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.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 jah-joshua wrote:
@MWH: is it any less disingenuous to say that the Stormcast Eternals are "just Space Marines", when the writers and sculptors have worked to give them an identity of their own???
i'm not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes, so i don't see how my opinion is "disingenuous" or "ridiculous", simply because it is the opposite of yours...
if these guys hit the same note for me that Marine models and fiction does, i wouldn't even be having this debate...
the Stormcast Eternals are patently fantasy knights, while Marines are sci-fi knights, of course there are similarities...
unfortunately, they lack the visual sci-fi elements that i like so much...

you can call them whatever you like, but that doesn't mean i have to agree with you, especially when i'm not feeling any sci-fi vibes from the SE...
did you look at the Guards in the Thor movies and say, "lazy Marvel, those are just fantasy Space Marines"???
i just thought they were awesome armor designs, and am happy that the SE minis and fiction have a similar vibe to Marvel's Asgard...

again, i am not going to call you insincere for having your opinion, and can respect your view even when i don't agree with it...
it would be nice if that kind of understanding would be reciprocated, but i guess that is asking too much when "someone is wrong on the internet"...

cheers
jah

I never said anything about them having sci-fi elements. You do know what theme, aesthetics and purpose mean, right? Because they're all the same as Space Marines. You're looking at it too literally.
And SE aren't knights. They're armored dudes, but that doesn't make one a knight.

This argument right now-

Oggthrok wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

 pox wrote:


That last line. how awesome would a post-apocalypse fantasy game be?!? The last pockets of the mortal races holding out against an unstoppable chaos force. the various races reduced to next to nothing, with chaos mostly falling back on fighting themselves, ignoring the elves/humans/dwarfs because there's just not enough left to muster a decent scrap.

Sounds alright, if you like chaos. I wouldn't want to be playing a race where there isn't enough left to muster a decent scrap. That sounds too far past post apocalyptic and into 'why bother'.

I agree with both of you - I love the idea of a post-apocalyptic version of the Old World, but there's no need for there to be too few people left for a good scrap.

Oh yeah, I should've said, the idea of a post apocalyptic Old World is cool, but the way it was described there sounded a bit too far.

Oggthrok wrote:

(Of course, I do like the game and the setting, to be clear. It could just be a whole heck of a lot better)

Exactly how I feel! I've already built and fully painted a 45 model army for AoS that I plan to seperate into 4 or 5 armies of its own. I am having lots of fun with the free list building and the skirmish war band scope of the game.

I think it could be sooooo much better though. Better rules and better background, and it's frustrating it's not as good as it could be by a long stretch.

NAVARRO wrote:Do not like Stormcasts, fair enough but in no way they will block my enjoyment of say a pocket of beasmen or hordes of gobbos on the battlefield.

Until the other guy piles on more stormcasts with stormbolters, I mean boltstormers, and massive hammers and warscrolls and fings, and murdalises your beastmen while you're on all fours bleating or measuring your armpit hair or something to get a bonus with your old models.

Not to pick on you, Navarro, but one of things that makes me shake my head is how some AoS proponents fall back on the '"GW is actually letting you tailor your armies and themes" line, as if that excuses the bald, pile-in-the-middle rules; as if it's some novel, unique concept that no other game has done before (and better); and as if the warscroll formations aren't some ready-made shopping lists with extra carrots dangled in front of the power seekers.

If GW's pushing gamers to shake things up for themselves ("shake things up for yourself, but only in the ways we tell you") why not shake things up a bit more? Lately I could actually see myself using stormcast in one or two of those other games; though perhaps more as golems or baroque robots, or small numbers of summoned beings rather than an entire sigmarite steamroller force. (But in that case they might have to compete with Mantic's own golden boys)

Oggthrok wrote:Or, imagine tribes of forest Goblins who had to flee the forests when Chaos burned them, riding their spiders on a long journey south, away from the North Men, into the burning wastes of what was once Araby. There, they hide from the hated sun by building spider-web suspended villages in the shadows of canyons, venturing out at night to look for water, and fight Chaos scouts who are moving in to take even this refuge from them.

Y'know what, that sounds fantastic. Like old Mos Espa concept art (think Owen and Beru's farmstead on a massive scale, with hints of native american cliff cities) by way of Skull Island's ravines and Ered Gorgoroth.

 Vermis wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:Do not like Stormcasts, fair enough but in no way they will block my enjoyment of say a pocket of beasmen or hordes of gobbos on the battlefield.

Until the other guy piles on more stormcasts with stormbolters, I mean boltstormers, and massive hammers and warscrolls and fings, and murdalises your beastmen while you're on all fours bleating or measuring your armpit hair or something to get a bonus with your old models.

Not to pick on you, Navarro, but one of things that makes me shake my head is how some AoS proponents fall back on the '"GW is actually letting you tailor your armies and themes" line, as if that excuses the bald, pile-in-the-middle rules; as if it's some novel, unique concept that no other game has done before (and better); and as if the warscroll formations aren't some ready-made shopping lists with extra carrots dangled in front of the power seekers.

If GW's pushing gamers to shake things up for themselves ("shake things up for yourself, but only in the ways we tell you") why not shake things up a bit more? Lately I could actually see myself using stormcast in one or two of those other games; though perhaps more as golems or baroque robots, or small numbers of summoned beings rather than an entire sigmarite steamroller force. (But in that case they might have to compete with Mantic's own golden boys)

Why so harsh Vermis? Navarro is simply saying if one doesn't like parts of the background, there's no need to let them interfere with one's personal enjoyment of the game. Are you saying we shouldn't alter a game's background setting to suit personal preferences? That seems close minded in my opinion.

pile-in-the-middle rules

Rules are just rules, they don't dictate where you end up on the table in this sort of game.

If players are always getting a pile in the middle that is their fault, not the rules. Play a game that isn't simple kill everything in the middle. It really is exceptionally easy to come up with victory conditions that force you to do other things. E.g. The last game I played (a home made scenario) had my opponent avoiding fights and running away mainly whilst feeding a unit a time in to buy time and space, as time was the critical factor for him, my problem was to not get caught up by that. His army was ultimately crushed for almost no loss to me but I lost the game as I couldn't get to his hero before it met the victory condition.

@MWH: again, if the Stormcast Eternals are "all the same as Space Marines" to you, that's perfectly fine...
they are not to me...
where are the Salamanders SE, the Space Wolves SE, or the robed Dark Angels SE???
like i said earlier, they don't hit any of the same notes for me that Marines do...
that is not a matter of being too literal, that is a matter of being a customer who buys every single Space Marine kit, and is only buying a smattering of SE minis...
if the SE were "just Space Marines", i would be going gaga over them...
instead, i have two, and may buy two more...
Space Marines are way cooler, in my opinion...
that was my point about lacking a sci-fi element, which is my main interest...

as for theme, aesthetics, and purpose, i see the SE as magical Avatars of Sigmar, while Marines are post-human man-machines of death...
aesthetics-wise, the armor of the SE has more in common with the established fantasy armor look of the HE Prince Althran, Archaon, and Valten...
their purpose is to reconquer, and take back all of the territory that the Chaos Gods have dominated...
looking at it that way, it is actually the opposite of the 40K setting, where the purpose is still to hold Chaos back and protect your territory...

i'm not saying that the SE are not meant to capitalize on the popularity of Space Marines...
i just respect the work of the artists, writers, and sculptors in the studio enough to not simply dismiss the work they have done on the Stormcast Eternal art, background, and minis as "just Space Marines"...
pardon me for giving credit to the creative guys for doing a nice job with the brief they were given, and enjoying the books and minis they create...

cheers
jah

I hold onto all of my White Dwarfs from 4th - 6th editions of Fantasy, as well as the army books from that time. So these are the things I read when I want some Warhammer.

Yeah, Fantasy is dead. It may never come back. But I'll never switch my mindset and my setting to the new trash GW has ripped off of Norse mythology. At least the stuff they used to rip off was fun and familiar to our own world's history.

 Vermis wrote:

NAVARRO wrote:Do not like Stormcasts, fair enough but in no way they will block my enjoyment of say a pocket of beasmen or hordes of gobbos on the battlefield.

Until the other guy piles on more stormcasts with stormbolters, I mean boltstormers, and massive hammers and warscrolls and fings, and murdalises your beastmen while you're on all fours bleating or measuring your armpit hair or something to get a bonus with your old models.

Not to pick on you, Navarro, but one of things that makes me shake my head is how some AoS proponents fall back on the '"GW is actually letting you tailor your armies and themes" line, as if that excuses the bald, pile-in-the-middle rules; as if it's some novel, unique concept that no other game has done before (and better); and as if the warscroll formations aren't some ready-made shopping lists with extra carrots dangled in front of the power seekers.

If GW's pushing gamers to shake things up for themselves ("shake things up for yourself, but only in the ways we tell you") why not shake things up a bit more? Lately I could actually see myself using stormcast in one or two of those other games; though perhaps more as golems or baroque robots, or small numbers of summoned beings rather than an entire sigmarite steamroller force. (But in that case they might have to compete with Mantic's own golden boys)
.

I have no problems with my pocket of beastman being beaten to a pulp, I just play for fun and games are only a percentage of my full enjoyment with AoS. Also controlled environment and playing only with friends and family prevents facing things like 10 thirsters. If I do not like something in the rules I change them, simples. Same applies to anything AoS related.

Regarding the " unique concept argument " If you back track my post you will see that my comparison with WFB was just the opposite of claiming that AOS is something new or revolutionary like I said
"When you played WFB, painted the models and got into it did your immersion ended by just following the GW official stories? I really hope not. So why is it any different now? Your immersion your own imaginary is what this is all about not the extremely limited content one company puts outhere. "

So yeah nothing new nothing extravagant with AOS just probably less regulated and more obvious in the sense of the do it yourself.

Also controlled environment and playing only with friends and family prevents facing things like 10 thirsters. If I do not like something in the rules I change them, simples.

All of my opponents are friends or family. I have yet to see someone play a non as good as it gets list or allow the changing of rules for a specific army. Changing general rules, that work against everyone, that happens for all system. But unnerfing or nerfing of models or rules for one model? That never happens. It would be stupid too, as it would be like changing how a bishop moves, just because someone doesn't like its rules.

When you played WFB, painted the models and got into it did your immersion ended by just following the GW official stories? I really hope not. So why is it any different now? Your immersion your own imaginary is what this is all about not the extremely limited content one company puts outhere.

I don't know, but maybe, just maybe, people liked the non medival france, chaos vikings, XV century germany and totaly not drow armies, and the fluff those had. Even if they were not original, it was stuff that people seemed to like.or at least it was making people play WFB. It seemed to work even when rules were realy bad and editions were realy bad. And all those people and all the potential new seem to not like the idea of space marine of fantasy and space ghost lizardman. The old stuff, which was not very original, had something that was good. What was it I do not know. But I do know that the new stuff is cringy as hell. At best people laugh at how stupid the new fluff is, while talk about old WFB stuff was interesting. I got to know more about female clothing and females durning wars in XII-XVII century by talking to people about WFB, then I learned at school. It even made me look for such stuff on my own, just because it sparked my interest. The eternals don't spark a thing, and they are technicly made out of sparks.

Makumba wrote:

Also controlled environment and playing only with friends and family prevents facing things like 10 thirsters. If I do not like something in the rules I change them, simples.

All of my opponents are friends or family. I have yet to see someone play a non as good as it gets list or allow the changing of rules for a specific army. Changing general rules, that work against everyone, that happens for all system. But unnerfing or nerfing of models or rules for one model? That never happens. It would be stupid too, as it would be like changing how a bishop moves, just because someone doesn't like its rules.

When you played WFB, painted the models and got into it did your immersion ended by just following the GW official stories? I really hope not. So why is it any different now? Your immersion your own imaginary is what this is all about not the extremely limited content one company puts outhere.

I don't know, but maybe, just maybe, people liked the non medival france, chaos vikings, XV century germany and totaly not drow armies, and the fluff those had. Even if they were not original, it was stuff that people seemed to like.or at least it was making people play WFB. It seemed to work even when rules were realy bad and editions were realy bad. And all those people and all the potential new seem to not like the idea of space marine of fantasy and space ghost lizardman. The old stuff, which was not very original, had something that was good. What was it I do not know. But I do know that the new stuff is cringy as hell. At best people laugh at how stupid the new fluff is, while talk about old WFB stuff was interesting. I got to know more about female clothing and females durning wars in XII-XVII century by talking to people about WFB, then I learned at school. It even made me look for such stuff on my own, just because it sparked my interest. The eternals don't spark a thing, and they are technicly made out of sparks.

If we as a group for example prefer to measure from base to base rather from tip of spear to tip of sword then its our prerogative to change what we see fit... afterall its our enjoyment. I also have NO reservations if someone comes up with mixed rules... I actually think AoS would be a nice chance to introduce RPG and campaign elements.

As for your second point I must add that everyone has different preferences, I loved most of WFB settings and can bring most of them to AoS... but someone at GW decided to nuke it all... you can either move away from the radiation or wait a bit and see what is beneath the ashes

Makumba wrote:

Also controlled environment and playing only with friends and family prevents facing things like 10 thirsters. If I do not like something in the rules I change them, simples.

All of my opponents are friends or family. I have yet to see someone play a non as good as it gets list or allow the changing of rules for a specific army. Changing general rules, that work against everyone, that happens for all system. But unnerfing or nerfing of models or rules for one model? That never happens. It would be stupid too, as it would be like changing how a bishop moves, just because someone doesn't like its rules.
.

with respect, only playing 'best' lists, and never anything else, and never changing rules says more about your group than it does with the concept behind it.

I play in a 'closed group' as well with 3 good friends, and occasionally, two other friends join us. And we happily change things up between games, and often for no more reason than 'wouldnt it be fun to try....', or 'i have a really cool idea for a game in mind. lets do this...'

saying it 'never happens' is categorically false - as i said it, we do it, and its a lot more common than you realise. it may not happen for you, but there are plenty groups out there that bend, break, change or ignore various rules if they don't like them. and its certainly not 'stupid' either. ultimately, our enjoyment as a group is the number one aim, and frankly, changing broken, and unfair rules and abilities is in everyones interests.

Exalted, Makumba.

Deadnight wrote:
it may not happen for you, but there are plenty groups out there that bend, break, change or ignore various rules if they don't like them. and its certainly not 'stupid' either. ultimately, our enjoyment as a group is the number one aim, and frankly, changing broken, and unfair rules and abilities is in everyones interests.

I should say you get plenty of practise with GW around.

saying it 'never happens' is categorically false - as i said it, we do it, and its a lot more common than you realise. it may not happen for you, but there are plenty groups out there that bend, break, change or ignore various rules if they don't like them. and its certainly not 'stupid' either. ultimately, our enjoyment as a group is the number one aim, and frankly, changing broken, and unfair rules and abilities is in everyones interests.

No I know it doesn't happen, because for it to happen, you would have to play 2-3 people with huge collections bigger then a normal sized army over and over again. Only then changing unit stats, or telling someone you don't want to play vs this or that army works. But I do agree with you that when 700$+ are spent people want to enjoy the stuff. So they go buy the stuff that is the most efficient, otherwise they would be wasting money twice. First time when they buy bad stuff and get no joy from it, and second time when they buy the good army, but their opponent has spent twice as much on good stuff or moved to a different game or system.

If we as a group for example prefer to measure from base to base rather from tip of spear to tip of sword then its our prerogative to change what we see fit... afterall its our enjoyment. I also have NO reservations if someone comes up with mixed rules... I actually think AoS would be a nice chance to introduce RPG and campaign elements.

I did say people may accept general rules changes. The way range is checked or the way scenarios are rolled etc. But if someone comes up and says that their army is slow and has no magic, which makes it unfun to play vs those with it, specialy with the 1 warmachine or monster per 50 wounds rule. No one will support her, unless they play exactly the same army with the same problems.

But I do agree with you that when 700$+ are spent people want to enjoy the stuff. So they go buy the stuff that is the most efficient, otherwise they would be wasting money twice.

That would be starting from the premise that enjoyment is only based on winning and being competitive to the exclusion of all else. Different people enjoy games for different reasons. The majority of players I personally know do fantasy miniature wargaming for the playing with nice figures on nice tables. You don't have to have the most efficient list to have a good time, you don't even need a good list to have a good time. All you need is some figures that you like and some good friends, preferably one of them with a big gaming table and room around it for half a dozen people, a near by off license and take away shop goes down well as well

Even those of us who might go for an event at Nottingham aren't going to give a hoot about having some 'efficient list', take our models, go and play some other dudes with painted models on nice tables and just have a day out.

I have yet to find a person who wants to play a game and lose most or every time. The looks don't matter much, the rules are what drives the sells. But I do agree with you that you do not need a good time to spend quality time with good friends. In fact you do not need an army at all. This way you not only save 700$ you may have thrown out on a bad army, but have 700$ to buy something else. And that is like having 1400$.

 NAVARRO wrote:
As for your second point I must add that everyone has different preferences, I loved most of WFB settings and can bring most of them to AoS..

I am calling this bs of the highest order right off the bat.

Where's Ulthuan? Naggaroth? The Empire? The Ruins of Mordheim? Where's Lustria?

Go on. Find them for me.

You can play in the Old World setting with the (abominably bad) rules for AoS, but you can't bring them to AoS.

Vermis wrote:
I should say you get plenty of practise with GW around.

Sadly, it’s almost a requirement for GW games since it is such an open sandbox and so prone to abuse. I know the 40k players here generally play with a co-operative game-building approach – organise a game in advance, and make sure that the armies are compatible, and make good matches rather than risk the too many hard counters that can result from a ‘blind’ match up. My experience amongst the historical playing crowd shows that this attitude is quite prevalent amongst them too.

As for us, we generally play that approach with games like Flames of War and Infinity. Tank only battle? No artillery or aircraft? Yeah, sure, why not? We don’t use points (I actually could not tell you the points cost of anything in that game!), we don’t really follow the games army composition rules, but theme the forces and the mission around interesting goals and objectives, stick with historical organisations (two of my friends are interested in ww2) or throw in unique scenario rules. We did a great ‘inverse escalation’ game recently where the attacker came on full force against a defenders skirmish line. And the skirmish line had to hold out long enough for the defenders reserve to come on board, while the attackers reserves were far more limited and ended up having far further to move to get into position. You wont find it in any rulebook, but it was great fun. Same with Infinity really.

Makumba wrote:
No I know it doesn't happen, because for it to happen, you would have to play 2-3 people with huge collections bigger then a normal sized army over and over again.

Well, firstly there’s your problem. You define your army in terms of a ‘single’ list, and define that as a ‘normal’ army. I play warmachine. The idea of multiple lists with an extra 20pts of sideboards (ADR) is quite common in WMH, and frankly, far from unique in wargames. When I played 40k, I had enough extra stuff for my armies that I could swap stuff out and modify it (because playing the same list over and over againis kinda boring if you ask me).And my collection certainly was far from ‘huge’ – an extra few squads of fire warriors, with some broadsides, crisis suits, pathfinders on top of my regular 1500pt mech-tau list. I think my stuff probably maxed out at 2250-2500pts at most. And I had it bought over the course of a few years so it hardly broke the bank. Regarding playing those two or three people 'over and over again' - is that a bad thing?, it's called 'playing against friends' - I don't see much point is just playing against someone once, do you? Most gaming groups are pretty small to begin with. And frankly, it's better to have a good small group that you can expand slowly than just have bunch of people with conflicting likes, dislikes and interests.


As to you ’knowing’ it doesn’t happen, the fact that we actually do this invalidates your statement. Having more stuff for the sake of variety that you can swap out is quite common. Like I said, it speaks more for your group than the community at large.

Makumba wrote:
Only then changing unit stats, or telling someone you don't want to play vs this or that army works.

Or we brew up our own scenarios.

Makumba wrote:
But I do agree with you that when 700$+ are spent people want to enjoy the stuff. So they go buy the stuff that is the most efficient, otherwise they would be wasting money twice. First time when they buy bad stuff and get no joy from it, and second time when they buy the good army, but their opponent has spent twice as much on good stuff or moved to a different game or system.

Oh?

Im sorry to disappoint you, but I buy stuff because I like it. Optimum efficiency is certainly not my number one priority. A lot of 40k players (or wargamers in general) buy an army because they like the lore or the aesthetics, and its table top performance, or a top place in the meta isn’t really a driving force. If there are imbalances, we build around it. We will make it work. And ours is a far from unique approach. As to ‘enjoying it’, if my group approaches it in the same manner, and if we are happy to talk amongst ourselves to organise an engaging game where one doesn’t auto-hard counter the other, aren’t interested in netdecking each other with power lists, then those issues you speak about cease to matter. You don't need to have two players wielding über power lists and trying to one-up each other to have 'fun'. We’re grown-ups, and reasonably mature (about as mature as any bunch of guys who play toy soldiers can be). Being honest, netdecking my opponent has no interest to me. Any twelve year old kid with half a brain can break 40k with a broken list. That doesn’t make them a great gamer. It’s juvenile and immature. Our responsibilities as gamers come to more than just bring whatever we like to a game in a ‘blind’ match up with the sole aim of seeing your foes driven before you, hearing the lamentation of their women and so on.

Makumba wrote:
I did say people may accept general rules changes. The way range is checked or the way scenarios are rolled etc. But if someone comes up and says that their army is slow and has no magic, which makes it unfun to play vs those with it, specialy with the 1 warmachine or monster per 50 wounds rule. No one will support her, unless they play exactly the same army with the same problems.

Why not? We’d theme the scenario to suit the slower army. To make it fun for their player. Putting them in a defensive position would be the first suggestion. Lack of magic can be worked around. Our approach is to be proactive, and would be to look at what you have, and how it would likely be deployed and fielded within the context of the game world, and work from there to build an interesting and themed scenario that is both interesting and fair to both participants. You don't need to play out of the box.

Makumba wrote:
I have yet to find a person who wants to play a game and lose most or every time. The looks don't matter much, the rules are what drives the sells.

Rules sell to a certain segment –the more hardcore element in our hobby. But looks absolutely do matter. Maybe not for you, which is fine, but plenty people who post here, like Talys and jah will wax lyrically about the smallest little aesthetic greeble that makes them go out and buy a dozen of model/unit x. While their approach often makes no sense to me, I too have bought models that actually have no rules whatsoever (hasslefree minis), or have no interest in playing (chaos aspiring champ, haqqislam/operation ice storm starter) just for the sheer joy of painting wonderful models. In terms of rules, talys plays like we do – theme the scenario and the forces available around the players.

I have yet to find a person who wants to play a game and lose most or every time.

Losing every time does not equate to wanting to lose every time. Equally playing with a 'sub optimal' army does not mean you lose every time. If I'm playing with the minis I like and so is the other guy and we are not in some WAAC environment then either of us can win.

Then of course there is player skill, good players win with 'inferior' armies. The 'best' players will want to play with the sub-optimal armies just for the challenge, if you are good then why play the best armies and have easy wins all the time?

I think it comes down to the fact that sometimes people can't quite see the separation between playing solely to win, and playing with the aim of having fun and hoping to win when having these discussions.

Makumba wrote:

If we as a group for example prefer to measure from base to base rather from tip of spear to tip of sword then its our prerogative to change what we see fit... afterall its our enjoyment. I also have NO reservations if someone comes up with mixed rules... I actually think AoS would be a nice chance to introduce RPG and campaign elements.
I did say people may accept general rules changes. The way range is checked or the way scenarios are rolled etc. But if someone comes up and says that their army is slow and has no magic, which makes it unfun to play vs those with it, specialy with the 1 warmachine or monster per 50 wounds rule. No one will support her, unless they play exactly the same army with the same problems.

If someone wants to play some games without magic I do not see what is the issue there? But unlike you I understand that different groups probably have different preferences.

@Lithlandis Stormcrow you sound a bit stressed and probably confused too. If you cannot find bridges between both then its an issue you should resolve yourself. I do not need or intend to find you anything after all is my immersion not yours. Do your own thing and curse GW for taking away your toys if you prefer I rather continue to have a good time and be inspired with the extra content, but exactly like I did with WFB not all content is a good one so being selective is essential.

 NAVARRO wrote:

Makumba wrote:

If we as a group for example prefer to measure from base to base rather from tip of spear to tip of sword then its our prerogative to change what we see fit... afterall its our enjoyment. I also have NO reservations if someone comes up with mixed rules... I actually think AoS would be a nice chance to introduce RPG and campaign elements.
I did say people may accept general rules changes. The way range is checked or the way scenarios are rolled etc. But if someone comes up and says that their army is slow and has no magic, which makes it unfun to play vs those with it, specialy with the 1 warmachine or monster per 50 wounds rule. No one will support her, unless they play exactly the same army with the same problems.

If someone wants to play some games without magic I do not see what is the issue there? But unlike you I understand that different groups probably have different preferences.

@Lithlandis Stormcrow you sound a bit stressed and probably confused too. If you cannot find bridges between both then its an issue you should resolve yourself. I do not need or intend to find you anything after all is my immersion not yours. Do your own thing and curse GW for taking away your toys if you prefer I rather continue to have a good time and be inspired with the extra content, but exactly like I did with WFB not all content is a good one so being selective is essential.

Spare me the patronizing attitude and answer me, if you can. Don't dodge the bullet. So far all I read is empty air.

Let's all remember to follow RULE #1 here - debate the post, do not insult the poster.

Thanks!

@Lithlandis Stormcrow You are coming across with a weird sense of entitlement like I owe you something... guess what be polite before asking something next time.
If you don't understand the basic concept that other WFB fans can establish links with AOS and enjoy AOS then there is nothing to talk about.

 NAVARRO wrote:
@Lithlandis Stormcrow You are coming across with a weird sense of entitlement like I owe you something... guess what be polite before asking something next time.
If you don't understand the basic concept that other WFB fans can establish links with AOS and enjoy AOS then there is nothing to talk about.

Ah yes, the "Entitlement" defense - and calling someone unpolite too! Right after you acted condescending and patronizing when that same person called you out on your claim of bringing WHFB settings to AoS... which you are now upgrading to calling dumb. So... who isn't being polite? I criticized your reasoning, not you.

And yet, zero reasoning - are you so afraid to back up your words?

Keep dodging away, pretty boy.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
As for your second point I must add that everyone has different preferences, I loved most of WFB settings and can bring most of them to AoS..

I am calling this bs of the highest order right off the bat.

Where's Ulthuan? Naggaroth? The Empire? The Ruins of Mordheim? Where's Lustria?

Go on. Find them for me.

You can play in the Old World setting with the (abominably bad) rules for AoS, but you can't bring them to AoS.

I think that's what he meant (using the AoS rules to play in the Old World setting).

RoperPG wrote:
I think it comes down to the fact that sometimes people can't quite see the separation between playing solely to win, and playing with the aim of having fun and hoping to win when having these discussions.

Are you implying that anyone who wants a modicum of balance or structure in a game falls firmly in the former camp? 'Cos that argument's been done.

(Alternatively, you might be implying that someone in the latter camp hopes to win [who doesn't hope to win?] because they're only pushing random minis around randomly... or because the game doesn't allow much else, and doesn't reward canny playing.)

I think Lithlandis is being too harsh (sorry Lithlandis) but I can understand the frustration. Adapting a game to your own liking can be a good thing, but perhaps not when the game forces you into adapting it, or otherwise pushes you into a narrow type of play. What might be more irritating is when criticism of that route and style is met with veiled, dismissive taunts about joyless powergamers (as if chaotic games with random minis is the only way to have fun, and gamers who like strategy and tactics do it not for fun but for... reasons) or otherwise dodging the issue. I certainly better appreciate anyone who tries to debate or reason things out.

Navarro, I generally agree with Lithlandis, but maybe coming from the other direction. You can use your old Warhammer models in AoS, and fight over locations in the old world, but the plain fact is that the new game isn't intended for the old factions and old world. (There are the legacy warscrolls, but as has been said, the goofy actions you need to perform seem almost tailored to drive you away from the old fluff) You're pushing your minis into a different game, regardless of publisher or manufacturer. With that in mind, is AoS the best, most optimal, automatic choice of game for your old minis? A lot of people didn't think so - they jumped ship to KoW. Were they wrong to choose that game? Were they wrong to try any alternative game? What makes alternate games less viable than AoS, for old-world gaming?

 Vermis wrote:
I think Lithlandis is being too harsh (sorry Lithlandis)

No need to apologize when you're speaking the truth - I am by nature (or upbringing, I guess) a harsh person, and I have very low tolerance levels for unfounded claims, especially when backed by nothing but a dismissive, pretentious atitude.


Automatically Appended Next Post:


Then someone needs to learn how to phrase things better

Rihgu wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

 NAVARRO wrote:
As for your second point I must add that everyone has different preferences, I loved most of WFB settings and can bring most of them to AoS..

I am calling this bs of the highest order right off the bat.

Where's Ulthuan? Naggaroth? The Empire? The Ruins of Mordheim? Where's Lustria?

Go on. Find them for me.

You can play in the Old World setting with the (abominably bad) rules for AoS, but you can't bring them to AoS.

I think that's what he meant (using the AoS rules to play in the Old World setting).

If you are pulling whole cities our countries from WHFB that do not canonically exist within AoS is that not admitting that AoS is not as good as a setting?

 Vermis wrote:

RoperPG wrote:
I think it comes down to the fact that sometimes people can't quite see the separation between playing solely to win, and playing with the aim of having fun and hoping to win when having these discussions.

Are you implying that anyone who wants a modicum of balance or structure in a game falls firmly in the former camp? 'Cos that argument's been done.

(Alternatively, you might be implying that someone in the latter camp hopes to win [who doesn't hope to win?] because they're only pushing random minis around randomly... or because the game doesn't allow much else, and doesn't reward canny playing.)

No, not in the slightest. My experience is you can get highly competitive players in both brackets, but you only get sportsmen in the latter.
The aim should be to have a good game with winning as an added bonus.
Some people want/need balances and checks in place, some people don't.
But highly competitive players tend to require them because part of their enjoyment from the game is knowing that their opponent had - in some measure - as much a chance of winning as they do.
Others enjoy the idea of an uphill struggle, so don't mind being the underdog.
Either way, as long as both players had an enjoyable game, that's the important thing.
People who derive their enjoyment in gaming solely from winning tend to be/become asshats, and that's speaking as someone who very definitely used to be 'that guy'.

AoS definitely does reward canny playing, by the way. I've seen enough of it in games to know that's not a fluke. Perhaps hoping was the wrong word to use?