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.

2 reasons:
1: It seemed like a better idea in paper.
2: To change the player base (i.e. get the very competitive people to rage quit), because GW wanted to make a casual game.

And it didn't work because those undesirables instead just decried the game and essentially forced points being added

To be fair those undesirables went out and made 9th age a better edition of warhammer than GW ever made.

Don't blame the customer it's not them that killed off wfb and replaced it with the trash that is AoS.

hobojebus wrote:
To be fair those undesirables went out and made 9th age a better edition of warhammer than GW ever made.

Don't blame the customer it's not them that killed off wfb and replaced it with the trash that is AoS.

To each their own but while I get being angry that GW blew up WHFB, AOS is actually a pretty good game from my VERY limited (handful of games) experience. It feels way better than 40k, for example (to the point where I might actually put 40k on hold in favor of AOS), but it is definitely different than WHFB. I'm fully on an AOS kick right now, like the game itself seems fresh (few outliers), has a lot of customization (for the rare times that gets used thanks to TGH), and is overall less of a huge money sink. But I agree that AOS should have been something else than what it was, if only to avoid invalidating everything from WHFB. Like, it seems it could have been done as a post-End Times WHFB that allowed for both individual models like AOS and full ranks like WHFB (I guess like LOTR worked then?)

AoS with out points was to me a really cool idea.
My friend explained to to me. you just take you units/collection.
With out points you don't need a list. You agree to how you want to play, like the number of units you want something like that and as uits are set up by your opponent you simply go through your collection setting up a counter unit. Easy as that.
I think that's an interesting way to play, especially if you already have a collection. I'm not overly sure how that would balance out good or bad against the newer armies. I would expect the AoS armies to be better over all than the older WFB armies.
I know don't like points as they establish the value vs cost thing.. But it is what it is.

Gaming culture is too competitive to ever allow something like the AOS experiment to work.

hobojebus wrote:
To be fair those undesirables went out and made 9th age a better edition of warhammer than GW ever made.

Don't blame the customer it's not them that killed off wfb and replaced it with the trash that is AoS.

Considering they did the reboot due to poor sales it IS their fault (not buying enough stuff etc.). Not totally their fault but that business wasn't floating well, AOS is doing better.

Wayniac wrote:
And it didn't work because those undesirables instead just decried the game and essentially forced points being added

Yes, it's the TFG WAAC haters fault that GW added points, and not that AoS wasn't selling as well as GW had hoped, and they made the decision to try and win back some of the old WFB crowd by giving them what they wanted.

The AoS "experiment" didn't work, because it was trying to appeal to an audience that simply wasn't big enough to support it.

Lord Kragan wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
To be fair those undesirables went out and made 9th age a better edition of warhammer than GW ever made.

Don't blame the customer it's not them that killed off wfb and replaced it with the trash that is AoS.

Considering they did the reboot due to poor sales it IS their fault (not buying enough stuff etc.). Not totally their fault but that business wasn't floating well, AOS is doing better.

Yes it's the fault of those bretonian players that their army didn't get updated for 13 years...

It's up to companies to make products customers want to buy wfb sales slumps can only be GW's fault, they made poor rules and made the cost of playing unfeasible for alot of folks.

As for AoS doing better where's your proof? Last I saw it wasn't in the top 5 like wfb was.

 auticus wrote:
Gaming culture is too competitive to ever allow something like the AOS experiment to work.

Sad but true, however I do like how the fact AOS' rules are very lightweight and straightforward also means it's very easy to add things on the fly or change things up for scenarios, without nearly as much a hassle as it would be to do the same in 40k.

Wayniac wrote:

 auticus wrote:
Gaming culture is too competitive to ever allow something like the AOS experiment to work.

Sad but true, however I do like how the fact AOS' rules are very lightweight and straightforward also means it's very easy to add things on the fly or change things up for scenarios, without nearly as much a hassle as it would be to do the same in 40k.

The problem stems mainly from the fact when several rules do nearly the same. This should be streamlined. And neither of the Warhammer games is doing this particularly well.

hobojebus wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
To be fair those undesirables went out and made 9th age a better edition of warhammer than GW ever made.

Don't blame the customer it's not them that killed off wfb and replaced it with the trash that is AoS.

Considering they did the reboot due to poor sales it IS their fault (not buying enough stuff etc.). Not totally their fault but that business wasn't floating well, AOS is doing better.

Yes it's the fault of those bretonian players that their army didn't get updated for 13 years...

It's up to companies to make products customers want to buy wfb sales slumps can only be GW's fault, they made poor rules and made the cost of playing unfeasible for alot of folks.

As for AoS doing better where's your proof? Last I saw it wasn't in the top 5 like wfb was.

Once I find the link on Faeit212 I'll hand it to you but as far as I remember it made 35 percent of GW's income in contrast to fantasy's 5% (and that was 2015's data versus 2016).
And if you don't get an update in years, you can get another army. It's not like bretonians were the only army in the game, weren't they? Personally I find it mindboggling that people will pidgeonhole themselves in one very strict set of tactics and one can amass many armies across the years (feth I'm not rich but I've been able to build a couple of decent armies across the years). Nevertheless your opinion seems to be set in stone and a 1 year setting will be always inferior to one of 30 years and a fuckton of nostlagia. You're totally not being biased in the very least,

Lord Kragan wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
To be fair those undesirables went out and made 9th age a better edition of warhammer than GW ever made.

Don't blame the customer it's not them that killed off wfb and replaced it with the trash that is AoS.

Considering they did the reboot due to poor sales it IS their fault (not buying enough stuff etc.). Not totally their fault but that business wasn't floating well, AOS is doing better.

Yes it's the fault of those bretonian players that their army didn't get updated for 13 years...

It's up to companies to make products customers want to buy wfb sales slumps can only be GW's fault, they made poor rules and made the cost of playing unfeasible for alot of folks.

As for AoS doing better where's your proof? Last I saw it wasn't in the top 5 like wfb was.

Once I find the link on Faeit212 I'll hand it to you but as far as I remember it made 35 percent of GW's income in contrast to fantasy's 5% (and that was 2015's data versus 2016).
And if you don't get an update in years, you can get another army. It's not like bretonians were the only army in the game, weren't they? Personally I find it mindboggling that people will pidgeonhole themselves in one very strict set of tactics and one can amass many armies across the years (feth I'm not rich but I've been able to build a couple of decent armies across the years). Nevertheless your opinion seems to be set in stone and a 1 year setting will be always inferior to one of 30 years and a fuckton of nostlagia. You're totally not being biased in the very least,

But what if I want to play Dark Eldar, and not one of a dozen different flavors of Space Marines? "Just pick a new army" isn't exactly an option for some people, whether economically, or just due to a lack of interest. But silly me, there I go again, expecting GW to support their own product.

Sorry if that seemed confrontational, I'm having a bad day. Is this the link you mentioned?

I've though a lot about the number of armies I've collected over the 20 years I've been playing 40K and don't plan to go that rout with AoS. Two armies tops and thy have to be different.

Lord Kragan wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
To be fair those undesirables went out and made 9th age a better edition of warhammer than GW ever made.

Don't blame the customer it's not them that killed off wfb and replaced it with the trash that is AoS.

Considering they did the reboot due to poor sales it IS their fault (not buying enough stuff etc.). Not totally their fault but that business wasn't floating well, AOS is doing better.

Yes it's the fault of those bretonian players that their army didn't get updated for 13 years...

It's up to companies to make products customers want to buy wfb sales slumps can only be GW's fault, they made poor rules and made the cost of playing unfeasible for alot of folks.

As for AoS doing better where's your proof? Last I saw it wasn't in the top 5 like wfb was.

Once I find the link on Faeit212 I'll hand it to you but as far as I remember it made 35 percent of GW's income in contrast to fantasy's 5% (and that was 2015's data versus 2016).
And if you don't get an update in years, you can get another army. It's not like bretonians were the only army in the game, weren't they? Personally I find it mindboggling that people will pidgeonhole themselves in one very strict set of tactics and one can amass many armies across the years (feth I'm not rich but I've been able to build a couple of decent armies across the years). Nevertheless your opinion seems to be set in stone and a 1 year setting will be always inferior to one of 30 years and a fuckton of nostlagia. You're totally not being biased in the very least,

35% without proper context is a meaningless number how do you know it's not outselling wfb because 40k sales took a massive dive?

As for "just buy another army" that's just an asinine response people want to play the army they love not the army that's most up to date, I don't want to buy X just because GW's neglected Y.

I own multiple armies 4 fantasy 6 40k built over 20 years each because I liked the background so yeah I was kinda invested in the old world and took it personal when they blew it up and squated one of my armies.

So biased I may be but I'm not so mindlessly brand loyal I'm telling some one to just buy another army, that is some major cognitive dissonance on display.

A) There's no way warhammer 40k is selling less than a seventh of what it selled back in mid 2015, simple as that and specially considering the numbers I have from the spanish section.
B) It's actually a very good idea: I love chaos space marines (my slaaneshi renegades are still on the paintwork) but it's important for a player to think outside the box and be forced upon new preconceptions so as to reevaluate his strategies and do something else than: "HUH, do I charge my cavalry block here or there (just to make a very gross oversimplification). If the setting is so bland that nothing but ONE of the many many factions that came out in 30 years then chances are that you don't like the setting so much (not the case with you, I know) but rather the aesthetic and crunch of an army.
C) Don't think the others didn't give a damn about the Old World. Was it the best decision? Probably (mostly) not but it also opened for an interesting opportunity which is a setting that is basically the age of myths (the beginning coming after the fabled ragnarok).
D) On the cognitive dissonance don't lump me on the same cathergory as you, someone who's trashing AOS constantly in multiple threads for quite a few days and still hasn't left while being a major hipocrite (ie: having affirmed that they didn't make a good product for years and yet staying on the setting/game while accusing others of being "mindlessly brand loyal")

@Mangod, Ah, sorry to hear you're having a bad day. Hope things go better for you.

Semi-on topic, can I just say I applaud the people on this thread for staying on topic this long? In my limited Dakka experience these things tend to veer off pretty quickly.

On topic, I pretty much shrug at the points conundrum.

Both sides of competitive and casual players asked for them for balance reasons and for better quick set-up play.

It's unfortunate they're slowly taking over the Open Play style which granted so much creativity from the fanbase but such is the cost of necessary evils.

They're very useful, very popular and good for the overall development of AoS which is growing into a fun and popular game. Hopefully GW, or maybe even the fanbase, can do something to adapt the Open Play & narrative options to go along with points rather against them.

Just my observations, keep rolling the dice and having fun you guys.

Baron Klatz wrote:
@Mangod, Ah, sorry to hear you're having a bad day. Hope things go better for you.

Semi-on topic, can I just say I applaud the people on this thread for staying on topic this long? In my limited Dakka experience these things tend to veer off pretty quickly.

On topic, I pretty much shrug at the points conundrum.

Both sides of competitive and casual players asked for them for balance reasons and for better quick set-up play.

It's unfortunate they're slowly taking over the Open Play style which granted so much creativity from the fanbase but such is the cost of necessary evils.

They're very useful, very popular and good for the overall development of AoS which is growing into a fun and popular game. Hopefully GW, or maybe even the fanbase, can do something to adapt the Open Play & narrative options to go along with points rather against them.

Just my observations, keep rolling the dice and having fun you guys.

Amen. I mean, open play wasn't perfect (it sure wasn't but I and my friends had good times as we used it as the basis for narrative scenarios and got good ideas with the rules they provided) but it was serviceable (I mean... the scenario of the ten nagashes was something ridiculous, who the hell buys ten of those). Nevertheless matched play will be good for tourneys or when I and my friends and the LGS. It gives more variety and will be a good framework to which work upon.

I was always hoping for photographic proof of that ever fearsome Nagash/Greater Daemon horde that constantly appeared in every competition and regular game.

Cameras must have always ran out of power by then, apparently.

Baron Klatz wrote:
I was always hoping for photographic proof of that ever fearsome Nagash/Greater Daemon horde that constantly appeared in every competition and regular game.

Cameras must have always ran out of power by then, apparently.

LOL I do think a lot of the arguments against open play were straight up FUD and "Think of the children!" type of fear-mongering that rarely, if ever, happened in actual play, like something I once read about abusing the Sudden Death conditions by taking like 10 cannons or something, saying your Sudden Death condition is killing the enemy leader, and then proceeding to do that like the first turn with 10 cannon shots and claiming victory; I highly doubt anyone actually ever did that, it was just a "but what if" scenario used to vilify Open Play, little more than political mudraking. Like I get that some of it could be abused, but A) Why would someone abuse the rules just because they could, and B) If someone did, then just end the game because they're being a d-bag, and don't play them anymore, and spread the word that they're a d-bag who plays like that.

Like, I don't get why the community's answer to "don't be a tool" was "We need points to fix this" instead of handling it the old fashioned way. I'm not sad to see points added now, but I feel that the community could have (and did, see other not-points systems) easily solved it if they didn't have the desire to break everything down to ease of use for pickup games. I actually had a discussion about that today with someone while talking to a curious returning player; he was saying how summoning was "broken" because like you could infinite summon Pink Horrors (or was it Blue Horrors, I forget), and I'm sitting there thinking like, well the obvious answer there is to cap the number or tell your opponent to not be a jerk (along with the fact few people are going to buy that many Horrors just to abuse summoning), and then he was talking about how some comp systems wanted to balance things with Wounds, but then you could take like Archaeon or something with high wounds that can't easily be hurt, and it's still unbalanced, but again that gets solved by you know assuming both parties actually want to have an enjoyable game, not a one-sided snoozefest.

I think that a lot of the main issues with Open Play stem from people not wanting to do those things, or something.. I'm not quite sure, to me it seems like an easy solution. You both want an enjoyable game, not something that's going to end in 10 minutes or be a huge drawn out affair where one player has no chance of winning but you drag it out anyways; no person who expects to actually get games would try something like that, because nobody would take that kind of nonsense in a game. So why did it have to be codified?

It stems from people that play competitively. If playing competitively you will actively seek to break the game if the game lets you.

If high level tournaments let you take as many nagashes and greater demons as you could, you'd have seen it.

It was mostly hearsay because there were no high level tournaments.

 auticus wrote:
It stems from people that play competitively. If playing competitively you will actively seek to break the game if the game lets you.

If high level tournaments let you take as many nagashes and greater demons as you could, you'd have seen it.

It was mostly hearsay because there were no high level tournaments.

Yeah, I mean I hate to say it but the competitive players in general seem to just ruin everything they touch; trying to "break the game" should be secondary to you know winning because you are the better player, not because you have the most OP combos. I guess I just don't understand that mindset; even when I play a game competitively (e.g. Warmachine) I never try to break the game or use broken combos, I mean I will use strong things but it's always within reason because I'd rather win due to using better tactics, not because technically the rules allow me to do X and X is almost game-winning by itself.

Wayniac wrote:

Baron Klatz wrote:
I was always hoping for photographic proof of that ever fearsome Nagash/Greater Daemon horde that constantly appeared in every competition and regular game.

Cameras must have always ran out of power by then, apparently.

LOL I do think a lot of the arguments against open play were straight up FUD and "Think of the children!" type of fear-mongering that rarely, if ever, happened in actual play, like something I once read about abusing the Sudden Death conditions by taking like 10 cannons or something, saying your Sudden Death condition is killing the enemy leader, and then proceeding to do that like the first turn with 10 cannon shots and claiming victory; I highly doubt anyone actually ever did that, it was just a "but what if" scenario used to vilify Open Play, little more than political mudraking. Like I get that some of it could be abused, but A) Why would someone abuse the rules just because they could, and B) If someone did, then just end the game because they're being a d-bag, and don't play them anymore, and spread the word that they're a d-bag who plays like that.

Like, I don't get why the community's answer to "don't be a tool" was "We need points to fix this" instead of handling it the old fashioned way. I'm not sad to see points added now, but I feel that the community could have (and did, see other not-points systems) easily solved it if they didn't have the desire to break everything down to ease of use for pickup games. I actually had a discussion about that today with someone while talking to a curious returning player; he was saying how summoning was "broken" because like you could infinite summon Pink Horrors (or was it Blue Horrors, I forget), and I'm sitting there thinking like, well the obvious answer there is to cap the number or tell your opponent to not be a jerk (along with the fact few people are going to buy that many Horrors just to abuse summoning), and then he was talking about how some comp systems wanted to balance things with Wounds, but then you could take like Archaeon or something with high wounds that can't easily be hurt, and it's still unbalanced, but again that gets solved by you know assuming both parties actually want to have an enjoyable game, not a one-sided snoozefest.

I think that a lot of the main issues with Open Play stem from people not wanting to do those things, or something.. I'm not quite sure, to me it seems like an easy solution. You both want an enjoyable game, not something that's going to end in 10 minutes or be a huge drawn out affair where one player has no chance of winning but you drag it out anyways; no person who expects to actually get games would try something like that, because nobody would take that kind of nonsense in a game. So why did it have to be codified?

Yup. You know what my reply was to anyone asking, "but what's to stop me from bringing X?" was well, 1) actually having all those models you just named, 2) the barriers which quickly arise as you even deploy about how not fun this going to be, and 3) common human decency. And those things never, ever happened.
LOL, though I do love "think of the children!"

 Bottle wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
GW didn't listen to the community they listened to their accountants and responded by doing the minimum amount of work.

Ghb isn't balanced it's better than no points but AoS isn't fixed it's still a poor game compared to other systems out there.

GW invited key tournament organisers to work with them on the GHB, as well as hired a key tournament figure into the Warhammer TV team, and opened up communication channels on Social Media.

And even better the guys who helped create the points understand that they didn't get it all 100% correct the first go around and are looking forward to things being tweaked in a near future re-release of GHB.

Seriously listen to Heelenhammer podcast if you are at all interested in AoS. I don't even pay for their insider stuff (but considering it) but it is really good. The Ninth Realm from Frontline has also been spectacular.

 warhead01 wrote:
My friend explained to to me. you just take you units/collection.

Yes, that's how it works. What it means is that the player with the most money to spend on buying a collection wins every game. This "pay to win" model might be good for GW's profits, but it sucks for the players.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
LOL I do think a lot of the arguments against open play were straight up FUD and "Think of the children!" type of fear-mongering that rarely, if ever, happened in actual play

Only because most people looked at what is possible without points, said the obvious "this is garbage" things, and played better games instead of AoS. Why buy a bunch of cannons or whatever to automatically win on turn 1 when you can spend that money on a better game and have more fun?

A) Why would someone abuse the rules just because they could

Because winning is fun.

B) If someone did, then just end the game because they're being a d-bag, and don't play them anymore, and spread the word that they're a d-bag who plays like that.

Shunning people from the community for not playing the game the way you want them to play it is not a substitute for making a good game. Good games do not require people to complain about "d-bag"s and try to persuade everyone to stop playing against them. If that's what AoS has to resort to then no-points AoS is garbage.

You both want an enjoyable game, not something that's going to end in 10 minutes or be a huge drawn out affair where one player has no chance of winning but you drag it out anyways; no person who expects to actually get games would try something like that, because nobody would take that kind of nonsense in a game. So why did it have to be codified?

It had to be codified because a point system tells you how to have a game like that. People don't want to spend their valuable time playing amateur game designer just to get the game to function. If GW hadn't published points for AoS the inevitable result would be that AoS failed and even the most stubborn players moved on to other games (including third-party point systems for AoS) where they can have enjoyable and balanced games without all of the extra work.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wayniac wrote:
Yeah, I mean I hate to say it but the competitive players in general seem to just ruin everything they touch; trying to "break the game" should be secondary to you know winning because you are the better player, not because you have the most OP combos.

Identifying the most powerful combos and figuring out how to use them most effectively is part of being a good player. The game begins at list construction, trying to say that it only counts once models are on the table and dice are rolling is like saying you shouldn't attack on the first three turns, because winning is supposed to be about who is the best player on turn 4+ and you shouldn't give yourself an unfair advantage at the start of turn 4.

I guess I just don't understand that mindset; even when I play a game competitively (e.g. Warmachine) I never try to break the game or use broken combos, I mean I will use strong things but it's always within reason because I'd rather win due to using better tactics, not because technically the rules allow me to do X and X is almost game-winning by itself.

Using X when X wins is winning because of better tactics. What you're actually describing is deliberately using bad tactics and expecting to win anyway (usually by playing against a weaker opponent that you can beat even without using the best tactics).

Sorry but I disagree with you. If someone makes a list that is totally not fun to play against (which can be done with or without points) and isn't ashamed about it then yeah shun the feth out of him, he deserves it because at the end of the day this is a game and the players SHOULD have fun. If you care so little about your opponent then get out. Seriously, the issue is: people are too lazy to want to further interact with people. And honestly that's shameful no matter how much you want to excuse it by saying "oh, they are socially akward".

Lord Kragan wrote:
Sorry but I disagree with you. If someone makes a list that is totally not fun to play against (which can be done with or without points) and isn't ashamed about it then yeah shun the feth out of him, he deserves it because at the end of the day this is a game and the players SHOULD have fun. If you care so little about your opponent then get out. Seriously, the issue is: people are too lazy to want to further interact with people. And honestly that's shameful no matter how much you want to excuse it by saying "oh, they are socially akward".

Yeah. I mean, I want to win too but not at the cost of having fun and, perhaps more so, making sure my opponent has fun too. Usually the no nonsense WAAC mentality that Peregrine seems to espouse results in one player having fun, and the other often wondering why they wasted an entire day just to get steamrolled by some jerk who doesn't care about anything but themselves. This is still a social game, BOTH players should have fun, and if that means the WAAC type needs to not bring X because X is super good, then so be it. For a tournament, then sure bring your A game because the expected setup is that everyone else will too (and in that case the person who doesn't needs to have the right expectations going in). But casual games are the place to ensure both people are having a good time, not one getting blown out because there's no restraint and then, worse trying to justify it by saying that "winning is fun".

Shunning someone who makes for unfun games is the only way the community can deal with that sort of person, otherwise what often happens is that they run everyone else off, and everyone loses. I've heard several horror stories about how the WAAC types come in and, like a Genestealer Cult, begin to infest everything with their mentality so that people who aren't making tournament-level lists just give up, and then eventually the game dies because it's just the same few WAAC types engaging in insularism and isolationism amongst themselves. That's not limited to Warhammer, I've heard horror stories of Warmachine players who are too caught up in the old "page 5" and playing top tier lists all the time doing the same thing, and they are just as wrong (although I feel that Warmachine is a better outlet for that kind of lists, but still you don't bring a tournament list to a friendly game unless you're both practicing or something). If someone constantly brings OP lists that steamrolls their opponent, resulting in said opponent not having any enjoyment, then they absolutely need to be shunned because that sort of toxic behavior is what kills entire communities, and it's typically hard enough to get a real serious community going anyways because people tend to be too focused on themselves and not wanting to actually socialize with others.

Lord Kragan wrote:
A) There's no way warhammer 40k is selling less than a seventh of what it selled back in mid 2015, simple as that and specially considering the numbers I have from the spanish section.
B) It's actually a very good idea: I love chaos space marines (my slaaneshi renegades are still on the paintwork) but it's important for a player to think outside the box and be forced upon new preconceptions so as to reevaluate his strategies and do something else than: "HUH, do I charge my cavalry block here or there (just to make a very gross oversimplification). If the setting is so bland that nothing but ONE of the many many factions that came out in 30 years then chances are that you don't like the setting so much (not the case with you, I know) but rather the aesthetic and crunch of an army.
C) Don't think the others didn't give a damn about the Old World. Was it the best decision? Probably (mostly) not but it also opened for an interesting opportunity which is a setting that is basically the age of myths (the beginning coming after the fabled ragnarok).
D) On the cognitive dissonance don't lump me on the same cathergory as you, someone who's trashing AOS constantly in multiple threads for quite a few days and still hasn't left while being a major hipocrite (ie: having affirmed that they didn't make a good product for years and yet staying on the setting/game while accusing others of being "mindlessly brand loyal")

A) but again you've got no numbers to confirm that, but I can point at icv2 and show you AoS isn't in the top 5 when wfb was.

B) no spending more money because the company just squated your old one is throwing away good money after bad.

C) I'm gonna point to total war warhammer and the smash success it is and say no trashing the old setting was not a good idea, AoS with its space dragons and endless realms is the laughing stock of every gaming board.

D) no I'd be a hypocrite if I were still playing and spending money on GW stuff while bashing them, I haven't spent a penny on GW products in over two years, I haven't played AoS since it destroyed my gaming group, I play the boxed games under duress because friends have spent money against my advice and want to feel like they didn't waste their money, I'm perfectly in sync with everything I have said, I'm here to stop this place from becoming an echo chamber, I'm here to let others know it's fine to not like the current situation and go elsewhere outside GW's walled garden because GW isn't the hobby it's just a small part of a bigger world.

GW's in my book of grudges and I'm not going to stop until they change course drastically or go bankrupt.

hobojebus wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:
A) There's no way warhammer 40k is selling less than a seventh of what it selled back in mid 2015, simple as that and specially considering the numbers I have from the spanish section.
B) It's actually a very good idea: I love chaos space marines (my slaaneshi renegades are still on the paintwork) but it's important for a player to think outside the box and be forced upon new preconceptions so as to reevaluate his strategies and do something else than: "HUH, do I charge my cavalry block here or there (just to make a very gross oversimplification). If the setting is so bland that nothing but ONE of the many many factions that came out in 30 years then chances are that you don't like the setting so much (not the case with you, I know) but rather the aesthetic and crunch of an army.
C) Don't think the others didn't give a damn about the Old World. Was it the best decision? Probably (mostly) not but it also opened for an interesting opportunity which is a setting that is basically the age of myths (the beginning coming after the fabled ragnarok).
D) On the cognitive dissonance don't lump me on the same cathergory as you, someone who's trashing AOS constantly in multiple threads for quite a few days and still hasn't left while being a major hipocrite (ie: having affirmed that they didn't make a good product for years and yet staying on the setting/game while accusing others of being "mindlessly brand loyal")

A) but again you've got no numbers to confirm that, but I can point at icv2 and show you AoS isn't in the top 5 when wfb was.

B) no spending more money because the company just squated your old one is throwing away good money after bad.

C) I'm gonna point to total war warhammer and the smash success it is and say no trashing the old setting was not a good idea, AoS with its space dragons and endless realms is the laughing stock of every gaming board.

D) no I'd be a hypocrite if I were still playing and spending money on GW stuff while bashing them, I haven't spent a penny on GW products in over two years, I haven't played AoS since it destroyed my gaming group, I play the boxed games under duress because friends have spent money against my advice and want to feel like they didn't waste their money, I'm perfectly in sync with everything I have said, I'm here to stop this place from becoming an echo chamber, I'm here to let others know it's fine to not like the current situation and go elsewhere outside GW's walled garden because GW isn't the hobby it's just a small part of a bigger world.

GW's in my book of grudges and I'm not going to stop until they change course drastically or go bankrupt.

It's funny, I originally thought the AOS fluff was stupid too with the infinite realms and stuff. But it's really not that bad, it makes for a neat high fantasy type of thing. Now I absolutely agree I feel it would have been better to not blow up the old world and continue on past end times, like have Chaos on the brink of winning but stopped (hell can even have Sigmar return with the stormcasts worked in), so you have sort of a not quite post-apocalyptic setting. However, I feel the AOS fluff really is pretty good in many cases. It's actually fairly well thought out, and having the multitudes of realms make for interesting conversion and terrain building possibilities that didn't really exist in old WHFB, since it was decidedly "Not-Medieval Europe" in tone. I'm sad to see things like Bretonnia squatted because I loved that army specifically because it was clearly "French King Arthur", I remember an old Stillmania article from a few white dwarfs over 15 years ago, probably the best three-part series I've ever read and second only to the original Four Gamers, where he builds a bretonnian army and talks specifically about the fact since it's clearly based on Arthurian fantasy, it serves a great way to show people who may not be familiar with Warhammer what it's about, since they'll easily recognize the models as being medieval-looking knights. In fact I once used some Bretonnian knights for a history project in high school on heraldry! however I also understand the reasonings (even if I disagree with wanting to trademark everything).

I definitely agree though that it's good to go outside the "walled garden" though. I play Warhammer for very specific reasons (namely, cool models and casual/narrative type of gaming). I play Warmachine for competitive gaming. If I had people interested I would play historicals because I like ancient history (and not so ancient history). If I had people interested I would likely play Frostgrave for a warband-focused skirmish game, or Dropzone Commander for large-scale sci-fi conflics or a myriad of other games. That doesn't necessarily mean that Warhammer is a bad game (I mean, it IS a bad game, but people can still like it and want to play it is what I mean), but I do find that a lot of Warhammer players tend to not know/care/want to know about anything else; it's very cult like (no wonder they compare themselves to Apple, it's that same sort of mindset amongst the fans)

hobojebus and Peregrine, you're clearly playing the wrong game. No offence, not liking AoS is fine, really. I know it sucks that Warhammer is no longer what you want from a game. GW, is, however, under no obligation to consider what you want when they decide on the direction they want to go in.
GW wanted to target a market/type of gamer that you are not an example of, sorry I feel for you, AoS is not quite my style either.

Which is why I prefer Kings of War (Warmahordes would probably be down my alley too). Warhammer is no longer the only fantasy wargame, play the one that suits you and please leave the people who do enjoy AoS alone.

On the topic of whether AoS is a good game or not: that depends on how you measure the quality of a game.
I would argue that the we measure that on what the game was intended to be (or presented as).
In that case AoS is a good game, it's rules light and down plays list building and optimizing, which is great for a casual game that AoS is intended to be. It is a terrible game for someone who want to test their mind against another though.

Not having points is not such a bad idea for a game that is meant to be played casually and definitely declared AoS to be such a game. Having some kind of approximate measure of an army's power does make it easier to set a game up though.