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.

Hi,

I was just reading the thread about the new AoS dwarves and I saw some interesting comments about those AoS special rules that ask you to do things like shout Waggh for a bonus, or to insult an enemy model to get rerolls etc. There was some discussion about whether these rules qualified as “breaking the fourth wall” or if they were something else entirely different. I’m interested in discussing the nature of these sorts of rules, why some find them so jarring and disruptive to the game, and whether you’ve ever played with similar rules in other game systems.

What is the Fourth Wall?
The fourth wall is an idea of an imaginary, impermeable wall that separates the audience and whatever world is being portrayed. In traditional theater, the actors are often inside a single room of three walls. There is a literal 4th wall facing the audience. To the fictional characters it’s a real wall, to us it’s a window into the action.

Breaking the Fourth Wall
ANY kind of interaction that crosses that imaginary line is considered breaking the fourth wall.

The type that people are most familiar with is when a fictional character address the audience or makes some kind of meta comment indicating that they are aware of their own fictional universe in some way. It's most common in TV, movies, and most theater, because the flow of information is unidirectional - we can be talked to, but we can't affect the action on screen.

It’s the most common, but not the only way to break the fourth wall

In interactive theater, the audience can respond to the performers and can become part of the play...maybe unwillingly. ;-)
There have also been examples of video games where you can take actions outside of the game (outside of your normal actions as a player) that have an impact within the story of the game itself. E.g. hitting the reset button at a specific time to cause something to happen in-game, changing the system date-time to create an in-game effect etc. Both of these examples are also considered to break the fourth wall.

Age of Sigmar - Enforced Whimsy Rules
These rules in AoS are in kind of a strange area because wargaming is itself a strange area. It’s a bit like a movie, a bit like a video game, a bit like a roleplaying game. But no matter how you think of the rules or the game I think that they definitely do break the fourth wall.

If you think of yourself as separate from the action - like an audience member viewing the battle play out from above - a rule that demands you participate in the game as an actor would be like being forced to participate in unwanted interactive theater.

If you think of yourself as being an actual model on the battlefield leading your troops, any rule that asks you to interact with your opponent as a person playing a game, or to treat the models as models, not armies, is going to break your immersion.

Sometimes even things designed to enhances the “realism” just serve to highlight that this is not real. Like the hobbit in super HD, or games that want you to bounce around and talk to the screen. Telling me to shout how immersed I am is the fastest way to pull me right out of that fictional world.

The Fifth Wall?
Some people have mentioned that the rules feel jarring because they're trying to dictate *how* people play the game by defining the "spirit" of the game and giving tangible bonuses to people who follow it. I think a strong argument could be made that these sorts of rules break the so called "fifth wall" – interaction between the creators/actors and the audience.

Suddenly we have the game designers speaking to us mid-game through the rules and critiquing the way we chose to engage with those rules. It reminds me of the old Ogre Kingdoms where, according to the rules, Ogre butchers could take magic armor because they were allowed to take normal armor (ironfists). In the FAQ the designer said ‘yes you are allowed to take magical armor, but if you do you aren’t playing by the spirit of the rules’. I always found that an incredibly strange and jarring inclusion and it feels like the AoS rules have taken a bit of opinion text and codified them – giving some tangible in-game bonuses if you agree to play the right way.

Maybe one way to think of it is that the rules on their own break the fifth wall, but implementing the rules in-game breaks the fourth wall.

Thoughts?
Do you think the AoS special rules break the 4th or 5th wall? The walls of good taste? Or do they enhance your immersion? Have you encountered any other meta rules in wargaming, and if so, did you find they worked better or worse than the AoS ones?

Cheers,
CoA

Nothing about the rules is forced.

You can use them if you want or ignore them if you want to as well.

That's true of any rule in any game system when playing with mates, of course, Kan - but you're not actually given that latitude in the rules. As written, you need to perform said charades to get the benefit... I think it's reasonable to ignore if folks don't want to, but it doesn't change the fact that it's an interesting rules strategy worth discussing.

Bottle mentioned something in the main thread that I liked:

 Bottle wrote:

You're saying "should" as if it's me at fault for not getting into the spirit of these rules, but in truth I am all about having a fun thematic game and love the non-fourth wall breaking rules (like the Auric Runemaster's ability to spot Ur-gold and how that plays in the game). These rules don't do anything to enhance my experience like a good campaign map or issuing a challenge (from WHFB) might do. In fact they detract from the experience.

That's a neat rule and I'd love to see more like it.

It breaks my immersion with the fluff and the narrative. I get a lot of my immersion from the unit stats themselves, and I think of my models as the representation of their stats and abilities. As I paint or ogle a model, I think this is my Plague Monk, these are his abilities, this is what he's good at, this is what he's bad at. Any models that have the funny rules suddenly aren't part of the lore I have in my head anymore and become empty game pieces.

That said, AoS is the sort of game where it's not a big deal. I can imagine it would be a problem if you care a whole lot about the competitive aspect of gaming and rules as written and all that. I'm for whatever's fun and mutually agreeable.

That's a great description, coldgaming, and I agree that due to the nature of the AoS rules, it's not a big deal and easy to ignore. I just can't fathom why GW's still doing it!

As a poster said in another thread:

 toasteroven wrote:
Really, the problem with the funny rules is that they aren't.

Funny players will always be making jokes while playing, maybe impersonating models, etc... but it's hard to "force" such an interaction to gain an in-game benefit, particularly the same interaction over and over (having to repeatedly insult a unit, or talk to your model, etc). I imagine most groups just ignore the rules but it'd be best if GW would get the picture.

Is it breaking the fourth or fifth wall? Yes, clearly. It requires the players to perform special actions outside the game in relation to other players, in order to create and manipulate factors within the game. This is different to the normal aspects of moving the figures, rolling the dice and so on, or of positioning units for tactical advantage.

Other "meta" rules in wargaming... When I played in a big Battle of Britain game years ago, involving about 160 players, I was a Hurricane pilot stationed at Tangmere. We were instructed that in case of an air raid, we should go into the bomb shelters (hide under the table representing our air field.) We did this and thereby avoided more damage than other air fields whose players did not deign to hide under their tables. However, in this case the players were acting out the roles in the game, which was the point of the game, i.e a kind of live role-playing game.

Another example is playing mind games with players to influence their behaviour, but this is not based on the game rules as such.

I don't know if the AoS "funny" rules are the designers critiquing the way the players use the rules. It's not a work of art, it's a free, basic skirmish game. Why would the designers get all up in themselves about how people are playing the rules?

As we know, a lot of players loathe the "funny" rules, they are obviously aimed at a rather junior audience, so it's an example of the designers completely misreading their public. Of course perhaps it increased the appeal of the game to very young players, and thereby compensated for the older players it just annoyed.

At any rate, you don't have to play them if you don't want.

 RiTides wrote:
That's a great description, coldgaming, and I agree that due to the nature of the AoS rules, it's not a big deal and easy to ignore. I just can't fathom why GW's still doing it!
.

I think they're trying to remind people that it's just a game and you're supposed to have fun with it. But that's exactly what I don't want. My models are in their own world and I love escaping to it. The funny rules make their world seem less real.

coldgaming wrote:

I think they're trying to remind people that it's just a game and you're supposed to have fun with it. But that's exactly what I don't want. My models are in their own world and I love escaping to it. The funny rules make their world seem less real.

I get this - I ain't shouting 'Waa' for anyone.

For the Fyreslayers rule though... frankly I have a tendency to do that anyway during a game

However, when it comes to these rules... you obviously don't have to do it. But here's the thing. People may be tempted to take that bonus without going through the theatrics.

My recommendation? Don't. If you don't want to use the rule, that is cool, but in that case just ignore it.

This is AoS, after all - it really won't matter if you lose that bonus...

But there's the rub, right - now you have to weigh whether you value embarrassment or the reroll, etc more . I would definitely come down on the side of "give them the rules effect regardless, only perform the out-of-game action if you want to."

Otherwise, you're still breaking the immersion by having to decide, almost as much as just doing it - and it seems a bit unfair to just ignore the rules effect completely.

I've never played a fantasy game in my life, but from an outside observer (19 years old) who chanced on them, I would find them annoying and childish -- the beauty of 40K's setting, which I actually have a fair bit of experience of, is its depth and immersion. I have followed a little of the AoS controversy and understand it is regarded as very thin on depth to begin with and horseplay would only increase that.

Certainly, the price of the models doesn't suggest 'a free bit of fun'. I may be seen as po-faced but there you go!

Should be designer's notes rather than actual rules. Saying the person needs to do them to get the benefit is absurd and if taken RAW, that's exactly what they say.

It should say : skullface skullskull is known for etc, etc. If you like, feel free to emulate this with your own body as you perform this action with your model in-game!

Then it would still be super, mind achingly lame, but so easy to ignore that they'd hardly be noticed.

I just ignore them - the only one I have been forced to take part in is the staring contest for the Moonclan Goblin formation.

I don't mind having staring contests with people really, but it did totally break immersion from the game I was trying to play.

I think the WHFB 8th Edition Challenge rule was a perfect example of how these should have been handled - there was a cool fluffy mechanic for champions, heroes and lords being able to issue challenges and a fun little note saying something like "These challenges are best declared with a fitting insult such as...," or something along those lines.

The spoken or acted part should have no effect on the gameplay itself, in fact it should not even be expected to happen but should just be something to spice up reading the rules and get players into the spirit of the game, rather than attempting to force them into it.

I think it's received so badly because they're really insulting lame, and no one ever is going to read text on a page that tells them to perform an action that according to the author is designed to be humorous and walk away from that action thinking it was good humour or even an experience they would want to go through ever again. It breaks the fourth and fifth wall, and also makes people uncomfortable.

You can't think something is funny, or even be funny to others, when you're told to do something because it's funny to gain a benefit in a system that has very little to do with physical movement or acting in the first place. You will simply not see humour in it and consider it ridiculous at worst and annoyingly inconvenient at best.

If you're sitting with a friend and there's a joke book in front of both of you and one of the jokes says "stand up and flap your arms about to everyone in the room, clucking like a chicken" and it's just you and your friend, is either of you going to do it? Or are you just going to think it's so stupid it's almost embarrassing to have even read it and push the book away, while berating it with your friend and loudly wondering who the hell they wrote that "joke" for?

I don't think its poor reception is due to social anxiety. I think it's a lame idea, super lame execution, and will be judged as such by the community until GW stops.

coldgaming wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
That's a great description, coldgaming, and I agree that due to the nature of the AoS rules, it's not a big deal and easy to ignore. I just can't fathom why GW's still doing it!
.

I think they're trying to remind people that it's just a game and you're supposed to have fun with it. But that's exactly what I don't want. My models are in their own world and I love escaping to it. The funny rules make their world seem less real.

We don't take this game too seriously folks!

By the way, that model costs $115

 Accolade wrote:

coldgaming wrote:

 RiTides wrote:
That's a great description, coldgaming, and I agree that due to the nature of the AoS rules, it's not a big deal and easy to ignore. I just can't fathom why GW's still doing it!
.

I think they're trying to remind people that it's just a game and you're supposed to have fun with it. But that's exactly what I don't want. My models are in their own world and I love escaping to it. The funny rules make their world seem less real.

We don't take this game too seriously folks!

By the way, that model costs $115

I don't think AOS is in danger of being taken too seriously.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
they are obviously aimed at a rather junior audience

I wonder. I think it is the audience between junior and, er, senior, that seems to have the most trouble with games involving some tomfoolery. But of course there are deadly SRS gamers of all ages. To my mind, AoS (and 40k FWIW) is a Saturday morning cartoon kind of game so tomfoolery is totally appropriate.

In the inside cover of Dragon Rampant, there is a "spell" that forces your opponent to go get you a drink and snack from the kitchen. The text even clarifies, this is part of the rules after all! Some folks will not get the joke, I guess.

I'm gonna say here what I got banned for saying on a GW store's Facebook page when AoS first was released:

It is hard enough to get people outside the hobby to see what we do as anything more than playing with toys and going 'pewpewpew' as it is. These rules are bad and diminish the hobby as a whole.

But ... we are playing with toys ...

I think this is a non-issue.

I don't know a single person who uses those 'party rules', nor even anyone who argues for their use.

They were a bit of silly fun, the joke fell a little flat, and that's that.

I personally despise those rules and refuse to use them.

 Manchu wrote:
But ... we are playing with toys ...

If people within the hobby want to call it that I have no problem with it, but I can't stand people outside the hobby thinking of it that way. If put a hell of a lot of time into an artistic endeavor I don't want someone who's never put brush to model writing it off as playing with toys.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
But ... we are playing with toys ...

If people within the hobby want to call it that I have no problem with it, but I can't stand people outside the hobby thinking of it that way. If put a hell of a lot of time into an artistic endeavor I don't want someone who's never put brush to model writing it off as playing with toys.

And, to be honest, the more people inside the hobby perpetuate this idea, the worse people outside the hobby will think.

In the topic - those rules are really just a waste of space in my opinion. There are way better ways to design rules that are funny, fluffy and still relevant to the game without having to break any of the walls. I'll give you as an example the "infamous" 6th ed HE's rule "Intrigue at Court" - I really liked it because once in a while it stuck my Scroll Caddy as the General (silly Saphery families vying for political influence on my watch!) and I couldn't help but snicker at the wrench thrown in my game. Or, in case we've all forgotten already - Orc anymosity.

Having fun, laughing, telling jokes, hurling the occasional insult to an opposing unit or character, are byproducts of the game experience itself - something that happens spontaneously if you're enjoying yourself while playing the game. These rules really only make that harder to happen by enforcing things that should come naturally.

It should also be noted that this is yet another thing in AoS going against pickup games.

Let me tell you, as a 12-year old I'd be mortified to prance around, engage in staring contests, or hurl insults at models in front of my peers. Teens don't want to be considered excitable children, they want to act like adults.

Infantile behavior is the last thing this hobby needs, IMO. Self-deprecating statements in the vein of "we play with toys" don't help the image either.

 Manchu wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
they are obviously aimed at a rather junior audience

I wonder. I think it is the audience between junior and, er, senior, that seems to have the most trouble with games involving some tomfoolery. But of course there are deadly SRS gamers of all ages. To my mind, AoS (and 40k FWIW) is a Saturday morning cartoon kind of game so tomfoolery is totally appropriate.

In the inside cover of Dragon Rampant, there is a "spell" that forces your opponent to go get you a drink and snack from the kitchen. The text even clarifies, this is part of the rules after all! Some folks will not get the joke, I guess.

Yes, I agree, but it's exactly that age group that GW's designers fall into, and perhaps they don't understand the other groups.

Basically, GW have forgotten the very important English social rule "The Importance of Not Being Earnest."

I can't find the interview, but the GW authors said something to the effect that these wall breaking special rules were thrown in as a nod to many long time fans. They have not been added to any of the newly released units.

TL: DR; It's a fun send off for the Old World. If you don't like it, don't play with it.

 Kriswall wrote:
I can't find the interview, but the GW authors said something to the effect that these wall breaking special rules were thrown in as a nod to many long time fans. They have not been added to any of the newly released units.

TL: DR; It's a fun send off for the Old World. If you don't like it, don't play with it.

But I thought the point of this thread was that these special rules are in the new releases, at least in the form of this most recent Dwarf stuff (specifically one of the new characters).

The "funny" rules are in a lot of the legacy army war scrolls and there is one in the new Dwarfadin RuneLord war scroll.

IDK about it being a nod to the old WHFB fans because I wan't one. I gave up the game in 2nd edition. However, judging by the reaction on DakkaDakka, it was an ill-judged 'nod' that perhaps revealed why the modern GW is incapable of making games that appeal to their long-term fans.

RiTides wrote:That's true of any rule in any game system when playing with mates, of course, Kan - but you're not actually given that latitude in the rules. As written, you need to perform said charades to get the benefit... I think it's reasonable to ignore if folks don't want to, but it doesn't change the fact that it's an interesting rules strategy worth discussing.

Bottle mentioned something in the main thread that I liked:

 Bottle wrote:

You're saying "should" as if it's me at fault for not getting into the spirit of these rules, but in truth I am all about having a fun thematic game and love the non-fourth wall breaking rules (like the Auric Runemaster's ability to spot Ur-gold and how that plays in the game). These rules don't do anything to enhance my experience like a good campaign map or issuing a challenge (from WHFB) might do. In fact they detract from the experience.

That's a neat rule and I'd love to see more like it.

That's definitely what I was thinking of when I thought it seems like the designers are "critiquing" the way some people are choosing to play the game. Because you gain a bonus for following their style of play and loose it if you play differently.
Even if you reject the rules you still have to read them and make that conscious decision to reject the "right" way of playing.

RiTides wrote:That's a great description, coldgaming, and I agree that due to the nature of the AoS rules, it's not a big deal and easy to ignore. I just can't fathom why GW's still doing it!

As a poster said in another thread:

 toasteroven wrote:
Really, the problem with the funny rules is that they aren't.

Funny players will always be making jokes while playing, maybe impersonating models, etc... but it's hard to "force" such an interaction to gain an in-game benefit, particularly the same interaction over and over (having to repeatedly insult a unit, or talk to your model, etc). I imagine most groups just ignore the rules but it'd be best if GW would get the picture.

Yeah it's definitely a joke... just not sure who it's on.

I know this is tangential to the original post, but I am continually bothered by haters whose answer to these rules is "I just ignore them". Shouldn't the answer - in the case of lulz rules that offer benefits, which is virtually all of them - actually be "I just give my opponent the benefit"? Or is that what you all mean when you say "I just ignore them"?

Because if we're talking about ignoring AOS rules we don't like, I actually really dislike the way blast rules work in the game, especially and in particular the Dracoth insta-mortal breath thing. I would very much like to "just ignore" this rule, as it violates how I feel the mechanic should be carried out in a miniature game, on top of feeling weirdly powerful ... which seems a lot like criticisms of the lulz rules!

AOS tournaments seem to be ruling that a power works on a 4+ and leaving gratuitous sound effects to the players inclined to make them. I'd argue that's rather low, and overly penalizes things like orc drummers giving +2" on a charge, when all the orc player has to do is make some noise, which they were doing anyway. (And then you have other tournaments that specify how some lulz rules translate over others - 4+ to get the medusa's extra powerful eye laser, auto for orc drummers, etc.)

+++

OT, I suppose I agree with the thought that these rules break the Fourth Wall ... unfortunately I don't find wargaming as immersive as others do, so I'm not very walled in in the first place. I'm always aware of the other player's existence, of the strange fortune of the dice, of the tactile experience of moving models around, and all that. Maybe that's why I don't mind the lulz rules: they're game rules like any other, dictating the bounds of how 2+ people can interact in a shared experience, and I have a long history of ingesting and playing by rules.

- Salvage

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
But ... we are playing with toys ...

If people within the hobby want to call it that I have no problem with it, but I can't stand people outside the hobby thinking of it that way. If put a hell of a lot of time into an artistic endeavor I don't want someone who's never put brush to model writing it off as playing with toys.

Who cares what other people think of it? This is something I might have been concerned about as a teenager, but in the adult world I think most people, if not understanding other people's hobbies, respect that they find them valuable.