...because their game of choice would still be supported, yes

 Sqorgar wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
If AoS wasn't a GW product, noone would play it so there's that.

There's no way to know for sure, but I think it is fair to say that the people who didn't like that style of gaming wouldn't have felt quite as obligated to share their opinion on it, at length, every day, for months.

I think it is fair to say that the people who did like that style of gaming wouldn't have felt quite as obligated to share their opinion on it, at length, every day, for months.... because they probably wouldn't be playing it in the first place.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
If AoS wasn't a GW product, noone would play it so there's that.

There's no way to know for sure, but I think it is fair to say that the people who didn't like that style of gaming wouldn't have felt quite as obligated to share their opinion on it, at length, every day, for months.

This was a thread that was written from the get-go to explain to people who don't like AoS or see some potential issues with it that they just aren't seeing it correctly because they aren't game designers and just didn't "get it."

Next, people who do think AoS could use some work or is unplayable, AND feel like they had tried to play it, disagreed with the initial premise and posted counter arguments.

Like, that's the thread and discussion. I don't agree with Matts' views, and I don't agree with your views, so we all share our thoughts and maybe peoples minds are changed, or they get mad, or they fight.

It's kinda what we do on the internet, argue about minutia.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
If AoS wasn't a GW product, noone would play it so there's that.

There's no way to know for sure, but I think it is fair to say that the people who didn't like that style of gaming wouldn't have felt quite as obligated to share their opinion on it, at length, every day, for months.

Have you read the OP? Because at some point before this thread there was very little bashing of AoS, if any. Everything that is in the OP was discussed to hell and back and calling people on voicing their opinion after being directly baited is really perplexing for me, it's just like you don't understand basic action reaction mechanisms or forgot what the thread is about.

Nice MO btw:

Troll OP post
Attack people who took the bait
Attack mods for not warning people who took the bait
Pretend it's a standard behaviour of said people and whine endlessly about it


Though yes obviously GW fail will be more commented than some obscure kickstarter fail. The bigger you are the more your blunders are visible. And funny if your big and arogant.

you.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

Troll OP post

This was not my intent (and I did actually see what you had written before you edited your post - thank you for changing it, as I do think you had mis-characterised me a little unfairly), and I would point out that the second line of my first post says that AoS is not going to be for everyone.

The point of the OP was simply this: I saw a lot of things being said about AoS that I did not feel were true and if they were genuine reasons for keeping people away from the game, then it might be worth another look.

If, on the other hand, someone is turned off by multiple realms, streamlined rules and big armoured immortals... then there really is no argument. As I said originally, plenty of other games out there.

However, a few posts in this thread, plus a few games here, have got me thinking and I believe I have twigged why AoS hits the spot for me.

When I play 8e or 40k (and I still play both), the rules are always in mind. I am playing a game and the rules are followed/manipulated in an effort to win. In AoS, I have found that does not happen - the rules effectively become invisible, as we concentrate on whether Threx Skullbrand is going to recover the fallen Lord Khul, or if the Stormcasts will beat him back and force him to hide from his Lord's wrath (as it turned out, that is just what happened, and it did not end well for him, but I digress...).

In effect, we are concentrating on what is going on rather than how it happens - and I have seen this before, in RPGs. RPGs are all about the immersion (well, that is one take on it - character development, both in character and rules-wise, is obviously a thing), and a rules system is working well if it begins to 'disappear' during play.

I have noticed the same thing about AoS. It serves as a vehicle for mighty Warhammer heroes to stalk battlefields and, well, hit each other in the face.

Anyway, just an observation, and it really is just my take on the game and why I personally like it. As always, your mileage is going to vary enormously...

Ok maybe not an exclusively troll post, but I guess you can see how it can come off as a troll post especialy that you knew exactly how it's is going to end. After all the blood and tears, when everybody kind of calmed down it surely looked like stiring a pot back, and on all fronts simultanously. I have to admit I admired it a bit, the size of it, the range, the elaborate provocation, see I'm a troll myself and can appreciate a result of 20 pages of fighting. So no offence man, in my mouth troll is not an insult heh, what I really hate is petty discusion techniques and bs fallacies in ensuing discussion tbh.

Also can you pm me about the "mischaracterisation"? I think there's a misunderstanding, I didn't reffer to you outside of calling your post a troll one and anything that could be attributed to you was accidental. I'm really curious what it was, have my guess ofc but not sure.