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.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

 Vermis wrote:

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.

It's a lot easier in theory... in practice you'll have a pretty hard time convincing your opponent to play without points in 40k for example... a much harder time than getting someone to agree to play a comp system in AoS.

Yeah, balancing systems are there to make things approximately balanced. You can house rule to your heart's content, making whatever imbalanced stuff you love without detracting from a competitive game. It's like pulling teeth to try to house rule in a setting where you don't know each other in all my experience other than "umm, we can't figure out this rule. we'll call it X and move on".

On Malifaux, that game's always had a steep learning curve (hence the stompings), but is definitely better balanced than the first edition.

I think there is a lot of sticker shock. This also happens with 40k but there is a cushion of continuity over editions (largely illusory) to help there that is missing with AoS. GW came out of the gate with a huge value in the starter set but when the unit boxes started rolling out it became hard to imagine keeping up. As with 40k, those who want the models will find ways to rationalize the prices and sticker shock will be less of a concern over time. I know this will seem weird to online pundits, but it is still way to early to say whether AoS is a success or failure as a product line. So much of the line remains to be developed, after all. The game barely has its legs under it just yet.

 Mymearan wrote:

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

 Vermis wrote:

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.

It's a lot easier in theory... in practice you'll have a pretty hard time convincing your opponent to play without points in 40k for example... a much harder time than getting someone to agree to play a comp system in AoS.

Bad example. If someone is playing Age of Sigmar, they are already open to negotiating how points work. Fantasy players who want to play with points have all left. Whereas point-preferring players are present in 40k, as well as players who prefer to just put down narrative forces.

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

 Vermis wrote:

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.

It's a lot easier in theory... in practice you'll have a pretty hard time convincing your opponent to play without points in 40k for example... a much harder time than getting someone to agree to play a comp system in AoS.

Bad example. If someone is playing Age of Sigmar, they are already open to negotiating how points work. Fantasy players who want to play with points have all left. Whereas point-preferring players are present in 40k, as well as players who prefer to just put down narrative forces.

They haven't left, they're playing with comp...

I agree with Mymearan at least from a GW community standpoint. IME there is always much gnashing of teeth about the awful rules writing and imbalance but very little willingness to alter them in practice.

Mymerean has the stronger point there. The mechanical concept of points value has a strong hold on the imaginations of a whole generation of gamers, who seem to basically take it for granted and honestly do not see how a game can be considered "complete" without it. It was a very ballsy move subverting this basic assumption and there has been no end to wailing and gnashing of teeth over the issue. But just as a matter of game design, points values aren't really that big of a deal or rather are only as big of a deal as the game makes them for us. Having points is such a central part of 40k, playing without them is practically unimaginable for many. So it was better for GW to cut them out of AoS altogether rather than uselessly hope there would be any substantial number of gamers not using them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@Eldarain: high five for tooth-gnashing reference~!

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

Bad example. If someone is playing Age of Sigmar, they are already open to negotiating how points work. Fantasy players who want to play with points have all left. Whereas point-preferring players are present in 40k, as well as players who prefer to just put down narrative forces.

There's a point. I'd also wonder if AoS players are open to comp systems because they (inherently?) want or feel there should be some way of balancing opposing forces.

Well sure, you have a store league with certain caps on scrolls/scroll types/etc. But playing in a league is different from casual play. The missing midpoint here is pick-up play. That's the most legitimate complaint about AoS I have seen, it is not going to do much for gamers looking for pick-up play.

Tsilber wrote:
*Whoever ended 'UP' playing him... ?


Back to topic, Bottle, I agree with your last sentence wholeheartedly. We can only hope.

An accidental omission isn't the same as terrible English.

You know where hope is the first step to.

Manchu wrote:That's the most legitimate complaint about AoS I have seen, it is not going to do much for gamers looking for pick-up play.

Are pick-up players the new 'competitive' players? The only section of gamers who might appreciate a bit of inbuilt balance?

Azreal13 wrote:
You know where hope is the first step to.

I'm not opposed to the concept of hope, but in this case? Hoping that GW will provide game balance down the line?

 Vermis wrote:

Manchu wrote:That's the most legitimate complaint about AoS I have seen, it is not going to do much for gamers looking for pick-up play.

Are pick-up players the new 'competitive' players? The only section of gamers who might appreciate a bit of inbuilt balance?

I think anyone that wants a fare game might want balance.

I thought it would be a perfect time to start Age of Sigmar or finally get into Fantasy, but the only thing really keeping me away is the price.

Yeah free rules, and no codex books (or what ever they were called in Fantasy) is nice, but still not all the rules or formations are free. The books are really expensive, almost $100 Canadian. Now add the price of the minis, are expensive as well.

I could have almost gotten into it with the high cost of miniauters but add in the high price of books, no thank you.

You would think GW would want me to buy their books to get into the setting and buy the miniatures. I can't get into the miniatures since I won't buy the books to get hooked on.

I guess GW just doesn't want my money. GW charges a premium price but their product is not a premium quality that is for sure.

 Azreal13 wrote:

Tsilber wrote:
*Whoever ended 'UP' playing him... ?


Back to topic, Bottle, I agree with your last sentence wholeheartedly. We can only hope.

An accidental omission isn't the same as terrible English.

You know where hope is the first step to.

Get over yourself, you love to troll... You tried to play college professor/grammar police and at the same time made a mistake yourself. Again move on buddy. *Gold Star


Back to OP. I just read and saw the info on "9th Age", the same guys who did the Swedish comp I think? AoS the game might not be popular, but i think the models will keep selling and might even see an increase if 9th age catches on and takes off.

My mistake in no way diminishes yours.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In all seriousness, in a culture where that sort of butchery of language is becoming the norm, it isn't any wonder that GW decided to go for a dumbed down/streamlined set of rules?

The teen culture certainly doesn't seem to have the focus or dedication it did in even the relatively short time since I was one, perhaps GW felt they were making a game for the nxt gnrashun?

Games sell miniatures. I don't think 9th Age will do anything but split the community farther.

 Azreal13 wrote:
My mistake in no way diminishes yours.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In all seriousness, in a culture where that sort of butchery of language is becoming the norm, it isn't any wonder that GW decided to go for a dumbed down/streamlined set of rules.

The teen culture certainly doesn't seem to have the focus or dedication it did in even the relatively short time since I was one, perhaps GW felt they were making a game for the nxt gnrashun?

Are you like 13? You really can't let it go... Lets recap. I made a grammar mistake, I mean I am human. Then you had to add your self righteous, insignificant grammar correction for some reason. In the same post you make a grammar mistake yourself... Making your attempt at grammar police, comical, and once again a target of being a complete joke. You get called out for it, and then instead of moving on, you flail like a spanked child in the corner.

And now you are back to crying about games workshop, and how it hates everyone, and is going to be the cause of WW III, over a grammar mistake.
For someone who hates GW so much and so critical, you sure spend a lot of time talking about it. Are you that sad, you have to needlessly starve for self worth and attention by trolling people on a forums board, around a game/company you constantly complain about?

Tsilber wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
My mistake in no way diminishes yours.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
In all seriousness, in a culture where that sort of butchery of language is becoming the norm, it isn't any wonder that GW decided to go for a dumbed down/streamlined set of rules.

The teen culture certainly doesn't seem to have the focus or dedication it did in even the relatively short time since I was one, perhaps GW felt they were making a game for the nxt gnrashun?

Are you like 13? You really can't let it go... Lets recap. I made a grammar mistake, I mean I am human. Then you had to add your self righteous, insignificant grammar correction for some reason. In the same post you make a grammar mistake yourself... Making your attempt at grammar police, comical, and once again a target of being a complete joke. You get called out for it, and then instead of moving on, you flail like a spanked child in the corner.

And now you are back to crying about games workshop, and how it hates everyone, and is going to be the cause of WW III, over a grammar mistake.
For someone who hates GW so much and so critical, you sure spend a lot of time talking about it. Are you that sad, you have to needlessly starve for self worth and attention by trolling people on a forums board, around a game/company you constantly complain about?

Hehe last paragraph i agree with. Glad to see I am not the last sane man alive.

Ah yes, the old "you're not a fan so you're not entitled to speak on a forum" chestnut.

At this point, "the greatest hits" are all there are for some.

 Mymearan wrote:

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

 Mymearan wrote:

 Crazy_Carnifex wrote:

 Vermis wrote:

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.

It's a lot easier in theory... in practice you'll have a pretty hard time convincing your opponent to play without points in 40k for example... a much harder time than getting someone to agree to play a comp system in AoS.

Bad example. If someone is playing Age of Sigmar, they are already open to negotiating how points work. Fantasy players who want to play with points have all left. Whereas point-preferring players are present in 40k, as well as players who prefer to just put down narrative forces.

They haven't left, they're playing with comp...

They have left, and are playing Kings of War.

See? We can both make assertions.

I got mix feelings abot Aos . Love the models and am buying more but hate the game. But since the rules are free and I am buying more GW Wins?

For the record, the apparent dumbing down of society informing the creation of AOS was a genuine thought, not an attempt to "troll."

OgreChubbs wrote:I got mix feelings abot Aos . Love the models and am buying more but hate the game. But since the rules are free and I am buying more GW Wins?

Not really, the models are fantastic and can be used for plenty of gaming.

Azreal13 wrote:For the record, the apparent dumbing down of society informing the creation of AOS was a genuine thought, not an attempt to "troll."

Haha. Let it go, people are moving back to the topic at hand. What is with the constant need for attention with you.

The topic is about the potential failure of AOS and the reasons why.

I'm suggesting they may have deliberately pursued a dumbed down ruleset as it seems there's a perception nowadays that many younger people don't have long attention spans and are always looking for instant gratification, something a traditional war game doesn't really cater to.

I'd say that it's probably backfired, GW having no mechanism for judging these things, but I think the intent may have been there to increase accessibility. Hell, even the new faction seems tailor made to look good with quick and easy paint schemes.

If you're not prepared to debate that, feel free to move on, if someone else wishes to reply or disagree, then we can converse quite happily without you, otherwise my posts will vanish into the thread and the topic will move on.

To me it sort of feels like they're trying to emulate a video game - the sigmarines respawn, the seraphon are created on the spot from memories, not sure what chaos does (outside the demons) and giving fluff reasons for why it happens that way. Not really my cup of tea, not sure if there's any merit to doing it that way but i presume it's related to their (hopefully they have one) target demographic.

edit: and i guess that sort of ties in to trying to mainstream the game (ie appeal to the common denominator (ie dumb it down)) - most video game player's aren't concerned too much about why they respawn after they die, only that it happens. Idk.

Edit/Removed, back to the topic for me.

When does the next financial report come out? Given how awful WHFB was rumored to be performing, the bar for "failure" might be extremely low.

I think january. Interesting thought, but presumably they'll want to be generating more income with AoS than fantasy was generating. I suspect their tolerance for failure will be low, but how long they give it if it is failing is anyone's guess.

GW dumbing down the game and removing any sense of balance by dumping army list construction/points values is a "ballsy move". No it wasn't. It was a lazy move. Creating a new points system for the new game went in the too hard basket, and that's that. There's nothing "ballsy" about making a game less playable, less balanced, and more vague.

 Grot 6 wrote:
No.

It's DOA.

But how do you know?

You know I'm the last person to defend GW on anything, but I can't just go off what people feel. Reelz before feelz people; let's see some fething proof.