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.

 RiTides wrote:

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

I can understand limited gaming and hobby time all too well sadly. I run marathons - when running season hits, and I'm running 35+miles a week, along with gym work and some other circuit training I want to get into this year, it pushes a lot of things (including gsming) to the back burner. I focus on 'buying into' two main games - warmachine and infinity, along with some small scale modelling projects (I have a small kasrkin army and a few starter sets painted up for various games). My home brew gaming comes about only on a weekly Friday night with my mates, where we have a house, an 8x12 board, and plenty time to organise ourselves.

 RiTides wrote:

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.

I get this - I don't play Aos myself. Three main reasons (I don't like the models, I don't like the rules mechanics- had it run on the lotr engine it might have been a different story, and primarily - the style of game that Aos encourages, whilst immensely fun - well, I already do it. Aos offers me nothing new, and at that, with rules and models I don't like. But I enjoy matts posts here - they're gold!)

And fun/casualmachine is the best way to play wmh. I relearned my love of thst gsme by stepping back from the tournament scene all the time.

 RiTides wrote:

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.

Actually, we are pretty much in agreement here. Don't get me wrong - I encourage the approach more than the game here. I dislike the attitudes that push 'one true way' of playing, whether it is pug/tournament bases with offshoots, or diy and screw 'officialness', both of which I have seen posted here on this forum. I view both as a parallel approach and and see both as equally enjoyable. I'd rather play one Wargame a multitude of acts than play twenty wargames with the same mentality.

 RiTides wrote:

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.

We are in agreement here.

As I mentioned, we frequently play infinity or flames of war home brews. But equally, I love me my pugs and tournaments. There is a place for both.

Now about that scenario I challenged you to...

autumnlotus wrote:
I don't ask anymore, because everytime anyone has asked that the response is always generic and vague. Like heres a question: how do you avoid the slobberknocker effect of forming a moshpit in the center of the board? Terrain helps a bit. But even if you are generous and max out the amount the rules allow its still a very bare board. If it was a city street board it would be better, but those are houserules so its murky on that section. Let's say I have an army of 40 Plaguebearers, 6 nurglings swaems, ol Twiceborn, and two Nurgle sorcerers. What strategy is better then charging foreward and focusing attacks on the bigger models?

There are no rules that say how much terrain you can have. In fact they suggest you use as much as possible. There is a table for you to roll on but it's clearly stated that it's just an option.

What strategy is better then charging foreward and focusing attacks on the bigger models?

Depends on the victory conditions. If you win by exiting some units off the far side off the map then fighting might be a bad idea altogther. If you need to stop the other guy doing the same then you may need to stop the fast stuff first, and spread out to prevent his end run,

If victory involves holding 2 objectives at far sides of the map at end turn X then being in the middle on turn X is not useful,

If victory involves opening the door to moria type of thing where you gain D6 decipher points each turn your hero is next to door then you may be looking to sacrifice stuff to buy time for him, or work out how to get the hero who is doing that.

If victory is merely kill everything then merely expect a mosh pit in the middle.

Davor wrote:

 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.

It's not $100, in Australian it converts to $77, unless the US dollar is super weak against the Euro and I need to look into converting everything I have to Euros, then US, then back to Au....

I'm also not sure what you mean about not showing the mini...
You realise that is the mini right, just in front of artwork? The second picture on that page is the mini with a more plain background.

No, I did not. I thought they were artwork or drawings.

Wow the paint job is really good then. Thanks Jonolikespie for the correction.

Deadnight - Ah, thanks, your post above makes a lot of sense . I am all for incorporating more of these kinds of elements into gaming, as you say! I just like to have the option whether or not to on a given day

Deadnight wrote:

 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.

I think that has a lot to do with way more factors than just that specific invitation. Imo this is just one of the several points going against AoS from the "Whfb crowd" point of view

Deadnight wrote:

 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.

If it's deliberate then the enforcement of this "our way or the highway" method of playing is even more glaring, along with the contempt GW has for the competitive side of wargaming (and a faction of their customers).
And no doubt it is a valid approach - it's just lazy, shoddy, poorly thought out... insert appropriate synonims here.

Deadnight wrote:

 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

Somewhat like the little reality that AoS will have as a game that can encourage a competitive/tournament scene, no doubt.

Deadnight wrote:

 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.

I am not saying the game was without flaws, far from it, but it catered much better to both crowds than AoS does. A skewed balance system is better than no system at all (imo, of course). Again it's just that GW was too lazy to try and balance things.

Also, I really have to disagree with your views that wargamers are lazy. I really don't think we're like that, but I won't discuss it further because I know my temper.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Also, I really have to disagree with your views that wargamers are lazy. I really don't think we're like that, but I won't discuss it further because I know my temper.

Wargamers aren't lazy, but some (dare I say most) of us want to be able to buy a product and use it as intended out of the box without having to fix it first.

Deadnight wrote:

 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.

Why didn't they? Maybe they liked the battle line games? Though I have to admit, not wanting to play the scenarios seems to be a fairly unique GW trait

The reason AoS seems to be more about the scenarios, is that the 95% of people who didn't play the scenarios in WHFB didn't move over to AoS. It's not that AoS is better for scenarios, it's just worse for everything else.

 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?

Then it should still have been well written and vaguely balanced.

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.

The onus should be on the paid professional developers working for the multinational gaming company to provide the balance; not the players. If the players have to do everything, why are GW even bothering to produce rules?

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Also, I really have to disagree with your views that wargamers are lazy. I really don't think we're like that, but I won't discuss it further because I know my temper.

Wargamers aren't lazy, but some (dare I say most) of us want to be able to buy a product and use it as intended out of the box without having to fix it first.

It seems to me that you have put some construction on to AoS that fits your idea of the kind of game you want to play, but which is not the game that AoS actually is. Then you are complaining because AoS doesn't suit your ideas.

You would not buy a set of WW2 naval rules and expect to be able to play Ancients land battles with it.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Also, I really have to disagree with your views that wargamers are lazy. I really don't think we're like that, but I won't discuss it further because I know my temper.

Wargamers aren't lazy, but some (dare I say most) of us want to be able to buy a product and use it as intended out of the box without having to fix it first.

It seems to me that you have put some construction on to AoS that fits your idea of the kind of game you want to play, but which is not the game that AoS actually is. Then you are complaining because AoS doesn't suit your ideas.

You would not buy a set of WW2 naval rules and expect to be able to play Ancients land battles with it.

Perhaps, but no one took away your Ancients land battles that you enjoyed and placed a WWII ship in your lap, did they?

I don't think that's the case at all. There's nothing about the advertising or description of AoS that indications it's anything other than a standard wargame.

Maybe it'd be more like buying a set of WW2 naval rules, expecting to get playing out of the box but that turn out to be a 4-page framework that you might be able to use to play naval rules.

Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
I think that has a lot to do with way more factors than just that specific invitation. Imo this is just one of the several points going against AoS from the "Whfb crowd" point of view

All three of them? ok, I jest. I won't disagree - there are plenty reasons to dislike Aos. Blowing up the world was certainly a kick in the nuts.

Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
If it's deliberate then the enforcement of this "our way or the highway" method of playing is even more glaring, along with the contempt GW has for the competitive side of wargaming (and a faction of their customers).

They're entitled to hold competitive wargaming in contemp if they wish. And focusing in on a particular niche of playing (aka our way or the highway) is not necessarily a bad idea either - privateer press broke through by focusing almost exclusively on the other end of the spectrum - is competitive gaming. If gw want to do the same by focusing on a particular niche, let them. Whether enough people will be drawn to it for it to become self sustaining is another question.

Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
And no doubt it is a valid approach - it's just lazy, shoddy, poorly thought out... insert appropriate synonims here.

Is it? To you, it is, maybe. And I won't disagree.( I'd have preferred if the engine it runs on wasn't based on the same tired old warhammer dna that's been there since the 80s, but used something different - there have been far more interesting game mechanics designed over the last twenty years. But there's just me.) but to someone else it's empowering, simple, straight forward and welcoming. I've seen folks drawn in by the simplicity of the rules that make me run a mile, and vice versa. Neither is wrong.

Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Somewhat like the little reality that AoS will have as a game that can encourage a competitive/tournament scene, no doubt.

Sure. Then they won't run tournaments? Instead they seem to be hosting 'game days' and 'events'. Let them. That approach can be fun.

Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
I am not saying the game was without flaws, far from it, but it catered much better to both crowds than AoS does. A skewed balance system is better than no system at all (imo, of course). Again it's just that GW was too lazy to try and balance things.

No, a skewed balance system is terrible, and utterly pointless. Even worse, it's outright unfair and frustrating. It annihilates variety and choice and makes so much of the content of a game worthless. I'd rather not play, than play a game whose balance is skewed.
and let's be clear - there is a system in place for Aos - 'sort it out with your opponent and make an engaging gsme out of it'. Don't dismiss it out of hand. It has merit- historicals have been run this way for decades. Whether you like it or not - that's an entirely different question and up to you, and I won't argue with you on what side you stand on - you're entitled to your views.

Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
Also, I really have to disagree with your views that wargamers are lazy. I really don't think we're like that, but I won't discuss it further because I know my temper.

No, you're entitled to your views. I don't think all wargamers are lazy, but I do see a lot more people complaining than I see being proactive and doing something about it. Complaining is fine - we all do it. I personally believe if one tenth of the energy invested in complaining was redirected into proactive game building, we'd have a better, less toxic hobby.

jonolikespie wrote:
Wargamers aren't lazy, but some (dare I say most) of us want to be able to buy a product and use it as intended out of the box without having to fix it first.

You call it 'Fixing', someone else calls it 'assembly required'....

I mean, I write my lore, I paint and assemble my own dudes, what's wrong with designing how I play with my toys?

for every anecdote about something that can be used as intended straight out of the box, there is an anecdote about something that comes out of the box with an 'assembly required' tag attached.

Neither is wrong.

Herzlos wrote:
Why didn't they? Maybe they liked the battle line games? Though I have to admit, not wanting to play the scenarios seems to be a fairly unique GW trait

Maybe it's all they know? Or all they think to know. Conditioning is a thing. It's not hard to get into a mental state where you assume there is a 'proper' way of doing things, and to frown on anything else. someone else doing it different is 'doing it wrong'. A lot of people are afraid to step outside the lines.

And to be fair, I know folks that aren't really all that enamoured with the scenarios in warmachine, and are actively turned off my steamroller. Fair play to them. It takes all sorts.

Herzlos wrote:
The reason AoS seems to be more about the scenarios, is that the 95% of people who didn't play the scenarios in WHFB didn't move over to AoS. It's not that AoS is better for scenarios, it's just worse for everything else.

Oh I don't disagree at all. like I said to ritides, all that is unique about Aos is that it forces you down that road. You can do those things with any other game - it's just that when you have a 'standard' way of playing games, the vast, vast majority of people will not deviate. I think that's a shame, personally.

That road with the 'Aos' sign on it isn't necessarily bad, however. I defend the road, not the forcing down it.

Herzlos wrote:
Then it should still have been well written and vaguely balanced.

It's written well enough, and covers the basics to be fair with that. The balance is in the hands of the players - if you want balance, then balance your games with your opponents. Or don't. You don't necessarily need 'balanced' match ups to have interesting scenarios. And those 'interesting' scenarios can be quite engaging.

Herzlos wrote:
The onus should be on the paid professional developers working for the multinational gaming company to provide the balance; not the players. If the players have to do everything, why are GW even bothering to produce rules?

Is it? I mean, why? Surely that's the same as saying Lego sets should come pre assembled as well? And doing it otherwise is doing it wrong.

Surely it's the job of paid professionals to release the product they want to release, as defined by the goals and objectives of their company and emphasising their 'vision'? If that 'vision' is a tightly balanced competitive leaning game, then balance should be a factor. And understandably so. If it's meant to be a game that emphasises a diy/home brew approach and which essentially seeks to put 'how' the gsme is played entirely into the hands of the players of said game, rather than rely on central orthodoxy, and with a system that is uninterested in the. I petition aspects of wargames, then it's not really all that necessary.

Its not a zero/sum situation. There is no 'right' way, and plenty companies making plenty other products all approach it in a different manner.

GW didn't advertise AoS.

It isn't for sale.

What is a "standard" wargame?

Deadnight wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
Then it should still have been well written and vaguely balanced.

It's written well enough, and covers the basics to be fair with that. The balance is in the hands of the players - if you want balance, then balance your games with your opponents. Or don't. You don't necessarily need 'balanced' match ups to have interesting scenarios. And those 'interesting' scenarios can be quite engaging.

No, you don't need balance, but knowing about balance makes it an awful lot easier to handle scenarios, without having to use some iterative approach to come up with an empirical system to handle balance (i.e. I can eventually figure out that that doodah is worth about 1.5 of those whatsits, but why can't GW just tell me?).

If you want a scenario that's way unbalanced, it still helps to have an idea. "You're outnumbered by about 5x, so your objective is suitably set" is a lot easier to do than "You're outnumbered by a lot, so".

Herzlos wrote:
The onus should be on the paid professional developers working for the multinational gaming company to provide the balance; not the players. If the players have to do everything, why are GW even bothering to produce rules?

Is it? I mean, why? Surely that's the same as saying Lego sets should come pre assembled as well? And doing it otherwise is doing it wrong.

Deadnight wrote:

jonolikespie wrote:
Wargamers aren't lazy, but some (dare I say most) of us want to be able to buy a product and use it as intended out of the box without having to fix it first.

You call it 'Fixing', someone else calls it 'assembly required'....

I mean, I write my lore, I paint and assemble my own dudes, what's wrong with designing how I play with my toys?

for every anecdote about something that can be used as intended straight out of the box, there is an anecdote about something that comes out of the box with an 'assembly required' tag attached.

Neither is wrong.

Where does GW advertise AoS as a game that requires players to balance it between themselves? I see where they expect it to happen, and I see the rules telling me to put whatever models I want on the board, but that's about it.

Fair play isn't an alien concept that needs to be explained.

Anyone who has grown up with brothers and/or sisters knows you need to compromise when playing games together. Only children learn this lesson in primary school.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Fair play isn't an alien concept that needs to be explained.

Anyone who has grown up with brothers and/or sisters knows you need to compromise when playing games together. Only children learn this lesson in primary school.

Any yet absolutely no rule set should ever assume that players will play fair, that is half the point of any set of rules.

Herzlos wrote:

No, you don't need balance, but knowing about balance makes it an awful lot easier to handle scenarios, without having to use some iterative approach to come up with an empirical system to handle balance (i.e. I can eventually figure out that that doodah is worth about 1.5 of those whatsits, but why can't GW just tell me?).

Because those 1.5 whatsits may very well change depending on what you are doing with them.

The kind of balance you are talking about is not rocket science, and it really is no effort. Kids can do this quite easily - I am sure a grown man can.

If you are really interested, I can walk you through a typical scenario and how we set up forces for it. However, I rather get the feeling you have already made your mind up and are not really interested

Herzlos wrote: AoS mini's are game tokens.

Ah ha!

This is an excellent point you raise, and it is one that I have seen as a common thread in my group among those who have not taken to AoS.

The miniatures in AoS are not game tokens. This is kinda the point of the game - it is about seeing them as more than just tokens that get pushed around, more than just proxies for pieces of paper and stand up card cutouts.

It might be fair to say that if you see the minis as game tokens, AoS may well not be the game for you (as you have already decided). Which is absolutely cool.

Slightly less cool to berate the game for not being what you want when there are plenty of people here who are enjoying it.

Herzlos wrote:
They also haven't really made their vision clear, which is part of the issue.

Umm, seems quite clear to me and, I fancy, others as well...

MongooseMatt wrote:

Ah ha!

This is an excellent point you raise, and it is one that I have seen as a common thread in my group among those who have not taken to AoS.

The miniatures in AoS are not game tokens. This is kinda the point of the game - it is about seeing them as more than just tokens that get pushed around, more than just proxies for pieces of paper and stand up card cutouts.

It might be fair to say that if you see the minis as game tokens, AoS may well not be the game for you (as you have already decided). Which is absolutely cool.

Slightly less cool to berate the game for not being what you want when there are plenty of people here who are enjoying it.

So... what are the minis in AoS then if not game tokens?

 jonolikespie wrote:
Any yet absolutely no rule set should ever assume that players will play fair, that is half the point of any set of rules.

Seriously?

I would say that is an absolutely basic component. Put another way, if I don't think someone will play fairly, I ain't going to be playing him (why would I?). Given that, it seems a reasonable assumption for a game to make.

Thinking about this more... the alternative is to make the assumption that people will not play fairly... and that would make for an absolutely toxic environment.

We are playing for fun, right?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:

So... what are the minis in AoS then if not game tokens?

Okay, I might sound a bit of a twit at this point, but here goes...

I have a Bloodsecrator sitting in my cabinet alongside the rest of Khorne's followers. However, he is not just a miniature gaming piece with some rules about buffing nearby Khorne units and a 3+ save.

He is Bloodsecrator Threx Skullbrand, and he was there that day when Sigmar's warriors descended from the heavens to re-open the Gate of Azyr. He survived the fight but realised that his master, Lord Khul, had fallen in battle. Kmowing how vital Lord Khul was to holding the Bloodbound together on the Brimstone Peninsula, Threx led a counter attack to try to retrieve the injured Khul. However, his forces were repulsed and when he realised that Lord Khul was making his own way back to the Gate of Wrath, he knew his master would be very, very angry.

So, he decided it was his duty to take command of one of the Skull Keeps surrounding the Gate of Wrath (where he could also better monitor Lord Khul's temper from a distance). Unfortunately for Threx, the Stormcasts were approaching and had already targeted his Skull Keep as being one of the ones that had to fall on their way to the Gate of Wrath.

Bloodsecrator Threx was last seen battling on the steps of the Skull Keep against an enraged Lord-Castellant.

That is the difference. Calling the Bloodsecrator a gaming piece, while correct on a technical level, misses out on a great deal.

MongooseMatt wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Any yet absolutely no rule set should ever assume that players will play fair, that is half the point of any set of rules.

Seriously?

I would say that is an absolutely basic component. Put another way, if I don't think someone will play fairly, I ain't going to be playing him (why would I?). Given that, it seems a reasonable assumption for a game to make.

Thinking about this more... the alternative is to make the assumption that people will not play fairly... and that would make for an absolutely toxic environment.

We are playing for fun, right?

I mean from a game design point of view, not two players meeting over a table. Rules exist to tell players what they can and can not do. A significant part of that should be to keep the game fair and fun for both parties. There is a reason performance enhancing substances are illegal in major sporting events, why people get banned from online gaming servers if they are shooting through walls, and why most wargames will present you with ways to build armies that prevents one person bringing ten goblins, the other ten bloodthirsters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MongooseMatt wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

So... what are the minis in AoS then if not game tokens?

Okay, I might sound a bit of a twit at this point, but here goes...

I have a Bloodsecrator sitting in my cabinet alongside the rest of Khorne's followers. However, he is not just a miniature gaming piece with some rules about buffing nearby Khorne units and a 3+ save.

He is Bloodsecrator Threx Skullbrand, and he was there that day when Sigmar's warriors descended from the heavens to re-open the Gate of Azyr. He survived the battle but realised that his master, Lord Khul, had fallen in battle. Kmowing how vital Lord Khul was to holding the Bloodbound together on the Brimstone Peninsula, Threx led a counter attack to try to retrieve the injured Khul. However, he was repulsed and when he realised that Lord Khul was making his own way back to the Gate of Wrath, he knew his master would be very, very angry.

So, he decided it was his duty to take command of one of the Skull Keeps surrounding the Gate of Wrath (where he could also better monitor the situation with Lord Khul's temper from a distance). Unfortjnately for Threx, the Stormcasts were approaching and had already targeted his Skull Keep as being one of the ones that had to fall on their way to the Gate of Wrath.

Bloodsecrator Threx was last seen battling on the steps of the Skull Keep against an enraged Lord-Castellant.

That is the difference. Calling the Bloodsecrator a gaming piece, while correct on a technical level, misses out on a great deal.

How does that differ from any other tabletop game on the market?

Some people who have never played AoS and been against it since it came out make it sound like the most confusing, alien thing ever. So many variations of, "but how can it possibly work!"

I looked at AoS rules and I got it immediately. I don't think the "it" is such a foreign thing. To me it was as obvious as looking at crayons and a piece of paper and getting that you draw stuff, that's the basis, and you go from there with whatever else you want to do.

It's totally legitimate that the AoS approach is not for everyone, just as a hyper competitive, strict, 300-page ruleset isn't for everyone. No game is for everyone.

But so many of these threads devolve into people wondering how the game can possibly work and it baffles me. I'm not sure whether they legitimately can't comprehend the game or are trying to come up with some pseudo-logic for why it can't work.

 jonolikespie wrote:
How does that differ from any other tabletop game on the market?

I knew you were going to ask that

It doesn't. But that was not the question. We were talking about the attitude of different gamers, and I said that if someone was tempted to look on miniatures as 'mere' playing pieces, then AoS was not likely for them.

I was not talking about other games, but remarking on a perception I had noticed within my own group.

Put another way, when someone gets a new army book/Codex and the first thing they flip to is the army list/rules sections, then AoS may not be for them. If they start on the background sections, it might.

Just a theory I am chucking out there, based on my own observations and Herzlos' comment.

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Fair play isn't an alien concept that needs to be explained.

Anyone who has grown up with brothers and/or sisters knows you need to compromise when playing games together. Only children learn this lesson in primary school.

Any yet absolutely no rule set should ever assume that players will play fair, that is half the point of any set of rules.

I can't think of any set of rules that says you have to play fair. It's the whole point of rules and doesn't need to be stated.

MongooseMatt wrote:

This is an excellent point you raise, and it is one that I have seen as a common thread in my group among those who have not taken to AoS.

The miniatures in AoS are not game tokens. This is kinda the point of the game - it is about seeing them as more than just tokens that get pushed around, more than just proxies for pieces of paper and stand up card cutouts.

My characters in other games have personalities and back stories, but they are still tokens. My point is that whilst you can enjoy building and painting them, without the structure of the game they are pretty meaningless (beyond looking cool). Their entire point is to be used in a game. The entire point of lego is to build it.

MongooseMatt wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
How does that differ from any other tabletop game on the market?

I knew you were going to ask that

It doesn't. But that was not the question. We were talking about the attitude of different gamers, and I said that if someone was tempted to look on miniatures as 'mere' playing pieces, then AoS was not likely for them.

I was not talking about other games, but remarking on a perception I had noticed within my own group.

Put another way, when someone gets a new army book/Codex and the first thing they flip to is the army list/rules sections, then AoS may not be for them. If they start on the background sections, it might.

Just a theory I am chucking out there, based on my own observations and Herzlos' comment.

I can see where you are coming from with that theory, but I can assure you that even as someone who loves tourneys and competitive play I'll look at fluff and the models themselves long before rules

Ditto; I've never consulted the rules in any game before chosing a faction, so I'm almost always running something sub-optimal by any standard.
Even the units in that game are largely based on cool initially, rather than points.

 Kilkrazy wrote:


I can't think of any set of rules that says you have to play fair. It's the whole point of rules and doesn't need to be stated.

Games are generally implicitly fair. Some encourage cheating but not many. We're not talking about preventing cheating, we're talking about making it easy for players to set up and play a fair game, without having to do any work beyond reading the rules / quick start.

 jonolikespie wrote:

I can see where you are coming from with that theory, but I can assure you that even as someone who loves tourneys and competitive play I'll look at fluff and the models themselves long before rules

Ah - but I was not targeting you

Should point out, I love tournaments too. I am quite good at them. But I also enjoy AoS.

I don't really see this as a binary thing where you have to do one thing or the other. I like AoS. You like 40k. Can't we just leave it at that?

MongooseMatt wrote:
I don't really see this as a binary thing where you have to do one thing or the other. I like AoS. You like 40k. Can't we just leave it at that?

We probably should. I can't see me making sense of it any time soon