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.

 jonolikespie wrote:

By that logic no RPG can be bad because a good GM can fix it.

That is not true, RPGs can in fact be bad, and shouldn't NEED a good GM to fix them.

Lets just alter your example a bit. One warrior can slaughter everything within 30' with one attack. The other warrior didn't pick that ability because he didn't realize how good it was. He instead chose an attack that does the same amount of damage the first warrior's does, but only to a single target. This makes him objectively much worse in combat but he is not a thief, he doesn't have anything else different from the first warrior to make up for it.

I never said bad, I was talking balance. I can think of bad RPGs, but bad for reasons other than balance.

So another guy choose the single target attack over AOE attack. Note the word 'chose'. He made a choice to take the single target attack, choice doesn't make any game imbalanced, RPG or wargame. Both had the same choice so it was balanced, no one forces you take the 'uber skill' and not all skills you can choose have to be on the same level of uberness.

Equally, the single target attack is not objectively a worse choice by any means.

Two warriors are wandering through town. Mr AOE and Mrs Focus. The street is busy, but suddenly 2 assassins jump them, people are screaming what so you do.

Mrs Focus attacks, dead assassin, no mess no fuss.
Mr AOE attacks, dead assassin, 25 innocent bystanders and Mrs Focus dead, Oops. Mass murder is illegal, Mr AOE is hanging by morning.

Again, if you come from MMO world with no friendly fire then you will scream that it shouldn't happen. But heh this isn't an MMO, it an RPG and you choose the slaughter everything in 30' skill, which part of everything did you not understand.

puree wrote:
which part of everything did you not understand.

The part where I assumed a fighter wasn't summoning a fireball to kill everyone but taking an individual attack against every person he chooses to within 30'.

Well if we are going to tone down the skill to something more like what you will see in some RPGs then the AOE probably does X damage to so each (or so many) target with so many feet. Where as the single target attack possibly does 2 * X damage to a single target. At which point again there is no clear winner. Each skill has different situations in which it shines. Adapt your adventure to what people have chosen.

If you have a bad GM who can't grasp that RPG is about ensuring everyone, no matter what they play, should be involved and having a good time then it doesn't matter how good the RPG is rule wise.

A GM who does account for who his players are and what they have chosen class/skill wise will ensure that one player doesn't dominate his sessions from that perspective. It isn't hard and it doesn't require some awesome skill. It simply requires that he understands what he should be doing as a basic part of that job. Being a GM in an RPG is hard work.

If you have one player who wants to play the fighter mowing down at east 20 mooks each minute in a combat heavy game and another who wants to play a non-combat detective type character then maybe you have a fundamental problem, and can't keep everyone happy. RPG works when the players/GM are on the same wave length in what they want out the game, and are happy to take a back seat over the next hour and take the lead later on, or everyone is active at any point.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
RPGs don't need a balancing structure because they have a Games Master who provides that function.

Similarly, wargames with a player or team versus an umpire running a hidden enemy, and be balanced by the umpire; this can also be done in versus games. It is not ideal, since players tend to suspect the umpire is manipulating the results to present the narrative he prefers, even if he isn't.

There's no reason you can't use the AoS rules as a kind of very simple RPG or with an umpire. There almost certainly are better rules for doing such a function. AoS is designed for medium to large scale skirmishes between two players. This would tend to indicate that scenario design should be done by one or both of the players involved, if you don't want to just buy the GW scenarios.

I'd say that balancing is quite important in an RPG because no one likes being the useless character, utterly overshadowed by someone else just because he's played the game before and knows the super powerful abilities to take.

RPGs are cooperative not competitive, so there's no reason why the characters in a party all have to have the same level of power. If anything, it's more interesting to have a mix of characters with different abilities.

As far as fighting the enemy monster, or whatever, it's the GM's job to manipulate the situation to make the unfolding story enjoyable for everyone involved.

MongooseMatt wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
That sounds quite interesting. I'd love ton see that kind of thing show up in White Dwarf and have GW themselves talk about how you can make your own warscrolls for other models.

Well, here is a thing. Don't wait for GW to spoon feed you - just do it. This is, at its heart, a creative hobby. Just extend that creativity past the models themselves to the game behind it. Take the leap

I think the point here is not about being "spoonfed" or not (a somewhat unfortunate choice of wording imo, btw) but about, as Herzlos said, the fact that the invitation wasn't necessary to begin with. Add to that the fact that by forcing said "invitation", they have (funnily enough) cut down on the overall variety of the game by removing anything that could even remotely help with balancing the system towards a semblance of a competitive system.

Before AoS we had the possibility of making narrative campaigns and battles and do anything and everything we wanted while having a balancing system was kept for competitive games.
With AoS that (evil, evil!) balancing was scrubbed and the narrative side was fully enforced.

So we went from a game that pleased two kinds of players (regardless of the players that actually enjoy both, like me) to a game that pleases only one type of player.

If White Dwarf had the same quality of articles as Matt's blog posts, it would definitely enrich the hobby as a whole

A "Dungeon Master's Guide" or "General's Compendium" for Age of Sigmar would also be most welcome!

And a comprehensive sourcebook sold in the same format as the new Chaos Warscrolls book (so, twenty quid!)

One can dream

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

I think the point here is not about being "spoonfed" or not (a somewhat unfortunate choice of wording imo, btw) but about, as Herzlos said, the fact that the invitation wasn't necessary to begin with. Add to that the fact that by forcing said "invitation", they have (funnily enough) cut down on the overall variety of the game by removing anything that could even remotely help with balancing the system towards a semblance of a competitive system.

Before AoS we had the possibility of making narrative campaigns and battles and do anything and everything we wanted while having a balancing system was kept for competitive games.
With AoS that (evil, evil!) balancing was scrubbed and the narrative side was fully enforced.

So we went from a game that pleased two kinds of players (regardless of the players that actually enjoy both, like me) to a game that pleases only one type of player.

There's nothing in AoS that "enforces" or even engenders "narrative" play - which is a term that's taken on negative connotations ever since GW started using it to excuse shoddy game design.

There's just... nothing there. And in that vacuum the community is, in a fragmented way, pushing both competitive and narrative frames.

And I have also found it strange that only with the arrival of AoS are players able to make narrative games. If they weren't able/willing to do it with 8th or other games, why should they be trusted to do it now?

Herzlos wrote:

What's so special about the AoS missions that makes it better than a battleline? Can you give me an example of one that adds this super narrative effect?

The Ritual (Random deathclock, see Matt's battle report)
Out of the Mist (attacker tries to locate a fallen hero, terrain plays havoc with LOS & models just disappear)
The Trap (uphill struggle from turn 1)
Spellbreakers (destroy/defend an artifact)
Battle against Time (battlefield crumbles as game progresses)
Kill the Beast (played on two boards, one ground one aerial - slain aerial troops can land on ground troops).

All depends on what you mean by 'super narrative'. That's not the full list, either.

 infinite_array wrote:

If they weren't able/willing to do it with 8th or other games, why should they be trusted to do it now?

Because there's no other choice . Without such scenarios/story unfolding missions the game is boring

 CoreCommander wrote:

 infinite_array wrote:

If they weren't able/willing to do it with 8th or other games, why should they be trusted to do it now?

Because there's no other choice . Without such scenarios/story unfolding missions the game is boring

Thus the enforced bit.

I love enforced freedom!

Eh, to be fair, IMO they didn't intentionally designed a boring game which could become fun only if you play a very special scenario. It just happens that for me (and other people as I see) the vanilla game is very bland and uninspiring. Some folks should be able to enjoy the vanilla experience though so there's no "pressure" applied to them to enjoy the game. For me, AoS is only ok when using scenarios. I don't hold 40k to some higher standard also - nowadays I won't play a game of it without some story and a much more different than the standard missions scenario. A game that is interesting for me, without any form of backstory or vast game breaking rules would be DZC - the mechanics there are interesting enough for me so I don't have to try and squeeze additional fun by naming my tanks. That is another story and topic though...

 CoreCommander wrote:
Eh, to be fair, IMO they didn't intentionally designed a boring game which could become fun only if you play a very special scenario. It just happens that for me (and other people as I see) the vanilla game is very bland and uninspiring. Some folks should be able to enjoy the vanilla experience though so there's no "pressure" applied to them to enjoy the game. For me, AoS is only ok when using scenarios. I don't hold 40k to some higher standard also - nowadays I won't play a game of it without some story and a much more different than the standard missions scenario. A game that is interesting for me, without any form of backstory or vast game breaking rules would be DZC - the mechanics there are interesting enough for me so I don't have to try and squeeze additional fun by naming my tanks. That is another story and topic though...

But if they design and release a boring game that can only be fun when playing special scenarios (and from Roper's comments, it seems those scenarios are all in the $75+ books), the fault is still on their shoulders.

Scenarios can be purchased as micro transactions from the app, they are not particularly expensive :-) (£2.29 each)

 Bottle wrote:
Scenarios can be purchased as micro transactions from the app, they are not particularly expensive :-) (£2.29 each)

How many scenarios are available for purchase at the moment, out of curiosity?

 Bottle wrote:
Scenarios can be purchased as micro transactions from the app, they are not particularly expensive :-) (£2.29 each)

And it's just the scenario?

Because I would say that's relatively expensive compared to say, Frostgrave, where in addition to the 11 scenarios included in the base game, you can get extra scenarios in expansions like:

The Hunt for the Golem
-The Attack Site
-Field Research
-The House of the Golem
(plus a Bestiary for the Golem)

or

Sellwords
-The Stars are Wrong
-With Magnetic Force
-The Pits of Null
(plus the rules for using Captains)

for £2.99 each.

The GW scenarios aren't really necessary. Any objectives make for a good game. Just designate three or five spots on the board as objectives, determine how many models/wounds need to be on them to count as capturing, add up each round. You can add in bonus points for blunt, assassinate and whatnot.

Lots of free scenarios out there too, such as in Clash Comp and now the SCGT2016 pack.

IMO one should not buy the GW scenarios at all (unless he wants to play the realmgate wars campaign). A single scenario, rules wise, takes me about 5 minutes to come up with. It's the narrative part that's more important to me and takes more time to write. For this reason the books are a better deal than the scenarios 'cause they give you a continous story to backup the mission (saving you time to come up with one yourself). The single purchasable scenarios IMO are not worth it at all, even at 2 quid.

puree wrote:
Well if we are going to tone down the skill to something more like what you will see in some RPGs then the AOE probably does X damage to so each (or so many) target with so many feet. Where as the single target attack possibly does 2 * X damage to a single target. At which point again there is no clear winner. Each skill has different situations in which it shines. Adapt your adventure to what people have chosen.

If you have a bad GM who can't grasp that RPG is about ensuring everyone, no matter what they play, should be involved and having a good time then it doesn't matter how good the RPG is rule wise.

A GM who does account for who his players are and what they have chosen class/skill wise will ensure that one player doesn't dominate his sessions from that perspective. It isn't hard and it doesn't require some awesome skill. It simply requires that he understands what he should be doing as a basic part of that job. Being a GM in an RPG is hard work.

If you have one player who wants to play the fighter mowing down at east 20 mooks each minute in a combat heavy game and another who wants to play a non-combat detective type character then maybe you have a fundamental problem, and can't keep everyone happy. RPG works when the players/GM are on the same wave length in what they want out the game, and are happy to take a back seat over the next hour and take the lead later on, or everyone is active at any point.

Exalted.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

I think the point here is not about being "spoonfed" or not (a somewhat unfortunate choice of wording imo, btw) but about, as Herzlos said, the fact that the invitation wasn't necessary to begin with.

You're not wrong, but yet very few people,took that invitation in the first place.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Add to that the fact that by forcing said "invitation", they have (funnily enough) cut down on the overall variety of the game by removing anything that could even remotely help with balancing the system towards a semblance of a competitive system.

And if the point was deliberately not to create a competitive system?

Regarding things that could 'remotely help balancing the system' - it is there, it's just entirely in the hands of the players. If you don't like it, that's fair enough (and I won't necessarily disagree with you) but it is a valid approach nonetheless.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Before AoS we had the possibility of making narrative campaigns and battles and do anything and everything we wanted while having a balancing system was kept for competitive games.

There was the possibility, sure. But then again,There was very little 'reality' coming from all that possibilitt though. Aos really just made it obvious what it was about

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

With AoS that (evil, evil!) balancing was scrubbed and the narrative side was fully enforced.
So we went from a game that pleased two kinds of players (regardless of the players that actually enjoy both, like me) to a game that pleases only one type of player.

Except it didn't really cater to either very well. Wfb wasn't a very good competitive game at all , despite people's pretences about it, and the competitive crowd are often, whilst not necessarily hostile to non-standard ways of playing, not welcoming to it either, so I'd argue neither camp was truly satisfied.

Autumnlotus:
Personally? I don't like the game because they heroes are super generic. My Nurgle lord on a palanquin is just using the generic daemonic steed profile, and my Furies are nearly identical to Harpies. My witch cult is buggered because theyre is no way to differenciate tactics between units, and there is no reason not to have all of my death hags as the special character profile as the latter is strictly superior. It just...seems like there are no tactics that are unique to the different units, besides some being killier while others are tankier.

To be honest though, does it really matter? I play historical games, and there is only so far you can push swordsman, spearman, cavalry, archer and so on. Some are elite, some are mundane. You’re looking at it soley from a competitive POV (ie take the best stuff screw the rest) and while this approach is not necessarily wrong, its not necessarily helpful. The style of play AOS tries to push requires a different perspective.

Would it make sense to take death hags if you Don't care about narrative? Same for chaos warriors: why take a Nurgle sorcerer when Festus is a better profile? Why not take glotkin even? There is no basis for balance at all. It's just like 40k and the last end times book: you have Unbound be an option for players that want to forge the Narrative. Heck, toss the points out entirely and build a scenario ruleset for a moment in the campaign. But that shouldn't be the DEFAULT.

Wel, why don’t you care about the narrative? Often, the narrative is one of the core pillars holding a game up. Why take sorcerer over festus? Because festus cant be everywhere. And because the story you want to bring to life doesn’t involve him. Not every story should involve the one character – there is a reason tom hanks isn’t in every movie for example, and it’s the same here. It gets very samey and stagnant.

Taking what fits within the context of the story is as much of a basis for balance and interesting scenarios as anything else. Often ive found that ‘interesting scenarios’ can be just as appealing regardless of their inherent balance.

RITides:

That sounds like a great scenario, MongooseMatt - but also one that would be best structured by a GM.

Having a GM helps, but its not strictly necessary. We sometimes have one of us GM our games, if there is ‘hidden’ aspects to it. But to be fair, what helps is to bring the attitude of a gm to a game. And there is no reason why the players can’t do this. It’s nothing new, weird, or strange.

I've only just started doing a few RPGs, and the elements you descibe which are similar are really cool. But they necessitate someone setting up said scenario, or the two players mutually agreeing upon it. And whereas with every RPG I've seen nowadays, there is structure given for such a thing, no real structure in AoS exists for it other than "roughly balance forces before a fight / during deployment". I'd love to play some scenario games, having armies act out a scene or part of a larger narrative, but I just don't see the structure to do so.

You seem to be suffering under the illusion that you do need ‘structure’ (aka someone else telling you ‘how’ to play).

You don’t necessarily need it. while direction is nice, it can railroad you. As you say, it involves a bit of mutual effort and co-operation. Neither of these is beyond you. This is not a bad thing. The problem with wanting someone to provide you with structure is you are essentially being the ‘lazy gamer’ and waiting for someone to tell you how to play. ‘Roughly balance forces before a fight and during deployment’ is really all you need at the end of the day. The structure is something you bring to the game – I know it sounds strange and a bit alien from how you’ve probably played wargames in the past, but it allows a lot of creative freedom to build your games in a way that appeals to you.

Everything you've said sounds great, but could be just as well had with any game system really - I don't see anything about AoS that allows me to easily play it that way, other than the fact that they've left everything that could give it structure out.

Absolutely RITides! 100% correct. And I would encourage you to bring this attitude to every other system, along with an appreciation for 'organised play' it's not either/or for me. There is nothing here that is unique to AOS and no reason why you cant do this with any other game. For what its worth, in my group, we often approach all our games in this manner, and that includes games like flames of war, other historicals, infinity, dropzone commander and even firestorm armada.

What is unique however is that this is the only approach that is compatible with AOS. This is both a good and a bad thing. If you have a ‘standard’ way of playing, 99% of people will default to that way, will only play that way, will narrow their perceptions of ‘how’ to play, and will not ‘stretch their legs’ in any manner creatively speaking. And ultimately, while standard ways of playing are well and good, they can get boring and hit their limits awfully fast.

In other words, I think your games, blog, and everything are awesome... but I just don't see how it will translate to other people's gaming tables, who don't live so close to the Warhammer headquarters, and the surrounding areas that play in a similar fashion after seeing it there. Honestly, it's bothered me a little bit how much they are emphasizing their events there - I'm not even on the same continent and have absolutely no chance of participating. If they were running such events at conventions, maybe a few each year in their major market areas (US, UK, EU... and maybe even show Aus some love!) it would be very different. But right now, everything I've seen you participate in that is structured is completely inaccessible to me (or anyone on this side of the pond), and everything that you've come up with on your own seems to have been done completely out of your own initiative. That's awesome... but, it's just not something that is accessible to most of us to participate in.

There is nothing inaccessible here though. I mean, what is it that they're doing that you can't?

All you need to do it is to decide that you are going to do it. And then follow through. Whats wrong with doing something on your own initiative? Be proactive I say! Enable yourself. Empower yourself. Don’t wait for superman to come down and save you; be your own superhero.

you dont need to be told how – its actually inside of you already, and always has been there. You don’t need to live close to GW central to play this way, you just need the desire to do so. You are falling into the trap of feeling that you need someone else to tell you how to play, or hold your hand,give you permission and tell you what to do. When you were a kid, did you ever make up your own games? Course you did – we all did. You just got up and did it. Well, it’s no different here. If you could do it as a kid, you can do it as a grown up.. err, big kid. Matt has basically already lit the path and shown you the way. Just walk it. Use your imagination. Brew your own scenarios. Make your own missions. Write your own stories and scripts, cast the actors and participants as appropriate, and bring them to life on the table top. It helps to take a step back as a participant and take a step forward as a spectator. You will find it will open up your wargames, and all the things you thought were useless and not worth fielding ever now have a route in. You didn’t learn how to play competitive wargames straight off the bat, did you? It was a learning curve. Same here. Try it out. Take baby steps. Learn, explore. Make mistakes. You’ll Get better over time and find that this approach comes more naturally with a bit of experience. The best time of your gaming is often when you are getting to grips with a new system and exploring it. This is no different. It’s not a new game at all in my view, just a new way of playing games.

At least in a RPG, there is structure for the GM to come up with scenarios and the like, and most of the players don't have to worry about much more than their own character. In the case of AoS, I feel like you have to both provide your own structure, narrative, characters, not to mention the normal hobby work of building the army... so again, everything I see you post looks at the same time awesome and completely inaccessible to me.

There might be a structure, and frequently the GMs ignore it or do their own thing becase it doesn’t work, or has broken down. Those scenarios – well, someone wrote them in the first place-they weren’t just found fully formed. Why can’t you be that ‘someone’ who creates his own scenarios? And Very, very few scenarios survive contact with their players. Often, it’s just a GM running off of their own imagination, making it up on the fly and running ‘damage control’ to deal with player characters that aren’t following the script, or are doing things that the scenario didn t cover.

And I have to ask – whats so ‘inaccessible’? Whats wrong with doing things on your own initiative? Be proactive, like I said earlier. All it needs to start is ‘hey, I have a really cool idea Deadnight. Wouldn’t it be awesome if…’ and go from there. Try it.

And I’m serious here. Use me as your ‘opponent’ here. Tell me about a scenario/story and match up for a game that you think would be awesome and that you would like to play/run. Something awesome from a book, comic or movie that you’d love to bring to life on the table top even if the ‘actors’ are different from the source material. If AOS isn’t your cup of tea, use 40k, infinity, warmachine or any other game.

You’d be surprised at how easy and straight forward it can be. As well as enjoyable.

Hope that puts into words why I follow your posts, but why I also just can't see AoS ever doing well broadly unless they help folks to have the experience you're having more easily. I don't know if you or anyone has their ear, but they could be onto something with AoS, but not if they don't help it flourish as it has for you.

I agree here. They’re kinda chucking people into the wilderness and expecting them to survive. Almost like the space wolf recruitment ritual. A ‘how to’ guide, useful tools, suggestions etc would have gone a long way.

Guildsman:

You're talking about AoS like it's a tabletop RPG. Except, they're not very similar at all. RPGs use volumes of rules to add structure to storytelling. AoS has a bare minimum of rules and requires you to engage in elaborate storytelling to gloss over the gaping holes.

Hell, RPGs even have balancing mechanics to ensure that combat encounters are roughly equal. That's more than AoS can say.

Table top RPGs and wargames share a lot of the same DNA, draw on the same creative energy and often the same people play both. I mean, plenty folks create their own characters in wargames, write background for them and bring them to life, and imagine them stomping across the battlefield – its not so different. RPGs don’t always use volumes of rules to add structure to storytelling either– they just use story. RPGs often have huge, gaping holes that the GM has to navigate and avoid. Combat can be a nightmare. Those systems that they use to ‘match’ suitable opponents often break down completely on contact with the players, depending on how they’ve built their characters, and more times than you realise, it’s the GM making a judgement call as to what’s a fair match up, and moulding the game/encounters to suit the players. In other words. It's a lot closer to Aos than you realise.
At the end of the day, both TTGs and RPGs can both be abstract chess that boils down to math, vectors and geometry, or else as immersion based ‘storytelling’ – whether you are playing a heroic knight, or leading your heroic knights on the field of battle, people will play both ways.

Argonak: It certainly doesn't help that the traditional market for this type of wargaming is a competitive hobby, rather than some sort o shared storytelling experience hobby like D&D.

No, it’s not. You’d be surprised in that the style of wargame that is AOS harkens back a lot more to the wargames of the 60s ans 70s than you’d realise. 40k’s first iteration – rogue trader – was a glorified RPG, and used a GM for example. Wargames can be just as much a shared storytelling experience as anything else. The roots for a lot of historical wargames are from an era when there was no central organisation or authority in wargames, and where it was populated by a bunch of misfits and individuals that often had to co-operate and build together to get anything done, and where bringing the old world to life for mutual enjoyment was a goal in itself. Organised play has really only grown into its own beast in the last twenty odd years or so. The fact is that wargames are a shared experience, and they can immerse you in a particular story or event, whether its fantasy, sci fi or historicals.

Jonolikespie: Does AoS have rules for determining a winner at the end?

If yes, it it a competitive experience and not a colaborative one like an RPG.

That’s a very simplistic and shallow view. When the dice start rolling, sure, then it’s time to try to win or lose. But up to that point where you cry ‘havoc’ and let slip the dice of war, wargames can be just as collaborative as an RPG. In fact, the second you communicate with your opponent and agree to (a) play each other, (b), play each other in a specific game and (c) play said game, using a scenario, you are collaborating on creating something.

I'd say that balancing is quite important in an RPG because no one likes being the useless character, utterly overshadowed by someone else just because he's played the game before and knows the super powerful abilities to take.

And that's on the gm. yet so often RPGs are terribly balanced. The thing with RPGs is that the GM is the shock absorber that makes everything work. s/he is the one that creates the world, and determines the encounters and the challenges and a good one will make it so that every character will shine. Essentially, the GM is the crucial central pillar that makes the game work.

Herzlos: I'm not convinced by this idea that if AoS had points, people would always use them or scenarios/balance would be harder to achieve. Unmatched forces have been a thing outside of GW for decades, with or without points.

I don't necessarily disagree herzlos. They have always been people there that will home brew and make non standard match ups, but they’ve always been the minority. Thst said, There are plenty anecdotes out there of people refusing to play anything other than ‘standard’ scenarios, or playing anything other than ‘tourney prep’ games for either of us to dismiss this out of hand. I enjoy the DIY style of gaming, but to be honest, I fell into it by accident as I got to know a few crusty old historical players. These two guys didn’t play any of the ‘go to’ games, didn’t go to any clubs, and just played at home, but got hooked on infinity, thanks to me, and they introduced me to various historicals and the way of playing games (ie collaborative, co-operative, player driven) that AOS promotes. These players quite often are not as visible to the community. I would not have played these games this way if I had not met them – id still solely be playing ITS or steamroller.

If AOS had points, GW would have balanced them poorly, and players would have broken the system. Without points, AOS is at least ‘honest’ in trying to push the games in the direction that those in GW seemingly play. This is not necessarily a bad thing.

Personally, I find it easier to do a narrative game like yours above by saying that 500pts of Witch Elves get ambushed by 1500pts of Skaven, and backed up by 1000pts of Nurgle. That gives you the same thing but without all the back-and-forth.

It’s a nomenclature thing only, if you ask me. You’re just framing it in a different ‘language’. This isn’t all that different to ‘a small band of witch elves get scattered by a larger war host of skaven and their nurgle allies’. I’ve never played flames of war with points. Couldn’t tell you the points cost of anything in that game!

I also reckon you could play exactly the same scenario with WHFB and minimal house ruling. We've managed similar with 40K (or at least, I'd planned it out before I discovered WHW got rid of the hobbit table).

Probably. To be honest though, sometimes house ruling can be the point. Core game mechanics often don’t cover those interesting little things that make it fun, even if it's just 'on a 4+, x happens'. If things don’t work as you wish, ignore them. And id also argue that Its fun to shake things up, and to run games without artillery, without flyers, without ranged weapons or whatever, theme the scenario, put in extra little gubbinz and events not covered by the rulebook, rather than just turn up with 1500pts of ‘whatever you want’ and roll scenario. A lot of thst falls under 'house ruling' to be fair.

Let me ask you this.

If I'm writing all the scenarios, writing rules for warscrolls, coming up with ways to make both casual games and campaign games work, writing background and fluff for my armies and games, or using/writing comp rules to make a balanced game for a more head on tournament style game, why do I need GW at all?

If I'm gonna be doing all the work anyway, why should I give them money? (aside from buying models for my new custom game.)

 pox wrote:
Let me ask you this.

If I'm writing all the scenarios, writing rules for warscrolls, coming up with ways to make both casual games and campaign games work, writing background and fluff for my armies and games, or using/writing comp rules to make a balanced game for a more head on tournament style game, why do I need GW at all?

If I'm gonna be doing all the work anyway, why should I give them money? (aside from buying models for my new custom game.)

You don't?

Give gw money for things that you feel gw is deserving of, (shiny new models, artwork you love, to get into the lore and so on and so forth) and don't bother giving them money for things you don't think are worth it. you don't 'need' them, or anyone else frankly, to make your games work.

Deadnight wrote:

 pox wrote:
Let me ask you this.

If I'm writing all the scenarios, writing rules for warscrolls, coming up with ways to make both casual games and campaign games work, writing background and fluff for my armies and games, or using/writing comp rules to make a balanced game for a more head on tournament style game, why do I need GW at all?

If I'm gonna be doing all the work anyway, why should I give them money? (aside from buying models for my new custom game.)

You don't?

Give gw money for things that you feel gw is deserving of, (shiny new models, artwork you love, to get into the lore and so on and so forth) and don't bother giving them money for things you don't think are worth it. you don't 'need' them, or anyone else frankly, to make your games work.

Well, I do only buy the products I want from them. I just meant that I want more from them in a game then AoS. I have written games before, but the point of a game-bought product is I should be able to buy it and play it against someone I've never met before. AoS itself is great for RPG scenarios and campaigns.not so much for bringing your kit down the the local warhammer store and playing a game.

It would be like if Battle of Calth only had the rules in the box and there was no 40k, and if I wanted more then what was in the boardgame I had to do all the leg work myself.

 pox wrote:

Well, I do only buy the products I want from them. I just meant that I want more from them in a game then AoS. I have written games before, but the point of a game-bought product is I should be able to buy it and play it against someone I've never met before. AoS itself is great for RPG scenarios and campaigns.not so much for bringing your kit down the the local warhammer store and playing a game.

You'll have to show me the memo where it is written down in stone as to what 'the point' of a game-bought product is. You might want a game that is playable against a perfect stranger (and you're not wrong for wanting this), but don't ascribe this to some kind of universal perfect truth.

Plenty things out there are suitable only for one thing and not the other. You don't criticise the makers of rugby balls that you can't really play soccer with them. Do you? Same with Aos. Aos does what it does, if you want something to do something different, then you'll have to get something else thst does that then. Heck, I love infinity, but even with its, I don't rate it as a 'tournament' game. In my mind, it requires a lot of trust and back-and-forth between you and your opponent thst it is better treated in a more casual manner. Warmachine? Now there's the King of tournaments.

And to be fair, why can't you bring it down to the store and play a game? It's not beyond the realm of possibility to find other Aos players. (Ok I jest) but seriously, it's not meant as a pug. So don't treat it as one. You can't make a racehorse out of a donkey, but you can try to make it the best damned donkey in the world. Organise ahead of time. Make friends of your regular opponents. Discuss your games and plan for what you'll do for the next game. And then go down to your local store and play a game.

 pox wrote:

It would be like if Battle of Calth only had the rules in the box and there was no 40k, and if I wanted more then what was in the boardgame I had to do all the leg work myself.

Then do the legwork. It's not rocket surgery.

 jonolikespie wrote:

I'm just pointing out the stupidity of calling it a creative game when there is nothing encouraging creativity, it just lacks restrictions, which is not the same thing.

Does it need to tell you this? I mean, it's a creative hobby - it's kind of the point. It seems rather obvious to me.

Same way, I remember how folks kicked up a storm years ago when gw removed the sportsmanship scores from their tournaments, and replaced it with a 'red card' for being a tool. Everyone wanted to be rewarded for sportsmanship. Well, really? You want to be rewarded for common courtesy and decent behaviour, which are behaviours that you should be displaying anyway?

Same thing here - you shouldn't need 'to be told'.

 jonolikespie wrote:

Nothing in 8th ed was forcing you to play battleline, that was just what the majority of people wanted to play.

Was it what they 'wanted to play' or was it 'all they knew'? And did they have a hostility towards non-standard ways of having fun built in by an over focus on 'the proper way' of playing games?

I don't think it's so black and white personally.

I tried all of that, I even had a thread on here about how to make pickup games work without using comps.

I feel like I need to point out that I was in the "AoS is playable but could use some tweaking" camp, and I also should point out that I'm more or less just looking at the game as a whole, asking why it didn't work. Part of that I feel is that most players just don't want to put in that kind of effort. I think it would help if GW was more transparent on how they play it, I've said since the beginning they need an AoS "Generals Compendium." If there is a "right" way to play it, it should be more clear to make it accessible to newer players.

I've played many wargames and RPGs, so yes, I can "do the legwork." but for someone who is new, they just judge it on its current merits. I don't feel like the current AoS is clear enough on the who, what, where, when, and why.

for further clarification on where I'm coming from, I don't actually play it anymore. There are no more players at my local GW that play it.

 pox wrote:
I tried all of that, I even had a thread on here about how to make pickup games work without using comps.

I feel like I need to point out that I was in the "AoS is playable but could use some tweaking" camp, and I also should point out that I'm more or less just looking at the game as a whole, asking why it didn't work. Part of that I feel is that most players just don't want to put in that kind of effort. I think it would help if GW was more transparent on how they play it, I've said since the beginning they need an AoS "Generals Compendium." If there is a "right" way to play it, it should be more clear to make it accessible to newer players.

I've played many wargames and RPGs, so yes, I can "do the legwork." but for someone who is new, they just judge it on its current merits. I don't feel like the current AoS is clear enough on the who, what, where, when, and why.

for further clarification on where I'm coming from, I don't actually play it anymore. There are no more players at my local GW that play it.

I don't disagree with anything you say here. Thing is, players can be extremely lazy. I think inertia and a lack of a proactive attitude is a big problem in our wee hobby.

I agree though - I think gw should have been up front and honest in how they 'sold' the attitude behind Aos. Using white dwarf as a vehicle to 'sell' the idea. With ideas and suggestions for creating and running scenarios as well as a helpful tips, it would have gone a long way. As is, they chucked everyone into the wilderness and just expected people to 'get it' (double meaning is deliberate) without any survival skills or tools. It certainly didn't help.

To be fair though, if someone is 'new' then arguably, they won't have any of the baggage that we have in terms of what we think we need to play. you could argue they'll be like the wargamers of the sixties and seventies and just start being creative. Because they'll know nothing else. Or thry won't play because there are no players.

I don't think blaming the customers, gamers, player base, or game stores is really fair.

It's an argument I've heard before. I understand the concepts that some people just don't get specific kinds of media, you see it all the time in movies, music, and video games.

This is a hobby that already requires a lot of time and effort to play, assembling models, painting, building terrain or going to the local shop, and learning the meta of your area. Not to mention the actual game play time, which is often considered short taking less then an hour and really takes at least a few.

I think that once you are playing and are a wargamer, at some point you have to ask yourself if the time and money that is required to play is worth the enjoyment. This applies to old players, as well as new ones.

To say wargamers are lazy or lack a proactive attitude is a problem of GW, not the players. To be more specific, the only way that changes to these issues on a macro level can only be adjusted on a macro scale BY GamesWorkshop.

If you make a splatter film, you are marketing to a small but rabid fanbase. I think it would be unfair to judge these films against romantic comedies or blockbuster films. However, it is a fair metric to judge it against other splatter films, and there are many places that do just that. If your splatter film bombs and the gore-heads hate it, blaming the gore-heads for "not getting it" is not really fair. It just means you made a bad splatter film.

40k’s first iteration – rogue trader – was a glorified RPG, and used a GM for example.

1st edition warhammer was also heavily biased to the RPG crowd. It was more small battles, hero biased, It had hero advancement rules etc. The only people I ever saw playing 1st edition warhammer was RPG players, not 'wargamers' who would play 'serious' historical games.

I appreciate the thorough response, MongooseMatt and Deadnight . I can't respond to each of your points, but just wanted to comment on two:

MongooseMatt wrote:
Honestly, try it. What will you lose? An hour or two of gaming time? You stand to gain a lot more. You may get things a little wrong in terms of scenarios or forces in your first couple, but so what? Fix it next time - this is nothing particularly complicated, you'll pick it up quickly.

The benefit: You will likely find you have a far, far wider range of games/battles than you ever did with WHFB. Not saying they will be better, mind - but variety is the spice, and all that...

For myself, gaming / hobby time is definitely an issue - so much so that I've had to cull a lot of game systems I wanted to play. I've narrowed things down at the moment to Warmahordes (which I already know how to play, and have a good gaming group that plays) and Kings of War (because I was in the middle of building up a huge chaos dwarf army when all this happened and really want to see it come to light, and the ruleset looks appealing simple to learn). Okay, and maybe Dropfleet when it hits

To play AoS the way you describe, I'd not be talking about a demo game... but rather approaching it more like an army tabletop RPG. That requires an investment in making the miniatures (and while I know some people are building things to be compatible with mass fantasy AND AoS, I just can't make it work for my army), engaging my group in joining in, etc. We've all become hesitant about picking up new systems - Guildball took off specifically because it was easy to start (just 6 - 8 miniatures to have all options for a team!). With all the game options out there now, I think many people want to see a game system catch on (at least in their local group) before committing.

Deadnight wrote:
Absolutely RITides! 100% correct. And I would encourage you to bring this attitude to every other system, along with an appreciation for 'organised play' it's not either/or for me. There is nothing here that is unique to AOS and no reason why you cant do this with any other game. For what its worth, in my group, we often approach all our games in this manner, and that includes games like flames of war, other historicals, infinity, dropzone commander and even firestorm armada.

What is unique however is that this is the only approach that is compatible with AOS. This is both a good and a bad thing. If you have a ‘standard’ way of playing, 99% of people will default to that way, will only play that way, will narrow their perceptions of ‘how’ to play, and will not ‘stretch their legs’ in any manner creatively speaking. And ultimately, while standard ways of playing are well and good, they can get boring and hit their limits awfully fast.

I think this limitation is, for me, mostly a bad thing. Like you say, our group already forged its own path with games. We played fantasy all sorts of interesting ways, specifically play Warmahordes in a more "fun/casual" way than normal, and although it's been a while since we played much 40K, very much emphasized theme and the like when playing it, too.

So, the fact that the only way to play AoS is another step in that direction - a step I feel I didn't need, and that my group could have provided ourselves - limits it greatly. Because I do also enjoy playing in pick-up games, tournaments, and in a competitive environment, and although it's not my normal mode of play, I like to build towards it. So for me, viewing the lack of being able to play AoS another way as a "feature" rather than a "bug" is I think where we view things differently.

I can do any of the thematic elements that have been described in this thread in any game. But I like having the option of doing so, and I like having a scaffold around which to do so. This is all completely lacking with AoS, and with my limited time, it just makes it much more of a risk for me to commit to than any other system I've considered... and that's why, although I like seeing what MongooseMatt and others have done with it, I just can't commit to it when I feel I could do the same with other systems, but have more options available to me, as well.

Ain't that the truth. trying to play rogue trader when one guy had the lost and the damned and another player had 'ere we go was a nightmare without a GM or a heavy discussion on how the game was gonna go. I do miss that style of game, I really hope AoS picks up steam.

What they did right was get rid of any force restrictions, I've seen some amazing army concepts.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Hayley Williams wrote:
For some reason I've never really seen GWs prices to be too much. A lot of models I buy online that I get for painting I can spend up to $30 for.

I like to think of the models as a time investment. You know, building, painting, etc. It all makes it worthwhile.

Yeah but if you can get the same amount of time and entertainment building, painting and etcetering cheaper models it kinda makes GW look bad.

Two things on my 'want to get' list right now are the AoS gaunt summoner and this lovely lady:
http://nocturnamodels.com/product.php?id_product=71

She is 70mm resin with a much higher level of detail, and only $7 australian more at the current conversion rate...

Question, artwork is nice, but how come they can't show the mini? For what about $100 they don't even show what you are going to buy? Unless you know their history, I can't say that is a good buy and GW is better.