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.

RoperPG wrote:
Because I spend most of my games informing my opponent's units that they are a PITA or are about to become worm food...

I know what you mean. I am not going to shout 'Waa' when my Orcs charge, but when I read the Fyreslayers' rule, I just thought 'but I do that anyway...'

 Manchu wrote:
This term comes up all the time in roleplaying crowds. It is often defined as when the players are so emotionally involved in "the moment" that they are no longer thinking about the game mechanics.

That sense is probably inapplicable to a miniatures wargame,

Now, this is interesting, because it touches on one of the points of why I like Age of Sigmar - the rules effectively become 'invisible' when you play, focussing instead on the action happening on the table in a way we were never able to achieve with WHFB (a rules debate/query/argument would surface in every battle - we have had precisely none in AoS right from the start). This 'rules invisibility' is, perhaps not coincidentally, something I also look for in RPGs.

Don't get me wrong, I like WHFB and still play it. This is just one reason I like AoS as well

 streetsamurai wrote:
Video games are also viewed as childplay.

That hasn't been the case for some time now. With the mainstreaming of games through Facebook/Mobile/Wii, indie art games, growing evidence that video games aid brain development, and the aging population of gamers, video games won that argument.

Still, I won't be cool with them trying to force me to act like a 6 years old , nor do I want every games to be kid friendly.

I guess you weren't a big Wii fan, huh? Swinging your controller around like a tennis racket. Pantomiming the playing of musical instruments. You ever see a 55 year old try to play Wii Sports? Hilarious.

Or played Skylanders or Disney Infinity, where you combine video games with actual toys? I once walked into a TRU and bought some Pokemon amiibo for my daughters, and the guy behind the cash register thought they were for me! The nerve! The Princess Zelda one was for me.

My wife is obsessed with Just Dance. She forces me to do the Dirty Dancing song with her. I have the manual dexterity of a plank of wood. But I do it and it is fun.

I mean, yeah, you wouldn't want every game to be Wii Sports, but then you don't want every game to be Call of Duty either. There's a variety of experiences out there, some of them requiring you to look very silly indeed to others - and in my experience, those are some of the most popular and most fun.

Maybe wargaming has enough Call of Duties already, and not enough Wii Sports?

Anyways, AOS is such a disaster sale wise that this discussion is rather moot. This thing will either be discontinued or have a complete makeover, in 2 years max.

As a video game fan, I've heard similar things said about Nintendo for the past... uh... 30 years or so. But trust me, Nintendo is giving up hardware and going mobile free-to-play any day now. It is written in the stars. It is fate.

I would like to talk about people referring to these as "roleplaying" rules, because to me they would be just as odd and immersion breaking in a roleplaying game too.

If I had to have a staring contest with a DM to overcome a monster's gaze and recieved a bonus/penalty for winning/losing it would break immersion in the same way.

These are rules that bring the players into the fore, rather than the character/miniatures, and this is why it feels like it breaches the "4th wall" and breaks immersion.

Immersion is one of those words, like gameplay, that means different things to different people. Since it is, by its own definition as one's personal mental involvement, subjective, it can not be quantified in an objective matter. Therefore, something can not objectively be "immersion breaking".

That being said, discussions on immersion breaking do tend to be fruitful anyway because it allows us, through arguing about it, to further refine what we enjoy about games and what we, personally, look for out of them. It seems weird that arguing against someone else's subjective ideas helps you better understand your own, but that's kind of the way these things usually go.

Wouldn't a game with as nearly invisible rules as possible have no special rules that give situational bonuses? I mean the kind of rules in AoS that give you +1 to hit if your archer figure stands within six inches of a special magic rock, or whatever. (Made-up example.)

These things don't derive from a basic reality that people are familiar with but from things the designers wrote to create these bonuses. Consequently, a newcomer to the game wouldn't have any more idea that a red coloured vehicle goes faster if crewed by Orks, than that a green one might, because it's the same colour as the crew.

From this perspective, rules that give more bonuses because of out of game actions like what colour socks the player might be wearing, are even more anti-invisible.

I'm not sure that's a failing per se but it's something to think about when designing a game.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Wouldn't a game with as nearly invisible rules as possible have no special rules that give situational bonuses? I mean the kind of rules in AoS that give you +1 to hit if your archer figure stands within six inches of a special magic rock, or whatever. (Made-up example.)

These things don't derive from a basic reality that people are familiar with but from things the designers wrote to create these bonuses. Consequently, a newcomer to the game wouldn't have any more idea that a red coloured vehicle goes faster if crewed by Orks, than that a green one might, because it's the same colour as the crew.

From this perspective, rules that give more bonuses because of out of game actions like what colour socks the player might be wearing, are even more anti-invisible.

I'm not sure that's a failing per se but it's something to think about when designing a game.

And rules are only as invisible as the players' knowledge of them to begin with. Now, it is obviously easier to learn and memorize a simpler ruleset like AoS and the simpler the ruleset is the less prone the rules are to give rise to a midgame query, but player knowledge has a huge influence on it too.

On another note, I doubt anyone would have any issue whatsoever with thematic rules if they were presented like the Auric Runemaster's Holy Seeker rule. Chances would be it could even provide inspiration and motivation for the customers to portray actions GW wants to see them do without telling to their faces that "This is how you're supposed to play our games".

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Wouldn't a game with as nearly invisible rules as possible have no special rules that give situational bonuses?

There is no need to consider absolutes. There is a broad spectrum possible, with players choosing the game that best fits their needs and wishes. AoS just happens to fit some of mine.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Immersion is one of those words, like gameplay, that means different things to different people. Since it is, by its own definition as one's personal mental involvement, subjective, it can not be quantified in an objective matter. Therefore, something can not objectively be "immersion breaking".

Bottle never said 'objectively'. They're immersion breaking for him and a lot of other people because they're...odd. Why would a night goblin have a staring contest? That's not what I think of when I think of night goblins. A REAL night goblin leader would intimidate the enemy by chugging as much beer as possible, follow it with some questionable mushrooms, and then throw half a dozen buddies at them while he hides under the table.

If you think about the 'charades' rules as 'roleplaying' rules, it invites a new comparison - they're a problem because they're the GM telling you how to roleplay, which is a big no-no in roleplaying circles. Now, a certain amount of that should be expected, and even encouraged. Your D&D paladin shouldn't walk around beheading toddlers because NO DON'T DO THAT, just as your orc warboss shouldn't hide at the back of the army with a bow because then he's a weedy arrer boy and only weedy arrer boys would follow him. Those are already provided for in the rules, though. Your paladin would lose his magic paladin powers and would probably be arrested or killed. Your orc can't even take ranged weapons.

The 'charades' rules are the equivalent of that one GM who thinks he's funny. He insists that your paladin has to use the words 'thee', 'prithee', and 'thou' as much as possible, winks broadly at you while using a random grail as a quest hook, and not-so-subtly hints that you might not be the target of the beholder's next gaze attack if you get up and get him some more snacks. Like MWH said, that can be fun in the right atmosphere - Paranoia looks awesome. Age of Sigmar, though, doesn't look like it's willing to commit to said atmosphere; the rules are hardly universal and are tacked on to specific models or formations instead of being part of the core; it becomes this odd outlier thing instead of part of the game's flavor. That's one of GW's biggest problems. They're never willing to commit to a specific direction.

MongooseMatt wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Wouldn't a game with as nearly invisible rules as possible have no special rules that give situational bonuses?

There is no need to consider absolutes. There is a broad spectrum possible, with players choosing the game that best fits their needs and wishes. AoS just happens to fit some of mine.

A spectrum goes from one absolute to the other.

I think if they left wfb and did aos as a add on it would of been recivied better. They use the same models so why not? All the 8th books are still in the app store, and the rule book. So they could just went all digital cost them nothing and keep all fans happy.

 Spinner wrote:
They're immersion breaking for him and a lot of other people because they're...odd.

I'll admit that the rules can be offputting, but I don't know that describing them as "immersion breaking" is actually all that helpful. Are they more or less immersion breaking than unpainted models or proxy units? Are they more of less immersion breaking than an opponent with nervous ticks? Are they more or less immersion breaking than playing on a table with a Magic tournament happening five feet away, with announcements coming over the loud speaker? Or having your leg fall asleep from sitting on it for too long? Or having a 12 year old kid asking questions about the game every thirty seconds while you play? Or the girl in the yoga pants? Or the fire alarm going off at the store across the street? Or an opponent who won't stop quoting the Simpsons? Or that strange funky smell wafting from somewhere over there? Or having to play in a hushed whisper so you don't wake the baby? Or flipping through a rulebook and reading six paragraphs only to discover that the rulebook doesn't explicitly cover the current circumstance?

I just don't think immersion breaking is a legitimate complaint because it seems to me, having to talk to your models would probably be the least immersion breaking part of your game.

Why would a night goblin have a staring contest? That's not what I think of when I think of night goblins. A REAL night goblin leader would intimidate the enemy by chugging as much beer as possible, follow it with some questionable mushrooms, and then throw half a dozen buddies at them while he hides under the table.

That right there is a Vorthos comment, if I've ever seen one. If you aren't already aware, Vorthos is one of the aesthetic profiles known to the Magic community, who appreciates "flavor and creative consistency". Maybe there, one could hang an argument, but even then I'm not sure that one person's creative inconsistency qualifies as a complaint worthy of GW needing to change their direction.

Age of Sigmar, though, doesn't look like it's willing to commit to said atmosphere; the rules are hardly universal and are tacked on to specific models or formations instead of being part of the core; it becomes this odd outlier thing instead of part of the game's flavor. That's one of GW's biggest problems. They're never willing to commit to a specific direction.

First, isn't the entire argument here about GW committing to a specific direction that people don't like? Second, the silly rules would become overwhelming rather quickly if every single model had that behavior for every single action. If I'm not mistaken, most factions only have one or two silly rules, usually for specific heroes or leaders, and that the rules tend to themed somewhat appropriately to that situation.

For instance, the staring contest rule is for a Goblin formation featuring a specific hero. The rule itself comes with flavor text:

"Hooded Villain: A Great Moonclan’s Warboss is a mean-spirited villain whose beady red eyes stare malevolently from beneath his hood before he launches his attack. You can re-roll any hit dice when this Warboss attacks, but only if you are either wearing a hood or you can beat your opponent in a staring contest before rolling the dice ( first one to blink or look away loses)."

So this rule is there for a generic hero Night Goblin Warboss, which is made into a more specific hero through the formation, with the act of wearing a hood or winning a staring contest being thematically appropriate to a character with beady red eyes staring malevolently from beneath his hood before he attacks. One might even say that it is flavor and creative consistency. It's a bit like roleplaying the general of your army, but it isn't exactly roleplaying. It's more like guidelines...

I get the feeling that a lot of people are missing the flavor by focusing on what the silly rules make them do, rather than what they are meant to represent in context.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
They're immersion breaking for him and a lot of other people because they're...odd.

I'll admit that the rules can be offputting, but I don't know that describing them as "immersion breaking" is actually all that helpful. Are they more or less immersion breaking than unpainted models or proxy units? Are they more of less immersion breaking than an opponent with nervous ticks? Are they more or less immersion breaking than playing on a table with a Magic tournament happening five feet away, with announcements coming over the loud speaker? Or having your leg fall asleep from sitting on it for too long? Or having a 12 year old kid asking questions about the game every thirty seconds while you play? Or the girl in the yoga pants? Or the fire alarm going off at the store across the street? Or an opponent who won't stop quoting the Simpsons? Or that strange funky smell wafting from somewhere over there? Or having to play in a hushed whisper so you don't wake the baby? Or flipping through a rulebook and reading six paragraphs only to discover that the rulebook doesn't explicitly cover the current circumstance?

I just don't think immersion breaking is a legitimate complaint because it seems to me, having to talk to your models would probably be the least immersion breaking part of your game.

Who cares which is more immersion-breaking? They're all immersion-breaking. We complain about those other things; why is it a problem to complain about the goofy rules? Actually, having them as an official part of the rules makes it more of a problem. They should foster a sense of immersion, especially in a game supposedly based on spectacle and narrative. All those other things are unrelated or side-effects, except for the rulebook not covering a certain situation.

And we all know how well THAT goes over.

 Sqorgar wrote:
That right there is a Vorthos comment, if I've ever seen one. If you aren't already aware, Vorthos is one of the aesthetic profiles known to the Magic community, who appreciates "flavor and creative consistency". Maybe there, one could hang an argument, but even then I'm not sure that one person's creative inconsistency qualifies as a complaint worthy of GW needing to change their direction.

Hm. They've updated their profile since my Magic days. Yeah, I'd say I'm a bit of a Vorthos - but isn't Vorthos/Timmy the exact kind of player GW wants with this game? I'd say you should be able to do more than 'hang an argument' on it; if the Vorthos people have a problem...

First, isn't the entire argument here about GW committing to a specific direction that people don't like?

No. It's not. Do Stormcast players need to raise their hand high and shout "For Sigmar!" before rolling an attack if they want to use all their rules? Why shouldn't people using a Slann adopt a meditative pose on their chair for a neat bonus? Do Skaven players get rerolls if they repeat words in conversation? No? Then how come orc players have to shout 'Waaagh!' if they want the bonus from a particular model? Why does someone playing dwarfs need a beard to get their rules - and what's with all the trash-talking rules? They're not evenly spread and they're not particularly evocative. Sure. Let's look at the staring contest flavor text - I'll grant that it's a fairly decent image. But how does it evoke a night goblin leader? That could be a skaven. That could be a beastman. All of them wear hoods, stare malevolently, and can probably be described as 'mean-spirited'. Where's the night-goblin-ness? Marius Leitdorf was a charismatic, heroic leader who also happened to be insane - which caused no end of trouble, but when he sacrificed himself to defend the Empire, Karl Franz publicly praised him. How do you evoke that by pretending to ride an invisible horse?

They make you do goofy things - which I've always had a problem with, 'forced' goofiness really isn't all that fun - they're applied in something of a slapdash manner, with some factions having none and others several (do you not see how that creates a clash in tone?) and they don't really represent their chosen units all that well. They really aren't a good idea, not for the game in its current form.

I suspect "immersion breaking" is being used a bit uncritically here and may just stand for not liking something. KK makes solid points as to why AoS is far from "invisible" in a mechanical sense even despite it caring less about rules precision than, say, WM/H.

 Manchu wrote:
I suspect "immersion breaking" is being used a bit uncritically here and may just stand for not liking something. KK makes solid points as to why AoS is far from "invisible" in a mechanical sense even despite it caring less about rules precision than, say, WM/H.

How so? I mean, I don't like them, but I also feel they're immersion breaking (which is one of the reasons I don't like them ) I mean, I've called Waaagh!'s in the past (not too loudly, it was a goblin warboss), I've laughed when animosity made the ladz do something absolutely ridiculous, I took regular goblins back in 7th edition because it felt right, dammit; I get invested in the army and playing it like it's represented in the background, is what I mean. But when the rules tell me that I can get a nice shiny bonus to my dice roll if I yell "Waaagh!", it feels game-y and reminds me that it's not greenskins fighting dwarfs down there; it's my little plastic men vs. the other guy's little plastic men, and the outcome is determined by how many dots show up on the little plastic cubes we're rolling. It's not yelling 'Waaagh!' because it's fun and you feel like it and everyone involved will get a good laugh out of it, it's yelling 'Waaagh!' because that way you might roll a little better, and who cares if it's not really the right time to do it, both socially and on the tabletop?

Which ties into KK's post a little, I suppose, but I think it also helps explain the way I feel about said rules a little more.

 Spinner wrote:

Hm. They've updated their profile since my Magic days. Yeah, I'd say I'm a bit of a Vorthos - but isn't Vorthos/Timmy the exact kind of player GW wants with this game? I'd say you should be able to do more than 'hang an argument' on it; if the Vorthos people have a problem...

I don't think this is a Vorthos argument though. The silly rules are thematically consistent and dripping with flavor. If anything, it is mechanically inconsistent (which I guess is a Melvin argument).

No. It's not. Do Stormcast players need to raise their hand high and shout "For Sigmar!" before rolling an attack if they want to use all their rules? Why shouldn't people using a Slann adopt a meditative pose on their chair for a neat bonus? Do Skaven players get rerolls if they repeat words in conversation? No? Then how come orc players have to shout 'Waaagh!' if they want the bonus from a particular model? Why does someone playing dwarfs need a beard to get their rules - and what's with all the trash-talking rules?

Are you arguing that the silly rules are racist?

Let's look at the staring contest flavor text - I'll grant that it's a fairly decent image. But how does it evoke a night goblin leader? That could be a skaven. That could be a beastman. All of them wear hoods, stare malevolently, and can probably be described as 'mean-spirited'. Where's the night-goblin-ness?

It doesn't describe every night goblin leader, it describes THAT night goblin leader. When you choose that formation, your previously generic leader now takes on a unique persona. The formation only has two rules, one of which is the hooded stare rule and the other is a minor bonus (+1 bravery, extra attack on 6+ to hit rolls). It's a very specific formation that, honestly, only takes on an appeal if you want those silly rules. The heroes having weird rules, that's one thing. But formations with weird rules are the very definition of optional. Just don't pick those. But don't hold it against the other players who do.

Marius Leitdorf was a charismatic, heroic leader who also happened to be insane - which caused no end of trouble, but when he sacrificed himself to defend the Empire, Karl Franz publicly praised him. How do you evoke that by pretending to ride an invisible horse?

According to the Warhammer wiki, "he often relied upon the advice of his favourite warhorse Daisy Kurt Von Helboring II as much as his own advisors.", so it seems to me that pretending to ride an imaginary horse, and talk to it, seems to fit pretty well in the whole "crazy dude who talked to his horse" theme. Honestly, I think that rule captures the theme of his insanity in a way that his stat block and being able to reroll hits never could.

I think the silly rules give personality to models that their technical abilities just can't convey. I think a hooded warboss that stares at you with his beady eyes is cool. I think an insane hero who talks to his horse is cool. I think that a dwarf that yells insults at other models, weakening their morale is cool. And while that stuff exists in the extended lore, it doesn't exist mechanically in the game - usually. These silly rules do that. They make units that I want to pick for reasons other than their stats or combat effectiveness. They make units that I would look forward to playing just because of how it would change the game experience. They give individual models character, they give the game character. It's not about minmaxing stat blocks and positioning anymore.

They make you do goofy things - which I've always had a problem with, 'forced' goofiness really isn't all that fun - they're applied in something of a slapdash manner, with some factions having none and others several (do you not see how that creates a clash in tone?) and they don't really represent their chosen units all that well. They really aren't a good idea, not for the game in its current form.

But they don't force you to do anything. If you don't want to use those rules, there are many, many units and formations out there that don't have them. Because there's no points in AoS, the value of a unit is largely based on how much you like or dislike it. So if you don't like the silly rules, pick the other models. Like the Dwarf yelling thing - there are three heroes in the Magmadroth box, you get to pick two of them. There's only one that has silly rules. Use the other two. Problem solved. You get to have your Magmadroth and eat it too.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
Video games are also viewed as childplay.

That hasn't been the case for some time now. With the mainstreaming of games through Facebook/Mobile/Wii, indie art games, growing evidence that video games aid brain development, and the aging population of gamers, video games won that argument.

Still, I won't be cool with them trying to force me to act like a 6 years old , nor do I want every games to be kid friendly.

I guess you weren't a big Wii fan, huh? Swinging your controller around like a tennis racket. Pantomiming the playing of musical instruments. You ever see a 55 year old try to play Wii Sports? Hilarious.

Or played Skylanders or Disney Infinity, where you combine video games with actual toys? I once walked into a TRU and bought some Pokemon amiibo for my daughters, and the guy behind the cash register thought they were for me! The nerve! The Princess Zelda one was for me.

My wife is obsessed with Just Dance. She forces me to do the Dirty Dancing song with her. I have the manual dexterity of a plank of wood. But I do it and it is fun.

I mean, yeah, you wouldn't want every game to be Wii Sports, but then you don't want every game to be Call of Duty either. There's a variety of experiences out there, some of them requiring you to look very silly indeed to others - and in my experience, those are some of the most popular and most fun.

Maybe wargaming has enough Call of Duties already, and not enough Wii Sports?

Anyways, AOS is such a disaster sale wise that this discussion is rather moot. This thing will either be discontinued or have a complete makeover, in 2 years max.

As a video game fan, I've heard similar things said about Nintendo for the past... uh... 30 years or so. But trust me, Nintendo is giving up hardware and going mobile free-to-play any day now. It is written in the stars. It is fate.

This pleases me.
To OP I think table top games naturally span the forth wall anyway. There strong mix of hard mechanics with Rp just works that way for me.
I also feel the statement of ignore is fine, my gameing group has ignored different aspects of the rules for years to tailor game play, i do it in video games to, its the best way to get what you want from it, its kinda obvious how unrealistic it is to expect a product to cover every whim

 Spinner wrote:
reminds me that it's not greenskins fighting dwarfs down there; it's my little plastic men vs. the other guy's little plastic men

I would think that using a measuring tape and rolling dice would be no more or less "immersion breaking" in exactly the sense you describe than one of these gauche AoS funtime rules.

 Manchu wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
reminds me that it's not greenskins fighting dwarfs down there; it's my little plastic men vs. the other guy's little plastic men

I would think that using a measuring tape and rolling dice would be no more or less "immersion breaking" in exactly the sense you describe than one of these gauche AoS funtime rules.

For me, not at all. If immersion is akin to having your nose buried deep in a book, then the dice and templates are the punctuation, paragraphs, hell, even the words of that book. If immersion is a dazzling piece of artwork the dice are the brushstrokes that created it. Every time the dice settle a story unfolds across my mind, how deadly was my Banshee's scream?, how far did my Hexwraiths charge?. As spinner said, these joke rules force me to look up from the table, to take a step back from the battle, and just like looking up from a book, it breaks the spell.

 Bottle wrote:
As spinner said, these joke rules force me to look up from the table, to take a step back from the battle, and just like looking up from a book, it breaks the spell.

It doesn't sound like you're talking about immersion. More like, there is this one aspect of the game that just rankles while you like the rest.

One minute I feel immersed in game and the narrative unfolding, like I could be with a good movie and forget I'm in the cinema, or like I could be with a good book and forget I'm on the train, and then the spell breaks - the immersion is gone.

It rankles me because it breaks my immersion.

What exactly is it that you are forgetting up until you have to use X type of rule rather than Y or Z types of rules?

 Manchu wrote:
What exactly is it that you are forgetting up until you have to use X type of rule rather than Y or Z types of rules?

I'm forgetting that we're just pushing little figurines around on a table, because up until these rules broke my immersion I was convinced there was a battle of epic proportions being played out in front of me.

A lot of people hate unpainted figures.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Spinner wrote:

Hm. They've updated their profile since my Magic days. Yeah, I'd say I'm a bit of a Vorthos - but isn't Vorthos/Timmy the exact kind of player GW wants with this game? I'd say you should be able to do more than 'hang an argument' on it; if the Vorthos people have a problem...

I don't think this is a Vorthos argument though. The silly rules are thematically consistent and dripping with flavor. If anything, it is mechanically inconsistent (which I guess is a Melvin argument).

Didn't you just say that it was a Vorthos argument? Like, in the post before that? I dunno, maybe I'm reading it wrong.

Then again, only a Sith deals in absolutes The M:tG player 'types' are almost always intermingled.

Are you arguing that the silly rules are racist?

...no? I'm arguing that they're haphazardly applied, like I said in the rest of my post. It creates a clash in tone and feels like the design team is at odds with itself. Kinda hard to get immersed in the tragic narrative of the hero slowly losing himself as he fights to reclaim the shattered remnants of a civilization while your opponent is making not-so-veiled references about your immediate personal ancestry because he wants the bonus for Wulfrik the Wanderer.

Meanwhile, the guy running Settra at the table next to you dropped his dice on the floor and is trying to reach down to get them without kneeling...

It doesn't describe every night goblin leader, it describes THAT night goblin leader. When you choose that formation, your previously generic leader now takes on a unique persona. The formation only has two rules, one of which is the hooded stare rule and the other is a minor bonus (+1 bravery, extra attack on 6+ to hit rolls). It's a very specific formation that, honestly, only takes on an appeal if you want those silly rules. The heroes having weird rules, that's one thing. But formations with weird rules are the very definition of optional. Just don't pick those. But don't hold it against the other players who do.

It's supposed to be a generic night goblin warboss, though. The flavor text presents it in a generic light, you take a generic boss, there's no name for him, it's clearly not a special character. 'Moonclan' is the new keyword for night goblins, isn't it? Sure, maybe you don't like the goofy rules, so you don't take the formation. And you don't like insulting your opponent pointlessly, so you don't use a couple of other models. Most of the special characters are out...Longbeards are out...Orcs with drums...at this point, you're either leaving out models that it would make sense to include in your army (or that you liked in WHFB and already have!) or you're ignoring half of the already minimalistic rules in the game. Which, okay, no one seems to have a problem with...but I've never seen it as a point in AoS' favor, especially in comparison with other games with larger, tighter rulesets.

 Manchu wrote:

 Spinner wrote:
reminds me that it's not greenskins fighting dwarfs down there; it's my little plastic men vs. the other guy's little plastic men

I would think that using a measuring tape and rolling dice would be no more or less "immersion breaking" in exactly the sense you describe than one of these gauche AoS funtime rules.

Bottle got it. It's a tabletop miniatures game; dice and tape measures are ways for me to interact with the models on the tabletop in front of me, and help me visualize the 'battle' in front of me. Penalizing me for kneeling isn't and doesn't, respectively.

You know what really breaks my fourth wall? Sound. Any sounds at all while I'm gaming.

The muffled talking of random passerby. My opponent breathing. The rustling of their grubby fingers as they push their pathetic tin can clad excuses for duardin around the table. (+1 battleshock)

Heck, even the slight creaking of the faded linoleum under my sneakers breaks me from the intoxicating illusion that I am a god-smiting duardin paragon of war, true son of father Grimnir tasked with the recollection of his holy remains from the undeserving hands of mortal plebs, and am really Kyle, keeper of the quality, enter-er of data.

Heaven forbid, Games Workshop seriously encourage anyone I'm playing with to actually talk! I think this may be the straw that broke the magmadroths back.

Yup, that sounds like a serious problem that deserves to be addressed. I'd suggest some good quality earplugs. You can have your opponent write down their orders on a little notepad and hold them up to you so you know what's going on. Even better, you can get some noise-canceling headphones and a good battle soundtrack, or maybe just an inspiring speech from Tom Kirby?

Hope that helps!

 Kilkrazy wrote:
A lot of people hate unpainted figures.

They shatter immersion! Unpainted miniatures break the fourth (fifth?) wall.

Unpainted miniatures are fine for me, especially in comparison to these rules we're meant to be discussing (although if the mods have given up on making worthwhile contributions to a thread, what hope does it have?)

 Bottle wrote:
making worthwhile contributions to a thread

I am not sure if it possible to have a worthwhile conversation about "immersion" as you are using the term because it seems to be nothing more than a matter of personal preference. For one player, the type of rule in question "breaks immersion" while unpainted miniatures do not. For another, it is the reverse. There does not seem to be any wider relevance.

Let's just use this example:

 Spinner wrote:
It's a tabletop miniatures game; dice and tape measures are ways for me to interact with the models on the tabletop in front of me, and help me visualize the 'battle' in front of me. Penalizing me for kneeling isn't and doesn't, respectively.

The rules of the game are no less a means of interacting with the models than dice and a tape measure. Not that the issue is even rules, generally speaking. What we have here is a complaint about a specific type of rules. Spinner is making a distinction that does not amount to a difference. In effect, he does not mind most of the rules. But these rules are a problem for him. No one can meaningfully gainsay what Spinner does and does not enjoy but by the same token what he does and doesn't enjoy tells us about him rather than the things he does or doesn't like.

 Manchu wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
making worthwhile contributions to a thread

I am not sure if it possible to have a worthwhile conversation about "immersion" as you are using the term because it seems to be nothing more than a matter of personal preference. For one player, the type of rule in question "breaks immersion" while unpainted miniatures do not. For another, it is the reverse. There does not seem to be any wider relevance.

Let's just use this example:

 Spinner wrote:
It's a tabletop miniatures game; dice and tape measures are ways for me to interact with the models on the tabletop in front of me, and help me visualize the 'battle' in front of me. Penalizing me for kneeling isn't and doesn't, respectively.

The rules of the game are no less a means of interacting with the models than dice and a tape measure. Not that the issue is even rules, generally speaking. What we have here is a complaint about a specific type of rules. Spinner is making a distinction that does not amount to a difference. In effect, he does not mind most of the rules. But these rules are a problem for him. No one can meaningfully gainsay what Spinner does and does not enjoy but by the same token what he does and doesn't enjoy tells us about him rather than the things he does or doesn't like.

I'm not sure why you think people are misusing the term 'immersion'; how would you define it, as it relates to having a worthwhile conversation about a tabletop wargame? I mean, yeah, you can say 'what breaks immersion for one person doesn't break it for another', but I should think that would be obvious; that's just like saying some people prefer skirmish games as opposed to mass combat, or that some people prefer broadly-written constant battle scenes that you shell out fifty to seventy-five dollars every month or so to keep updated on instead of a rich and detailed setting with a wealth of hidden gems to mine for your own army. People have different tastes, I think we know that by now

And as for what someone does and doesn't enjoy saying more about them than about the thing...not sure I agree with that either. Sure, it tells you about that person. If they tell you why they like or don't like the thing, though...I mean, you can't just say that tells you nothing, unless you don't believe in objective criticism. Or criticism at all, in fact.