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.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Mangod wrote:

Joyboozer wrote:
The only problem I have with Jervis is GW not knowing the difference between giving away unofficial fun rules in White Dwarf as opposed to selling them as official updates/ supplements.

Something that might be a good idea: releasing "silly supplement rules" on the webby for free - it'd certainly be another step towards improving public relations.

*looks at 800-pounds gorilla with a "AoS Free Rules" sign in the hands*

The issue there, is that those "silly free rules" came alongside in the complete destruction of the fantasy game system and world, rather than being a new, fun alternative that could be used instead or alongside it if the players wanted to.

It is akin to GW dropping Orcs and Gobbos as a fantasy army but saying it's all okay because they released the rules for Brewhouse Bash for free.

Except that fantasy game system and world was selling like heaters in Dubai they tried something new and it backfired, but what they eventually ended up with (after modifying it due to customer input/nagging) isn't half bad and is actually selling well.

I will maintain until my dying day that the best thing GW could have done for fantasy was to GIVE us the Age of Sigmar:

A rebooted skirmish game set at the time of Sigmar.

Barbarian tribes both Chaos and 'good' , feral orcs that really were feral, master runesmiths for the Dwarves, etc etc

Every faction would have been there and the aesthetics would have been awesome IMO.

A primitive,pre-historic, Conan style world up against the spendour of the Dwarves and Elves, with a few Mongol tribes (Chaos Barbarians) thrown in.

Hell, give me 18 months, a million dollars, and a half-decent sculptor, and I will give you that game: Age of Sogmar

 jreilly89 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Mangod wrote:

Joyboozer wrote:
The only problem I have with Jervis is GW not knowing the difference between giving away unofficial fun rules in White Dwarf as opposed to selling them as official updates/ supplements.

Something that might be a good idea: releasing "silly supplement rules" on the webby for free - it'd certainly be another step towards improving public relations.

*looks at 800-pounds gorilla with a "AoS Free Rules" sign in the hands*

The issue there, is that those "silly free rules" came alongside in the complete destruction of the fantasy game system and world, rather than being a new, fun alternative that could be used instead or alongside it if the players wanted to.

It is akin to GW dropping Orcs and Gobbos as a fantasy army but saying it's all okay because they released the rules for Brewhouse Bash for free.

Except that fantasy game system and world was selling like heaters in Dubai they tried something new and it backfired, but what they eventually ended up with (after modifying it due to customer input/nagging) isn't half bad and is actually selling well.

And there is no reason that it couldn't have sold well alongside the already existing Fantasy game. It is not a zero-sum game where in order to launch new game systems and rules requires the complete destruction and removal of your other game, especially when the rules you release take up a single A4.

Herzlos wrote:

Davor wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
What are you talking about? They are perfectly usable. People just choose not to use them. There is a difference between they can and choosing not to.

Ok, usable in a pick-up sense. From what I can tell, everyone uses the GH book now for some sort of balance.
I'm sure the base rules are usable for the unbound play, but for everyone else, you need the GH.

And what is wrong with that? Are we actually arguing GW trying to fix something when people complained it was broken? Heaven forbid GW trying to do something that people have asked for.

Yes GW made a mistake. Yes they admitted to it and trying to rectify it. Are you saying GW shouldn't have bothered and just left it as it was? No Generals Handbook?

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Mangod wrote:

Joyboozer wrote:
The only problem I have with Jervis is GW not knowing the difference between giving away unofficial fun rules in White Dwarf as opposed to selling them as official updates/ supplements.

Something that might be a good idea: releasing "silly supplement rules" on the webby for free - it'd certainly be another step towards improving public relations.

*looks at 800-pounds gorilla with a "AoS Free Rules" sign in the hands*

The issue there, is that those "silly free rules" came alongside in the complete destruction of the fantasy game system and world, rather than being a new, fun alternative that could be used instead or alongside it if the players wanted to.

It is akin to GW dropping Orcs and Gobbos as a fantasy army but saying it's all okay because they released the rules for Brewhouse Bash for free.

I meant that, and the fact that the silly rules are dumb and not fun.They are like the jokes of Uncle Frank he keeps joking and thinks he is a fun man but you are actually faking a laugh because you think uncle Frank is a good man but is really unfunny, but you do not want to make him feel bad, especially after the divorce with aunt Henrietta, and all is very embarrassing but you will look back at the scene in his deathbed with a mix of revamped embarrassment and nostalgia for a period in which this was the worst of your problems, and that time he brought you to the Luna Park... But I digress.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


Some people, I tell you

Once, he made us walk back to the GW to buy a box set, that he was holding in his hands already at an FLGS across town, despite it being (a) the same thing and (b) the same price.

That's how GW manage to keep going :(


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Davor wrote:

Herzlos wrote:

Davor wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
What are you talking about? They are perfectly usable. People just choose not to use them. There is a difference between they can and choosing not to.

Ok, usable in a pick-up sense. From what I can tell, everyone uses the GH book now for some sort of balance.
I'm sure the base rules are usable for the unbound play, but for everyone else, you need the GH.

And what is wrong with that? Are we actually arguing GW trying to fix something when people complained it was broken? Heaven forbid GW trying to do something that people have asked for.

Yes GW made a mistake. Yes they admitted to it and trying to rectify it. Are you saying GW shouldn't have bothered and just left it as it was? No Generals Handbook?

No I'm fine with them fething up and fixing it. I was objecting to the notion that AoS is free, when the reality is that you'll need to buy the Generals Handbook in order to actually play it, thus completely negating the "free" part.

I think there is a good method to that madness, personally. When you make the basic, fundamental concepts/rules free it allows people to test the game prior to buying in. I don't see that as a bad thing. Now, if you promote is as "everything is free!" you're getting into the "Free to play" nonsense you see with video games.

But as something that younger person can try out (particularly if they have models/figures from another game) for a reduced cost...not a terrible thing.

The only game I sell at the moment has a free 85-page rulebook. This is mainly due to the cost of printing, but it allows people to check out the rules before buying any of the necessary components.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 Mangod wrote:

Joyboozer wrote:
The only problem I have with Jervis is GW not knowing the difference between giving away unofficial fun rules in White Dwarf as opposed to selling them as official updates/ supplements.

Something that might be a good idea: releasing "silly supplement rules" on the webby for free - it'd certainly be another step towards improving public relations.

*looks at 800-pounds gorilla with a "AoS Free Rules" sign in the hands*

The issue there, is that those "silly free rules" came alongside in the complete destruction of the fantasy game system and world, rather than being a new, fun alternative that could be used instead or alongside it if the players wanted to.

It is akin to GW dropping Orcs and Gobbos as a fantasy army but saying it's all okay because they released the rules for Brewhouse Bash for free.

Except that fantasy game system and world was selling like heaters in Dubai they tried something new and it backfired, but what they eventually ended up with (after modifying it due to customer input/nagging) isn't half bad and is actually selling well.

And there is no reason that it couldn't have sold well alongside the already existing Fantasy game. It is not a zero-sum game where in order to launch new game systems and rules requires the complete destruction and removal of your other game, especially when the rules you release take up a single A4.

Alongside it? Doubtful. Trying to push a new fantasy game that plays completely different and isn't a boardgame alongside their traditional fantasy game that both use the same models (or factions) would be worse than what they did to WHFB. I doubt veteran players would have tried AoS if it was released as a new game. Why would they? WHFB would still be supported and existing, there'd be no reason for them to try it out. Besides, neither game would be well supported, as now they have to manage 3 games, 40k, WHFB, and AoS.

I'm not saying GW did the right thing by pissing off a lot of people, destroying the whole lore and theme of WHFB, but saying that WHFB wasn't an anchor dragging them down is a fallacy.

Herzlos wrote:
[No I'm fine with them fething up and fixing it. I was objecting to the notion that AoS is free, when the reality is that you'll need to buy the Generals Handbook in order to actually play it, thus completely negating the "free" part.

Thanks for the explanation. I see your point now.

Actually, I think they would have tried it because it plays differently.

For years players had been asking for small scale skirmish rules to serve as the gateway game to get new players in. Something that is designed to work starting at around the model count of Mordheim and increasing up until you're approaching the lower end of your standard WHFB army.

Age of Sigmar could have been that game and I think current players would have given it every chance.

AoS would have been infinitely better if GW had just tweaked their War of the Ring rulebook a bit; they'd have cut the play-slowdown elements of WHFB and left an interesting game behind instead of cutting the interesting things and leaving the play slowdown behind. They had the simple solution and they chose not to take it.

The weird thing is if they introduced whfb expansion AoS with new rules. I would of tried it or atleast kept playing 8th.

But since they killed 8th and tomb kings also Brits I kinda quit. Even if they said we no longer will support whfb behond aos til further notice I would of kept playing and buying.

Hell at the first of the year I had 2 armies to build in fantasy and to finish off my other 3. Then buy more Titans and start a Minotaur army.

After January I slowly quit gamesworkshop all together as time goes on my faith in them has gone out the window. They seem to be going with a bomb theory burn as bright as you can throw a bunch of crap out make money then dump it and move on.

I need a game with a more slow burning time to build style. I needed a year or two to buy my armies I need, my project is... Was going to cost 8 thousand if not more to build. I'm not a fan of save a bunch of money see a release buy it then done crap. Which sadly is what gamesworkshop and a lot of kids have become.


My best example are

Farsighted enclave
Ghazskull
Kill team

My guess soon to be
Gene stealer cult

Will never get any more support, so you buy a lot and in a year it is gone. Would you buy a 2000$ tv that would last only a year, you still keep it just it doesn't do anything anymore?

A Town Called Malus wrote:Actually, I think they would have tried it because it plays differently.

For years players had been asking for small scale skirmish rules to serve as the gateway game to get new players in. Something that is designed to work starting at around the model count of Mordheim and increasing up until you're approaching the lower end of your standard WHFB army.

Age of Sigmar could have been that game and I think current players would have given it every chance.

That is what I thought so as well, but from experience and reading on various forums we are to fault why that doesn't work. I seen it too many times in 40K, and it's the reason why I never started Fantasy. People kept saying "sorry I don't play 1000 points, it has to be 1500 points" or someone else would say "Sorry we don't play 1500 points, come back when you have 1850 minimum and better 2000."

I think for Fantasy a lot of people wouldn't even look at you if you had less than 2000 points for Fantasy. So hence the buy in was huge not because of GW but because the Gaming Community said so. Just like you can't play without points in Age of Sigmar or play Unbound in 40K even thought GW says you can the Gaming Community says you can't. I just experienced this a few months ago so it's still like that now.

Davor wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:Actually, I think they would have tried it because it plays differently.

For years players had been asking for small scale skirmish rules to serve as the gateway game to get new players in. Something that is designed to work starting at around the model count of Mordheim and increasing up until you're approaching the lower end of your standard WHFB army.

Age of Sigmar could have been that game and I think current players would have given it every chance.

That is what I thought so as well, but from experience and reading on various forums we are to fault why that doesn't work. I seen it too many times in 40K, and it's the reason why I never started Fantasy. People kept saying "sorry I don't play 1000 points, it has to be 1500 points" or someone else would say "Sorry we don't play 1500 points, come back when you have 1850 minimum and better 2000."

I think for Fantasy a lot of people wouldn't even look at you if you had less than 2000 points for Fantasy. So hence the buy in was huge not because of GW but because the Gaming Community said so. Just like you can't play without points in Age of Sigmar or play Unbound in 40K even thought GW says you can the Gaming Community says you can't. I just experienced this a few months ago so it's still like that now.

But that is because the rules were designed for that level of buy in. If you wanted to be able to use the cool parts of your army, beyond basic troops and bare-bones characters, you had to play at a high points level.

If GW had made a game designed for lower points values, say with rules that allowed you to pay points for individual models rather than minimum unit sizes to create your own merry little ragtag warband without having to worry about minimum unit sizes or whatever, and if that game played fast as a small scale skirmish game should then that would not have been a problem.

The problem which leads to people turning down small games is not having a ruleset designed for small games.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Davor wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:Actually, I think they would have tried it because it plays differently.

For years players had been asking for small scale skirmish rules to serve as the gateway game to get new players in. Something that is designed to work starting at around the model count of Mordheim and increasing up until you're approaching the lower end of your standard WHFB army.

Age of Sigmar could have been that game and I think current players would have given it every chance.

That is what I thought so as well, but from experience and reading on various forums we are to fault why that doesn't work. I seen it too many times in 40K, and it's the reason why I never started Fantasy. People kept saying "sorry I don't play 1000 points, it has to be 1500 points" or someone else would say "Sorry we don't play 1500 points, come back when you have 1850 minimum and better 2000."

I think for Fantasy a lot of people wouldn't even look at you if you had less than 2000 points for Fantasy. So hence the buy in was huge not because of GW but because the Gaming Community said so. Just like you can't play without points in Age of Sigmar or play Unbound in 40K even thought GW says you can the Gaming Community says you can't. I just experienced this a few months ago so it's still like that now.

But that is because the rules were designed for that level of buy in. If you wanted to be able to use the cool parts of your army, beyond basic troops and bare-bones characters, you had to play at a high points level.

If GW had made a game designed for lower points values, say with rules that allowed you to pay points for individual models rather than minimum unit sizes to create your own merry little ragtag warband without having to worry about minimum unit sizes or whatever, and if that game played fast as a small scale skirmish game should then that would not have been a problem.

The problem which leads to people turning down small games is not having a ruleset designed for small games.

Yeah, 8th edition especially encouraged large unit sizes and to have those large units and still have diversity, the games got bigger.

I don't necessarily think those changes were bad from a gameplay perspective (pros and cons) but I do think it pushed up all the unit sizes people would choose to take which pushed up the game size which made it inaccessible to new customers.

When you go online and see questions "what is the optimal number of models for elite unit X" you get people recommending crazy numbers compared to previous editions where elites were often only taken in 1 or 2 ranks of 5 or 7 wide.

I think GW should have pushed a format similar to "Warbands" like they did a few editions ago, where you encourage people to buy armies under 700pts and have rules that actually make it viable and interesting to play games of that size. Then you get people interested, hopefully get people buying multiple small armies, then push the larger game which is designed for the 2000+pt range and hope people start expanding their small armies to big ones.

Funny thing is, when 3rd 40K came out and 6th WFB, we had no problem getting 1,000 pt. games in across the board. Most of the time it was even encouraged as it gave the new guys an easier number to shoot for. That, and with veteran players to spot a squad/regiment or two, they could get stuck in while feeling their army out. When a unit needs 50 models to be effective in the meta, you don't get that.

 Elbows wrote:
I think there is a good method to that madness, personally. When you make the basic, fundamental concepts/rules free it allows people to test the game prior to buying in. I don't see that as a bad thing. Now, if you promote is as "everything is free!" you're getting into the "Free to play" nonsense you see with video games.

But as something that younger person can try out (particularly if they have models/figures from another game) for a reduced cost...not a terrible thing.

The only game I sell at the moment has a free 85-page rulebook. This is mainly due to the cost of printing, but it allows people to check out the rules before buying any of the necessary components.

One of the common arguments I've heard, especially early in its lifetime, is that Age of Sigmar isn't meant to be played as a "pitched battle game", but should rather be played with scenarios. Fair enough, except when the rules were first released, and even now, you're not provided with any scenarios to run the basic four page rules with.

Meaning, if this is your first tabletop game, you're either gonna have to invent your own scenario (which might be difficult if this is your first tabletop game), or... play it as a pitched battle game, since the rulebook never even told people that it was designed to be played with scenarios. Wasn't that the reason so many complained when the rules first came out that they were a downgrade from WHFB? Because they were playing the rules the only way the they could, because GW didn't even bother informing you what they had in mind when they designed the rules?

Not to mention that, for all the talk of the rules being "free", the only way to get the scenarios the rules were designed to play with is to fork over money for the hardcover rulebooks anyway.

Scenarios are free.............you just make them up. Takes about 3 minutes of thought and discussion.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Scenarios are free.............you just make them up. Takes about 3 minutes of thought and discussion.

Coming up with good scenarios is a bit more work and generally requires clear understanding of the rules and some experience with the game. You or I (20 year veteran gamer) could probably read the rules in a sitting and write a handful of decent scenarios that evening. New players, who've never wargamed before, might not find it so easy.

Are we going for an unbalanced scenario? How unbalanced? What should the victory conditions be to compensate for that?

TBH, I don't think AoS is a very good scenario game either, if you're expecting anything resembling fair. It's a good throw-minis-on-the-table game, in the classic all your stuff Vs all my stuff style I used to play 20 years ago with my Chaos Dwarf/Dwarf/Orc/Empire alliance.

 Just Tony wrote:
Funny thing is, when 3rd 40K came out and 6th WFB, we had no problem getting 1,000 pt. games in across the board. Most of the time it was even encouraged as it gave the new guys an easier number to shoot for. That, and with veteran players to spot a squad/regiment or two, they could get stuck in while feeling their army out. When a unit needs 50 models to be effective in the meta, you don't get that.

My best games were 1000 pts WHFB, me Chaos vs High Elven friend in 6th. You would see some light cavalry or Fury try to flank or disturb the War Machines, but mainly was heavy cavalry and infanty take position, and then the game would play on a failed (estimated) charge, a failed impact, or a nice game of "chicken", a well planned flanking, a final fortune, a bait-and-flee-the-charge.

Why they decided to pass from THAT game to 8th edition, it will always baffle me.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
Scenarios are free.............you just make them up. Takes about 3 minutes of thought and discussion.

There are 20 free scenarios available via the app, which is also free.

You and me both, my friend.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

Spoiler:

Davor wrote:

A Town Called Malus wrote:Actually, I think they would have tried it because it plays differently.

For years players had been asking for small scale skirmish rules to serve as the gateway game to get new players in. Something that is designed to work starting at around the model count of Mordheim and increasing up until you're approaching the lower end of your standard WHFB army.

Age of Sigmar could have been that game and I think current players would have given it every chance.

That is what I thought so as well, but from experience and reading on various forums we are to fault why that doesn't work. I seen it too many times in 40K, and it's the reason why I never started Fantasy. People kept saying "sorry I don't play 1000 points, it has to be 1500 points" or someone else would say "Sorry we don't play 1500 points, come back when you have 1850 minimum and better 2000."

I think for Fantasy a lot of people wouldn't even look at you if you had less than 2000 points for Fantasy. So hence the buy in was huge not because of GW but because the Gaming Community said so. Just like you can't play without points in Age of Sigmar or play Unbound in 40K even thought GW says you can the Gaming Community says you can't. I just experienced this a few months ago so it's still like that now.

But that is because the rules were designed for that level of buy in. If you wanted to be able to use the cool parts of your army, beyond basic troops and bare-bones characters, you had to play at a high points level.

If GW had made a game designed for lower points values, say with rules that allowed you to pay points for individual models rather than minimum unit sizes to create your own merry little ragtag warband without having to worry about minimum unit sizes or whatever, and if that game played fast as a small scale skirmish game should then that would not have been a problem.

The problem which leads to people turning down small games is not having a ruleset designed for small games.

I disagree again. We have rules for smaller games, and people still refused them. We even have Kill Teams and a lot of people still keep saying, "Sorry don't want to play 200 point games, but when you have 1500+, then let's game".

Just because there are rules for smaller games, nothing will change because people still want to play the bigger point games. Maybe not in your area, but from what I have seen, you need bigger points because a lot of people don't want to play small point games. I haven't really seen it on the internet and I haven't seen it where I play. Outside the 400 point league we had, nobody wanted small point games and minimum was 1000 points. While 1000 points is not a lot, still if you want smaller games, the gaming community doesn't want it. Speaking from experience.

Kill Team is still not well designed for interesting small games because it fails to remove minimum unit size limitations, along with some other limitations that it adds in, which makes playing with a combination of the cool toys you can take in an army difficult.

Fan made killteam rules you can get for free leave GW's attempt in the dust.

hobojebus wrote:
Fan made killteam rules you can get for free leave GW's attempt in the dust.

GW relying on fan made rules is not really a "So, can we agree that GW has gotten better in the last year?" point (not saying that was what you were saying). They should be able to do that on their own and they are still failing at rules, albeit slightly less than before but for many it's still not good enough and that's why they say that GW hasn't gotten better.

To paraphrase a quote: "If somebody stabs you and the retracts the knife halfway they are not really helping you".

Mario wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
Fan made killteam rules you can get for free leave GW's attempt in the dust.

GW relying on fan made rules is not really a "So, can we agree that GW has gotten better in the last year?" point (not saying that was what you were saying). They should be able to do that on their own and they are still failing at rules, albeit slightly less than before but for many it's still not good enough and that's why they say that GW hasn't gotten better.

To paraphrase a quote: "If somebody stabs you and the retracts the knife halfway they are not really helping you".

I would say that would mean the bastards are going in for a second stab.

So My guess is the end times hit 40k. Squat everything that people love. Leave only super heavies 100$+ models. Unit size dont matter, gear again doesnt matter, you can bring as many as you can afford with your bank account and point wise 5 are the same as 90000. Base size increase by 20% and you measure by tip of toes only. They bring back all daemon primarchs/ primarchs and require atleast 1 to be in your army. The model cost will be a gentle 150$ plus.


Call it age of empires then cut the rules down to a single sentence " You make the call" Totally age of sigmar 40k.

OgreChubbs wrote:

Mario wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
Fan made killteam rules you can get for free leave GW's attempt in the dust.

GW relying on fan made rules is not really a "So, can we agree that GW has gotten better in the last year?" point (not saying that was what you were saying). They should be able to do that on their own and they are still failing at rules, albeit slightly less than before but for many it's still not good enough and that's why they say that GW hasn't gotten better.

To paraphrase a quote: "If somebody stabs you and the retracts the knife halfway they are not really helping you".

I would say that would mean the bastards are going in for a second stab.

So My guess is the end times hit 40k. Squat everything that people love. Leave only super heavies 100$+ models. Unit size dont matter, gear again doesnt matter, you can bring as many as you can afford with your bank account and point wise 5 are the same as 90000. Base size increase by 20% and you measure by tip of toes only. They bring back all daemon primarchs/ primarchs and require atleast 1 to be in your army. The model cost will be a gentle 150$ plus.


Call it age of empires then cut the rules down to a single sentence " You make the call" Totally age of sigmar 40k.

I'm pretty sure there's an argument inside those borderline madman-grade ravings/strawman. Because guess what: no one brought as much stuff as their bank account could afford, no one ever brought the infamous ten nagashes or sixteen cannons. Unit size and wargear DID matter (the first because of the victory conditions and bravery effects and bonuses, the latter because... really you aren't going to bring high rend/low attacks to face a horde army) and they did bring in other stuff aside from big monsters. . "You make the call" is something we do on a regular basis on 40k and AoS, we have a whole subforum to the early.

I guess you like and don't mind the bloated mess of rules that we have right now, with 5 phases per turn (the aerial, movement, psychic, shooting, and assault) with a plethora of convoluted rules with regular games that take 4 hours (a third-at least- of which will be book-keeping, specially if you play chaos) and two headaches to finish. Seriously though, I know you're posting an extreme example but it ain't (nor has) happening (but we need some serious trimming).

 auticus wrote:
GW won't get any credit until the following things occur:

* the price for a standard sized army (standard being whatever the community's default tournament size is) is roughly $250 or so.

* GW actively starts fixing their very bad balanced points.

* GW's new edition of 40k is more conducive of a static tournament game and less a narrative random dice roll game.

* GW continues to actively support tournaments (this has begun again)

Those are the things that I read pretty much on a regular basis.

Basically this, in all honesty. They are improving, and it is quite enjoyable to play their games and read their lore, but until they fix these main issues, all these little things they're doing will mean nothing and people will still complain to GW.

Oh, all of these and... Basically the whole of AoS. What were they thinking. They destroyed everything Warhammer was, lore and game wise, and threw in space marines and expected everyone to be pleased. And yet I'm still playing it and I have no clue why....

 blood ravens addiction wrote:


Oh, all of these and... Basically the whole of AoS. What were they thinking. They destroyed everything Warhammer was, lore and game wise, and threw in space marines and expected everyone to be pleased. And yet I'm still playing it and I have no clue why....

Yeah, it has gotten a lot of flakk for the destruction. Honestly? Give it half a decade to build up, we still need mores stuff to go by and if the rumors are any indicators we are going to get it within this year or half of the next.

And because the stormcasts couldn't be more different to space marines? XD I mean, look at Josh Reynolds' take on it (which is what sold me into the game, tbh) and draw conclussions

"Well, for starters, Space Marines are chosen as children, tortured by SCIENCE!, and then drafted into an eternity of being monastic murder machines whose sole purpose is to hold up the crumbling foundations of an omnicidal dystopia in the name of a rotting carcass that eats psykers like chiclets. They're emotionally stunted orphans who were brainwashed and weaponized before being unleashed on a galaxy where EVERYTHING is trying to kill them. They never even had a chance to be people before someone turned them into a gun instead.
Stormcast, on the other hand, are dead heroes, chosen for their valour and faith, resurrected and sent to free the Mortal Realms from the abominations currently running the show, on behalf of a benevolent God-King (Though benevolent is seriously up to debate). They're traumatized heroes who had lives, personalities and histories prior to being crammed into primary colored hulkbuster armor and filled full of lightning so that they could go save their descendants from the eldritch horrors of a nightmare dimension. They endure death after death, losing a bit more of their soul each time, in order to prevent anyone else from suffering the fate which befell them.
One group are so far removed from humanity as to be utterly alien. The other group are so human it causes them pain. One group feels little in the way of emotion, the other group feels emotion as strongly as they did before death. One group hates and fears the alien. The other group allies regularly with space-lizards, skeletors and green monster-men. One group is the personification of the grim future in which they live. The other is a thing born of hope.
The similarities are cosmetic: big guys in easily paintable armor sell better than little dudes with fiddly bits. But the context for those cosmetic similarities is quite different. Think of it this way...Space Marines are Batman and Stormcast are Captain America. Both are super-heroes, both wear costumes, both punch bad guys, both save people. But they ain't the same, are they?"

Plus they are more interesting to read than space marines as they ain't demigods but your average joe who's scared to die (mainly because they don't want to lose their identities and scar their friends with the experience of seeing them as nigh-soulless husks... plus the fact that they cannot be re-reforged more than twice.)