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.
Slaphead wrote: Isn't it a bit early to speculate that AoS has failed? Maybe this discussion should be made once GW's end of financial year profits come in and can be compared with how they did the previous year.
No.
It's DOA. Saving grace for Fantasy is the reemergence of the Mordhiem Rules set, and incoming Specialist Games, who will do the obvious, Mr. Obvious, and bring back Empire In Flames, so you can get back to Fantasy.
At Games Workshop, we believe that how you behave does matter. We believe this so strongly that we have written it down in the Games Workshop Book. There is a section in the book where we talk about the values we expect all staff to demonstrate in their working lives. These values are Lawyers, Guns and Money.
It's DOA. Saving grace for Fantasy is the reemergence of the Mordhiem Rules set, and incoming Specialist Games, who will do the obvious, Mr. Obvious, and bring back Empire In Flames, so you can get back to Fantasy.
I don't know if I'd put Mordheim in the saving grace category just yet. When they discontinued support for Mordheim it opened up the niche for Frostgrave which has been very good.
Instead of being merely opinionated, try being informed.
Now when I think about it, if AoS was really that badly received, they wouldn't like a symbol of a failure product on the front.
From the initial Age of Sigmar news thread, when its "feature" list was first confirmed:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
It's like a train wreck. But one made from two circus trains colliding.
A collosal, terrible, flaming, hysterical train wreck with burning clowns running around spraying it with seltzer bottles while ring masters cry out how everything is fine and we should all come in while the dancing elephants lurch around leaving trails of blood behind them.
Honestly i would be supremely worried if it had failed that badly this fast, keeping the statue up is Importent for GW, taking it down would be a bad sign.
But I have been thinking myself, if Age of sigmar has really changed anything. We still have players sitting around wondering if they will get an update, players wondering if there chosen army's where abandoned. The same reasons we had struggle to keep players beforehand.
Even the chaos players who may be keen are sitting around expecting that after this there chosen God will have to wait years for a update.
It's just a repeating again!
Honestly i would be supremely worried if it had failed that badly this fast, keeping the statue up is Importent for GW, taking it down would be a bad sign.
But I have been thinking myself, if Age of sigmar has really changed anything. We still have players sitting around wondering if they will get an update, players wondering if there chosen army's where abandoned. The same reasons we had struggle to keep players beforehand.
Even the chaos players who may be keen are sitting around expecting that after this there chosen God will have to wait years for a update.
It's just a repeating again!
It's almost as if... GW didn't change at all!
"Let them that are happy talk of piety; we that would work our adversary must take no account of laws."http://back2basing.blogspot.pt/
Yes, I mean points in general. I wrote in that post I don't want to follow a points limit or army comp, so that is my reason to suggest no points gives me more freedom and ease of entry. I don't want to have to paint 5 units of core for the one unit I actually want and be constrained about how to put together my force. I don't disagree there's value in both ways.
Like what was said, this is still a very GW-centric viewpoint and not necessarily indicative of either points in general, or army compositions. And I would argue it’s less about points (because if you want a bigger army in a points-based game, you can always aim for a higher points total – it’s just nomenclature really and no different to saying ‘I want to take more stuff’) and more about army structure, and army organisation. Games like warmachine, infinity and the various historicals are far more open in terms of army design for example and don’t require anything like ‘5 units of core’ to field the one unit that you want. Just field it. Done. Heck, even 40k has unbound.
I would also argue with not following any points limits or army comp, it doesn’t necessarily allow the freedom and ease of entry you wish for. It has its own limiting factors – lack of structure or guidance in the first place (basically, where to go). But mainly in this case, the limiting factor is your opponent. Your ability to field whatever you want is entirely dependent on your opponent acquiescing to your wishes and enabling you. What happens when they say ‘no, I don’t want to face that’? Or ‘no, I don’t think that’s fair’. The lack of structure that follows on from having no points limits and army compositions/restrictions etc opens games up to a lot of issues, mismatches and potential abuses. It can be dealt with and worked around, but it often requires very like-minded opponents, who are on the same wavelength as yourself, which is its own restriction- it’s often harder to find these folks than you realise (and this can often lead to the problem of fracturing the community into small self-contained gaming ‘cells’ that are often entirely at odds or incompatible with each other when people go outside their own group). And it’s quite hard to grow this kind of community.
What happens when what they bring to the table top (and bear in mind they’re approaching this from the same POV – ‘freedom’, ‘ease of entry’, and ‘I want to play whatever I want, restrictions only limit me’) is completely out of sync (either better or worse) than what you bring? And they’re not necessarily the villain in the story either for fielding what they are fielding. Often the ‘freedom’ you want is illusory –its pseudo-freedom at best, and often comes at the cost of universality and the ‘common ground’ to meet on that most two-player games, and a lot of gamers need to thrive.
greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy
"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are"
Deadnight wrote:What happens when what they bring to the table top (and bear in mind they’re approaching this from the same POV – ‘freedom’, ‘ease of entry’, and ‘I want to play whatever I want, restrictions only limit me’) is completely out of sync (either better or worse) than what you bring? And they’re not necessarily the villain in the story either for fielding what they are fielding. Often the ‘freedom’ you want is illusory –its pseudo-freedom at best, and often comes at the cost of universality and the ‘common ground’ to meet on that most two-player games, and a lot of gamers need to thrive.
Illusory freedom sums up my feelings about the latest ice world campaign for AoS: bring whatever models you want! Then pick out thirty of them... and then chat with your opponent about what's fair. (I.e, let your opponent nerf your list)
Picking your force out of a larger collection, just before the game starts, smacks of Malifaux. One of the aspects that made me cynical about that game - the urging to buy almost an army of minis to tailor just one small warband each time. I'd personally say it gives the lie to the claims of smaller necessary costs and numbers of minis. Sure, for startup it's less than WFB 8th, but how long will that last? Especially with £20 cavalry figures. Or how long does GW intend it to last?
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
It's almost as if... GW didn't change at all!
Picking your force out of a larger collection, just before the game starts, smacks of Malifaux. One of the aspects that made me cynical about that game - the urging to buy almost an army of minis to tailor just one small warband each time. I'd personally say it gives the lie to the claims of smaller necessary costs and numbers of minis. Sure, for startup it's less than WFB 8th, but how long will that last? Especially with £20 cavalry figures. Or how long does GW intend it to last?
Yeah, picking a small force from a larger one at the start of the game is very Malifaux; part of that is the random missions. You'll generate a pool of 5 missions at the start, and using that and possibly knowing your opponents faction/master you create a list using the points limit (tournaments here tend to be fixed faction or fixed master). There's very little source of abuse (because it's pretty balanced) and there's no actual need to buy everything; you can play the missions quite comfortably using the various starter boxes. They do however allow you to keep expanding and spending money without increasing your cost of entry. I'm actually all for the side-board idea.
For example, tournaments here are either 30 or 50 points, most starter sets will get you to 30 points (though you may need to load up on upgrades) and I got started with a single box (Ophelia), I added a 2nd box to get me to 50 points (Som'er) with some variety. I've now probably got about 150-200 points of Gremlins purely because they are cool, but at no point did I feel like I needed to buy anything before the first 2 boxes in order to compete at a fair level. To be honest I haven't fielded most of them (it's hard to justify 8 or 12 points for a war pig or a pigapult in a 50 point game).
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/03 13:46:23
Picking your force out of a larger collection, just before the game starts, smacks of Malifaux. One of the aspects that made me cynical about that game - the urging to buy almost an army of minis to tailor just one small warband each time. I'd personally say it gives the lie to the claims of smaller necessary costs and numbers of minis. Sure, for startup it's less than WFB 8th, but how long will that last? Especially with £20 cavalry figures. Or how long does GW intend it to last?
Yeah, picking a small force from a larger one at the start of the game is very Malifaux; part of that is the random missions. You'll generate a pool of 5 missions at the start, and using that and possibly knowing your opponents faction/master you create a list using the points limit (tournaments here tend to be fixed faction or fixed master). There's very little source of abuse (because it's pretty balanced) and there's no actual need to buy everything; you can play the missions quite comfortably using the various starter boxes. They do however allow you to keep expanding and spending money without increasing your cost of entry. I'm actually all for the side-board idea.
For example, tournaments here are either 30 or 50 points, most starter sets will get you to 30 points (though you may need to load up on upgrades) and I got started with a single box (Ophelia), I added a 2nd box to get me to 50 points (Som'er) with some variety. I've now probably got about 150-200 points of Gremlins purely because they are cool, but at no point did I feel like I needed to buy anything before the first 2 boxes in order to compete at a fair level. To be honest I haven't fielded most of them (it's hard to justify 8 or 12 points for a war pig or a pigapult in a 50 point game).
Actually I'd quite fine with that system for FB... provided the points would remain in place. Otherwise it's just a game of nerf-the-list.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/12/03 13:57:50
"Let them that are happy talk of piety; we that would work our adversary must take no account of laws."http://back2basing.blogspot.pt/
Picking your force out of a larger collection, just before the game starts, smacks of Malifaux. One of the aspects that made me cynical about that game - the urging to buy almost an army of minis to tailor just one small warband each time. I'd personally say it gives the lie to the claims of smaller necessary costs and numbers of minis. Sure, for startup it's less than WFB 8th, but how long will that last? Especially with £20 cavalry figures. Or how long does GW intend it to last?
Yeah, picking a small force from a larger one at the start of the game is very Malifaux; part of that is the random missions. You'll generate a pool of 5 missions at the start, and using that and possibly knowing your opponents faction/master you create a list using the points limit (tournaments here tend to be fixed faction or fixed master). There's very little source of abuse (because it's pretty balanced) and there's no actual need to buy everything; you can play the missions quite comfortably using the various starter boxes. They do however allow you to keep expanding and spending money without increasing your cost of entry. I'm actually all for the side-board idea.
For example, tournaments here are either 30 or 50 points, most starter sets will get you to 30 points (though you may need to load up on upgrades) and I got started with a single box (Ophelia), I added a 2nd box to get me to 50 points (Som'er) with some variety. I've now probably got about 150-200 points of Gremlins purely because they are cool, but at no point did I feel like I needed to buy anything before the first 2 boxes in order to compete at a fair level. To be honest I haven't fielded most of them (it's hard to justify 8 or 12 points for a war pig or a pigapult in a 50 point game).
My experience wasn't that is was very balenced. I had the ghost lady starter box and my friend got the twin merc lady box. I had nothing in my army that could stop them from steam rolling my army.
When I asked how to beat them in the message board the answer was to buy a different resurectionist gang box, even a creator of the game commenting that as long as my friend was playing right their was no way for me to beat him.
I quietly put my malufaux on ebay that same day. Didn't make a stink about it, just wasn't the game for me. I love the model range but unless the 2nd ed made huge changes to fix the no win match ups I feel it's a broken mess. Witch to me the whole selecting a army before the match reeks of the fact the creators know this is still a issue in their game.
Tis a shame. Amazing setting.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/03 14:41:24
First time poster here but here's my two pennies...
I'm a 39 year old dad based in the UK, in my youth I was a huge GW fan collecting Talisman, Rogue Trader, BloodBowl (with the Polystyrene board), WFRP etc, eventually running a pretty successful club each week at a local hall getting around 60 attendees a week.
Life moved on though, I discovered Magic the Gathering and other geeky offerings and all my Games Workshop collection was eventually sold off to pay for new hobbies. Leap forward 20 years and I have 9 & 8 year old sons, both of whom are taking after their dad in love of all things geek. They're pretty bright lads so thought I'd take them down to a Games Workshop store, bear in mind that I'd not stepped foot in one for 2 decades.
First impression? Where have all the games gone? I walked in to find pretty much 2 options, AoS or 40K, sure there was the Hobbit as well but that was all tucked away in a corner covered in dust, I was used to around 6 different games as a min, Epic, Man O War, Bloodbowl, Necromunda etc (I am looking forward to what the Specialist range does). The manager of the store offered to showcase a game to my lads and was entirely impartial on the offering, they chose AoS. From the moment they rolled their first die they were hooked, in just over a month it's quickly become the hobby I first fell in love with all over again, it's now The Xmas present this year for both boys, with the likes of Archaon, Bloodthirsters, Celestant Primes etc under the tree.
Yes it's simplified, but there's plenty of fan-based rules out there that add as much depth as you wish, and yes I fully understand that it's driven away the puritans of 8th ed, but I've noticed I'm not the only dad coming back to the hobby and that others are rediscovering GW whilst also their children are getting into the hobby.
I quietly put my malufaux on ebay that same day. Didn't make a stink about it, just wasn't the game for me. I love the model range but unless the 2nd ed made huge changes to fix the no win match ups I feel it's a broken mess. Witch to me the whole selecting a army before the match reeks of the fact the creators know this is still a issue in their game.
Tis a shame. Amazing setting.
I've never played 1st Ed but I got the impression from hearing others that 2nd Ed was a significant improvement. I've certainly never witnessed a match-up where someone could get steam rollered (the weaker armies were often better for the objective grabbing), and it's still possible to win even if you lose all of your models.
Picking your force out of a larger collection, just before the game starts, smacks of Malifaux. One of the aspects that made me cynical about that game - the urging to buy almost an army of minis to tailor just one small warband each time. I'd personally say it gives the lie to the claims of smaller necessary costs and numbers of minis. Sure, for startup it's less than WFB 8th, but how long will that last? Especially with £20 cavalry figures. Or how long does GW intend it to last?
Yeah, picking a small force from a larger one at the start of the game is very Malifaux; part of that is the random missions. You'll generate a pool of 5 missions at the start, and using that and possibly knowing your opponents faction/master you create a list using the points limit (tournaments here tend to be fixed faction or fixed master). There's very little source of abuse (because it's pretty balanced) and there's no actual need to buy everything; you can play the missions quite comfortably using the various starter boxes. They do however allow you to keep expanding and spending money without increasing your cost of entry. I'm actually all for the side-board idea.
For example, tournaments here are either 30 or 50 points, most starter sets will get you to 30 points (though you may need to load up on upgrades) and I got started with a single box (Ophelia), I added a 2nd box to get me to 50 points (Som'er) with some variety. I've now probably got about 150-200 points of Gremlins purely because they are cool, but at no point did I feel like I needed to buy anything before the first 2 boxes in order to compete at a fair level. To be honest I haven't fielded most of them (it's hard to justify 8 or 12 points for a war pig or a pigapult in a 50 point game).
My experience wasn't that is was very balenced. I had the ghost lady starter box and my friend got the twin merc lady box. I had nothing in my army that could stop them from steam rolling my army.
When I asked how to beat them in the message board the answer was to buy a different resurectionist gang box, even a creator of the game commenting that as long as my friend was playing right their was no way for me to beat him.
I quietly put my malufaux on ebay that same day. Didn't make a stink about it, just wasn't the game for me. I love the model range but unless the 2nd ed made huge changes to fix the no win match ups I feel it's a broken mess. Witch to me the whole selecting a army before the match reeks of the fact the creators know this is still a issue in their game.
Tis a shame. Amazing setting.
Just FYI 2nd ed was a huge overhaul and fixed most balance issues. As to creating lists after finding out the strategy, it means the creators aknowlege that it is very difficult to have varied missions for which a single list will be balanced for all of them. Take 40k for example a list that is very good at objectives might not also be good in Kill points. All that said several large tournaments have been one by people playing the same crew every round, so it is not necessary to own everything. It is also important to not that the starter boxes are not balanced against eachother, and that the game is balanced at a very specific points level.
Hero606v2 wrote: First time poster here but here's my two pennies...
I'm a 39 year old dad based in the UK, in my youth I was a huge GW fan collecting Talisman, Rogue Trader, BloodBowl (with the Polystyrene board), WFRP etc, eventually running a pretty successful club each week at a local hall getting around 60 attendees a week.
Life moved on though, I discovered Magic the Gathering and other geeky offerings and all my Games Workshop collection was eventually sold off to pay for new hobbies. Leap forward 20 years and I have 9 & 8 year old sons, both of whom are taking after their dad in love of all things geek. They're pretty bright lads so thought I'd take them down to a Games Workshop store, bear in mind that I'd not stepped foot in one for 2 decades.
First impression? Where have all the games gone? I walked in to find pretty much 2 options, AoS or 40K, sure there was the Hobbit as well but that was all tucked away in a corner covered in dust, I was used to around 6 different games as a min, Epic, Man O War, Bloodbowl, Necromunda etc (I am looking forward to what the Specialist range does). The manager of the store offered to showcase a game to my lads and was entirely impartial on the offering, they chose AoS. From the moment they rolled their first die they were hooked, in just over a month it's quickly become the hobby I first fell in love with all over again, it's now The Xmas present this year for both boys, with the likes of Archaon, Bloodthirsters, Celestant Primes etc under the tree.
Yes it's simplified, but there's plenty of fan-based rules out there that add as much depth as you wish, and yes I fully understand that it's driven away the puritans of 8th ed, but I've noticed I'm not the only dad coming back to the hobby and that others are rediscovering GW whilst also their children are getting into the hobby.
Thanks for posting that, Hero, and I've seen a few folks say similarly. I definitely agree that AoS is a game more suited to a game you can get your sons into (well, maybe not all of the models, but you know what I mean!). I think part of the problem is that they replaced a game that was the opposite (a much more intricate system aimed at dedicated gamers) and did not manage the transition very well.
But as for AoS' strength, it's definitely the scenario that you describe. Seems like it would've been the perfect thing to add on as a separate ruleset for folks to use without completely removing the former... but as it is they have to build up their playerbase from scratch for the most part. Stories like yours give them some hope, I'm sure!
I don't fit that target demographic so will happily focus on other games, but it would be false to say there is no demographic for AoS - it's just hard for them to reach it the way they've handled things.
Oh I very much agree that they the way they've gone about the launch of AoS is just beyond ridiculous from a PR point of view. I used to be a big Vampire the Masquerade player, loved the clans it had with it, the whole grandiose Gehenna setting and back story and then they did very similar to GW and killed their main offering only to replace it with a similar but different enough to irk me way.
I'd have very much done it in a WFB-lite way, an accessible option to which to bring in new blood to the hobby whilst allowing them then to discover the full WFB as they grow more confident with the rules.
Hero606v2 wrote: I'd have very much done it in a WFB-lite way, an accessible option to which to bring in new blood to the hobby whilst allowing them then to discover the full WFB as they grow more confident with the rules.
I think that's genius (and being in the UK, you could always use the Kings of War fantasy rules as your sons progress through!). If GW had thought of doing it this way they'd be facing an entirely different reception from the gaming community, I think! As an introduction-to-wargaming, I do think AoS is overall a very good fit.
Hero606v2 wrote: Oh I very much agree that they the way they've gone about the launch of AoS is just beyond ridiculous from a PR point of view. I used to be a big Vampire the Masquerade player, loved the clans it had with it, the whole grandiose Gehenna setting and back story and then they did very similar to GW and killed their main offering only to replace it with a similar but different enough to irk me way.
I'd have very much done it in a WFB-lite way, an accessible option to which to bring in new blood to the hobby whilst allowing them then to discover the full WFB as they grow more confident with the rules.
Onyx Path announced that they are doing a new edition of the old Vampire: the masquerade. (Not much left of White Wolf itself, now.)
Rumblings from folks I know on the retail end of things makes it sound like the Anniversary edition of V:tM outsold the newer Vampire game, at launch.
WotC made a similar bungle with both 4e and the way they rolled the game out. (It is a very bad thing when the first shots in an edition war are fired by the publisher.)
So, Onyx Path is doing a new edition of the old game, updating the rules, while WotC released a 5th edition of D&D that returned to being backwards compatible.
If only GW could do the same thing, looking at what worked in previous editions and reairing damage that they have done to their own properties....
I kind of suspect that the folks in charge of their Forge World arm could do a better job with both Warhammer and Age of Sigmar. (My feeling with 4e D&D was that it really could have been a separate game, and that WotC should have kept the 3.X architecture rolling. My feelings for AoS bear some similarities - it could have been rolled out as an addition to the setting, not a replacement.)
The Auld Grump
Kilkrazy wrote:When I was a young boy all my wargames were narratively based because I played with my toy soldiers and vehicles without the use of any rules.
The reason I bought rules and became a real wargamer was because I wanted a properly thought out structure to govern the action instead of just making things up as I went along.
Hero606v2 wrote: First time poster here but here's my two pennies...
I'm a 39 year old dad based in the UK, in my youth I was a huge GW fan collecting Talisman, Rogue Trader, BloodBowl (with the Polystyrene board), WFRP etc, eventually running a pretty successful club each week at a local hall getting around 60 attendees a week.
Life moved on though, I discovered Magic the Gathering and other geeky offerings and all my Games Workshop collection was eventually sold off to pay for new hobbies. Leap forward 20 years and I have 9 & 8 year old sons, both of whom are taking after their dad in love of all things geek. They're pretty bright lads so thought I'd take them down to a Games Workshop store, bear in mind that I'd not stepped foot in one for 2 decades.
First impression? Where have all the games gone? I walked in to find pretty much 2 options, AoS or 40K, sure there was the Hobbit as well but that was all tucked away in a corner covered in dust, I was used to around 6 different games as a min, Epic, Man O War, Bloodbowl, Necromunda etc (I am looking forward to what the Specialist range does). The manager of the store offered to showcase a game to my lads and was entirely impartial on the offering, they chose AoS. From the moment they rolled their first die they were hooked, in just over a month it's quickly become the hobby I first fell in love with all over again, it's now The Xmas present this year for both boys, with the likes of Archaon, Bloodthirsters, Celestant Primes etc under the tree.
Yes it's simplified, but there's plenty of fan-based rules out there that add as much depth as you wish, and yes I fully understand that it's driven away the puritans of 8th ed, but I've noticed I'm not the only dad coming back to the hobby and that others are rediscovering GW whilst also their children are getting into the hobby.
While your enthusiasm is to be lauded and you are correct,why bother with rules that you need to augment with fan-based rules to add depth? My problem with AoS looking at the rules is that they are way too "thin" to account for anything. The idea seems to be that the rules are extremely basic, and then you add in custom things as you see fit, whether that be scenarios, army restrictions, special rules, etc.
While I like that idea in theory, it breaks down when it relies on my opponent to agree, which is a problem with virtually all GW games right now; too much emphasis on knowing your opponent when outside of the UK and possibly Europe as a whole, very few games are played amongst like-minded gamers who know each other as part a gaming club. Indeed, most games in the US occur at game shops where you might not even know your opponent or have ever seen them before, they are just some random guy who showed up to play, you showed up to play, and the two of you have a game. That's the big problem and while it's not necessarily a bad one (I'd love to have an actual gaming club), it's one that exists.
It might be cool to add on your own things to the rules, for instance come up with a narrative that my Chaos army is ransacking the countryside and a heroic band of Stormcast Eternals arrive to stop them, so since my army is laden with spoils of war I need to cross the bridge and escape with my ill-gotten loot, etc. etc. but that's not something that's going to happen all the time.
They should of just released content, books, and new models and released a true 9th edition. 40k was failing just like fantasy 3ish years ago. Then it came back strong by releasing book after book... Should of done the same with fantasy, and maybe still will.
<----Played LARP, one world by night. Vamp the Masq!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/03 19:56:07
2014 Templecon/Onslaught 40k T, Best overall
2015 Templecon/Onslaught 40kGT, Best overall
2015, Nova open 40kGT Semifinalist.
2015 40k Golden Sprue Champ.
2016 Best General Portal Annual Spring 40kGT
2017 Best General, 3rd Annual Winter 40kGT Hosted by The Portal.
2018 Triumph 40k GT. Best Overall.
2018 Best General, 4th Annual Winter 40kGT Hosted by The Portal.
The whole "knowing your opponent" thing doesn't really work in the UK either, we've had a pretty stable 40K player base at the local club for some time (who are barely playing 40K right now, but that's not pertinent to my point) but we had one guy who refused to play anything but full bore competitive lists, while the rest of us were firmly in the "causally competitive" bracket. Whoever ended playing him had the choice of either creating a list they didn't want to play in order to compete, or bending over for two hours.
We find comfort among those who agree with us - growth among those who don't. - Frank Howard Clark
The wise man doubts often, and changes his mind; the fool is obstinate, and doubts not; he knows all things but his own ignorance.
The correct statement of individual rights is that everyone has the right to an opinion, but crucially, that opinion can be roundly ignored and even made fun of, particularly if it is demonstrably nonsense!” Professor Brian Cox
I have had very little luck in getting people to agree to house rules in the past. The people I usually encounter want something "official". I made house rule after house rule, and even created an online campaign system. People looked at me like I was trying to pull something over on them. They want the company to do the work and they want to play.
AoS seems to require finding people to agree to house rules, because the rules as written are not really feasible.
While your enthusiasm is to be lauded and you are correct,why bother with rules that you need to augment with fan-based rules to add depth? My problem with AoS looking at the rules is that they are way too "thin" to account for anything. The idea seems to be that the rules are extremely basic, and then you add in custom things as you see fit, whether that be scenarios, army restrictions, special rules, etc
That's the basic idea I think. Some people like to 'bother' with adding fan-based rules as it lets them be creative. After all, we write our own backstories for our dudes, we name them, we design our own paint schemes for our dudes and so on. Why stop being creative when it comes down to actually doing stuff with them? I'm all for organised play at the end of the day, but it's ludicrous to suggest this is the only way to play, or that you can 'only' play with your toy soldiers in an 'officially approved manner' as defined by a non sentient set of rules in a book.
While I like that idea in theory, it breaks down when it relies on my opponent to agree, which is a problem with virtually all GW games right now; too much emphasis on knowing your opponent when outside of the UK and possibly Europe as a whole, very few games are played amongst like-minded gamers who know each other as part a gaming club. Indeed, most games in the US occur at game shops where you might not even know your opponent or have ever seen them before, they are just some random guy who showed up to play, you showed up to play, and the two of you have a game. That's the big problem and while it's not necessarily a bad one (I'd love to have an actual gaming club), it's one that exists.
It can break down. Sure. I will acknowledge that as one of the biggest hurdles to overcome. But it won't always break down. And there's no reason to just dismiss it out of hand.
But when you talk about very few games played amongst like minded opponents, not knowing who you are going up against, or playing against strangers, well, frankly it paints a very unflattering and unappealing image about your meta and American gamers in general than it does about the game itself. It sounds like gamers In the states are petty, small minded anti social and quite hostile to the concept of 'community'.. And I seriously doubt that this is the reality.
Really, while its tricky to find those like minded folks, it's not tricky to organise and communicate. Then they tend to make themselves known. We have Facebook and forums for a start and the art of conversation has never died. If 'I can't do this because strangers' is a hurdle, then don't make them strangers. Trade numbers, get in touch, meet up for beers or football. Network, and find out the different groups thst play different games in your area. Find what the landscape looks like. Make them into friends, turn the gamers into a cohesive community, and then those insurmountable barriers lower quite significantly. You'll go out of your way for a good mate, won't you? Aos might require all this bridge building to work (which is a bit of a pain), but being honest with you, all that bridge building is rewarding in its own right, and useful for any gaming community. There is no reason to be a disconnected bunch of strangers, and every advantage to organising and being more than that.
It might be cool to add on your own things to the rules, for instance come up with a narrative that my Chaos army is ransacking the countryside and a heroic band of Stormcast Eternals arrive to stop them, so since my army is laden with spoils of war I need to cross the bridge and escape with my ill-gotten loot, etc. etc. but that's not something that's going to happen all the time.
No it's not going to happen all the time. Nor should it. That type of gaming requires a lot of work and organisation. Often it's garage based, over the course of a weekend, with pizza, beer and a bbq. It's more than 'just' a game - it's an occasion. And frankly, sometimes it's nice to just turn up, say '50points'?, roll scenario and get on with it. The whole narrative gaming thing is one of those 'the more you put in, the more you get out of it' kind of scenarios. It can be incredibly fun to do. But I doubt your the only horse in town that wants to do this, even if it's just evry once in a while. And frankly, the best way to do it, is to just get proactive and try to organise, and communicate your desires.
kenofyork wrote: I have had very little luck in getting people to agree to house rules in the past. The people I usually encounter want something "official". I made house rule after house rule, and even created an online campaign system. People looked at me like I was trying to pull something over on them. They want the company to do the work and they want to play.
AoS seems to require finding people to agree to house rules, because the rules as written are not really feasible.
I do not see how it can work.
Wrong community would be my guess. Either that or they were folks so steeped in one way of playing (and that way of playing isn't wrong to be fair) thst they can't comprehend of other ways of doing it. Folks into home brewing do exist. They don't tend to go to clubs though - they tend to be more the folks that play at home, or In garages with close friends. You should have a look into some of the historical playing groups - in my experience they see far more amenable to home brews. My first proper warmachine opponent in Ireland was a fanatic for home brews and putting in interesting terrain to mix up games (raised bridges etc) and when I moved to Scotland I fell in with a bunch of historical players (through infinity, of all games!) who do home brews as their primary mode of play.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/03 20:40:21
greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy
"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are"
You don't need to play with any house rules if you don't want. I have played AoS straight from the 4 page rules against an opponent in a pick up game before, no problems. They deployed an Elite army and stopped. I gauged my entire collection would be a good match (but be a tough game on my part) - and it was a fun game.
I hope that AoS fortunes begin to change with the Fyreslayers. I hope that GW improve the game with better source books and a suppliment that allows more competetive play.
Bye bye Dakkadakka, happy hobbying! I really enjoyed my time on here. Opinions were always my own :-)
My experience wasn't that is was very balenced. I had the ghost lady starter box and my friend got the twin merc lady box. I had nothing in my army that could stop them from steam rolling my army.
Yeah, 1st ed C. Hoffman starter for me, similar experience. The slowest master in a game of zipping about, capturing objectives, backed up by glass cannon constructs. Struggled against other, tailored crews, but I really suffered when my most regular opponent discovered Mei Feng from the Ten Thunders faction. If Malifaux is balanced now, you should've seen the power creep when that character & crew appeared - made 40K look like chess. Even when I tried expanding my crew a bit, with a peacekeeper... a ten-SS guild construct that had to spend resources just to keep functioning. First game vs. a steam golem, a ten-SS Ten Thunders/Arcanist (?) construct that generates resources to keep going. I got stepped on like a beetle.
Anyway. I'll agree that Malifaux was levelled out a bit in 2nd ed, but not enough suck me back in. As I said, the buy-more-stuff-to-pick-your-crew bit was only one thing among others that put me off the game, but I'm still not happy to see it pop up in these AoS campaigns. Especially when your opponent has to 'chat' with you (i.e. potentially putting a veto on certain models) which has a chance of leaving some of those titanically expensive models on the bench, and necessitating buying more minis to fill that Archaon/Varanguard-shaped hole.
Back to topic, Bottle, I agree with your last sentence wholeheartedly. We can only hope.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/03 20:51:02
2014 Templecon/Onslaught 40k T, Best overall
2015 Templecon/Onslaught 40kGT, Best overall
2015, Nova open 40kGT Semifinalist.
2015 40k Golden Sprue Champ.
2016 Best General Portal Annual Spring 40kGT
2017 Best General, 3rd Annual Winter 40kGT Hosted by The Portal.
2018 Triumph 40k GT. Best Overall.
2018 Best General, 4th Annual Winter 40kGT Hosted by The Portal.
Hero606v2 wrote:The manager of the store offered to showcase a game to my lads and was entirely impartial on the offering, they chose AoS. From the moment they rolled their first die they were hooked
RiTides wrote:
I think that's genius (and being in the UK, you could always use the Kings of War fantasy rules as your sons progress through!). If GW had thought of doing it this way they'd be facing an entirely different reception from the gaming community, I think! As an introduction-to-wargaming, I do think AoS is overall a very good fit.
Agreed. I think the strategy-heavy, tactics-lite nature of GW games is arguably more attractive to younger gamers, and AoS even more so. That seems to be how it's made, and that's fine.
Trouble is, younger gamers don't stay younger for long, and barring whatever GW does with the Specialist Studio, there's less and less for older gamers. Hero: you mention 8th ed purists, but that edition already haemorrhaged a lot of players. I'd even suggest that's one of the reasons for upset about edition changes and rules shakeups - GW's auduence keeps growing up, but the rules didn't.
Deadnight wrote:I'm all for organised play at the end of the day, but it's ludicrous to suggest this is the only way to play
With AoS, it's been cut out almost completely. Disorganised play is 'the only way to play' there.
But when you talk about very few games played amongst like minded opponents... *snip* There is no reason to be a disconnected bunch of strangers, and every advantage to organising and being more than that.
I don't disagree with all you say. In fact I used to post up rants quite a lot like that, myself. But after reading the responses I used to get, I started to think it was perhaps too narrow a view, too unappreciative of other gamers' circumstances. So while structured - even points-based - games might inherently encourage wham bam thank you ma'am and even page 5 style gaming, like so many others have said I think they're a more stable, inclusive base to work from. You can try to persuade other points-preferring gamers to use them in scenario-based, narrative games; but if that doesn't work then you can at least still get a game, and maybe keep plugging. With AoS, whether persuading points-preferrers or trying to impose some sort of points system, things could be a little more difficult.
But when you talk about very few games played amongst like minded opponents... *snip* There is no reason to be a disconnected bunch of strangers, and every advantage to organising and being more than that.
I don't disagree with all you say. In fact I used to post up rants quite a lot like that, myself. But after reading the responses I used to get, I started to think it was perhaps too narrow a view, too unappreciative of other gamers' circumstances. So while structured - even points-based - games might inherently encourage wham bam thank you ma'am and even page 5 style gaming, like so many others have said I think they're a more stable, inclusive base to work from. You can try to persuade other points-preferring gamers to use them in scenario-based, narrative games; but if that doesn't work then you can at least still get a game, and maybe keep plugging. With AoS, whether persuading points-preferrers or trying to impose some sort of points system, things could be a little more difficult.
This. It is a lot easier to ignore point values than it is to come up with a method of reinstating them that everyone can agree on.
The slowest master in a game of zipping about, capturing objectives, backed up by glass cannon constructs. Struggled against other, tailored crews, but I really suffered when my most regular opponent discovered Mei Feng from the Ten Thunders faction. If Malifaux is balanced now, you should've seen the power creep when that character & crew appeared - made