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.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
It is not the fact that it is four pages of rules, it is that it is four pages of crappy rules.

GW is BAD - but for the first time in over a decade seems to be putting some effort into turning itself around.

Sadly, while I am again willing to buy from GW, their current games are not such that they attract me (and why I so very much hope that any new Mordheim does not suck). If that changes, I am likely to at least look at new offerings.

I have things that I like better that I am willing to pour my money into (one of those things has started teething... I will be pouring my money into that for almost twenty years, I think).

But it will also take time for GW to walk back from some of those bad decisions made during those ten years - inexpensive miniatures would not devalue the brand, but abruptly dropping the prices would - so what they have to do is improve their offerings - still charge what I consider far too much, but make that still a worthwhile price to pay.

It was easy for me to walk away from the AoS box - I had no interest in any of the contents; from the rules to the minis. (I do not like the artistic direction that their miniatures have taken - it makes it easier to just say no.)

If the repackaging of Island of Blood catches my eye, it may be enough for me to make a purchase.

Importantly, the game itself has to be something that I consider a worthwhile waste of my time - I will not be using the box to play either AoS or WHFB 8 - I will be using it for Kings of War. (Itself having a very short set of core rules.)

The Auld Grump

Have you even played AoS? Seriously, it is way better than 40k. It's got straight forward rules, charges aren't as random and you can roll then choose who to assault, and monstrous creatures getting weaker is a huge addition. No points was my only major gripe. Yeah it still suffers from IGOUGO, but that's to be expected.

If you don't like the setting or the models, neato, no gripes from me. But saying the rules are crappy is just wrong. It's definitely the better ruleset than anything they've done in the past years.

Seriously, yes - I did.

And it seriously sucked! I might even say crappy!

Do you really want me to repeat a four page rant I made on the subject of how and why it sucked in a thread on how GW is getting better - because I have made exactly such a rant - from the (then) lack of points values, to the 'figure touching figure' rule, to measuring as you see fit, to inane 'funny' rules on the war scrolls.

Believe it or not, when most people say that the rules are crappy, what they really mean is that the rules are crappy!

Then add a supplement that amounts to paid errata for a free rules set.

And the changes to the setting that made the entire game a steaming pile.

So, yeah, seriously. Crappy.

The Auld Grump

You're still going to get asked to clarify, and if any negative words are what you REALLY meant, because they are strong words, and followed up with what will essentially amount to "play it until you like it." I sincerely expect they mumble "one of us... one of us..." while they type.

 Just Tony wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
It is not the fact that it is four pages of rules, it is that it is four pages of crappy rules.

GW is BAD - but for the first time in over a decade seems to be putting some effort into turning itself around.

Sadly, while I am again willing to buy from GW, their current games are not such that they attract me (and why I so very much hope that any new Mordheim does not suck). If that changes, I am likely to at least look at new offerings.

I have things that I like better that I am willing to pour my money into (one of those things has started teething... I will be pouring my money into that for almost twenty years, I think).

But it will also take time for GW to walk back from some of those bad decisions made during those ten years - inexpensive miniatures would not devalue the brand, but abruptly dropping the prices would - so what they have to do is improve their offerings - still charge what I consider far too much, but make that still a worthwhile price to pay.

It was easy for me to walk away from the AoS box - I had no interest in any of the contents; from the rules to the minis. (I do not like the artistic direction that their miniatures have taken - it makes it easier to just say no.)

If the repackaging of Island of Blood catches my eye, it may be enough for me to make a purchase.

Importantly, the game itself has to be something that I consider a worthwhile waste of my time - I will not be using the box to play either AoS or WHFB 8 - I will be using it for Kings of War. (Itself having a very short set of core rules.)

The Auld Grump

Have you even played AoS? Seriously, it is way better than 40k. It's got straight forward rules, charges aren't as random and you can roll then choose who to assault, and monstrous creatures getting weaker is a huge addition. No points was my only major gripe. Yeah it still suffers from IGOUGO, but that's to be expected.

If you don't like the setting or the models, neato, no gripes from me. But saying the rules are crappy is just wrong. It's definitely the better ruleset than anything they've done in the past years.

Seriously, yes - I did.

And it seriously sucked! I might even say crappy!

Do you really want me to repeat a four page rant I made on the subject of how and why it sucked in a thread on how GW is getting better - because I have made exactly such a rant - from the (then) lack of points values, to the 'figure touching figure' rule, to measuring as you see fit, to inane 'funny' rules on the war scrolls.

Believe it or not, when most people say that the rules are crappy, what they really mean is that the rules are crappy!

Then add a supplement that amounts to paid errata for a free rules set.

And the changes to the setting that made the entire game a steaming pile.

So, yeah, seriously. Crappy.

The Auld Grump

You're still going to get asked to clarify, and if any negative words are what you REALLY meant, because they are strong words, and followed up with what will essentially amount to "play it until you like it." I sincerely expect they mumble "one of us... one of us..." while they type.

Okay - let us start with the 'Funny' rules - that I can get a bonus for such deep and meaningful actions as 'pretending to drink a mug of beer' to 'twirling my mustache' to 'pretending to ride a horse'. These are all things that showed up in the only two sets of war scrolls that I even bothered looking at - The pseudo-Empire and the pseudo-Dwarfs. (No, I am not going to us the new 'funny' names that they have given the factions.) I am sure that there are dozens that I have missed.

Oh boy! Let us put the game on hold so that I can play a game of Let's Pretend.

Verdict - Crappy. (Quite possibly the most annoying part of the short rules for the game - and that is saying something.)

The model must be touching the model that it is attacking - not the base, the model. And since there are models that you cannot reach with your model without moving ypur miniature physically onto the base of the enemy model - with, oh, let us say a spearman that is carrying his spear upright - and so is assumed to never, you know, point it at the enemy! that means that some models never get to attack certain other models.

Verdict - Crappy.

Measurement is made from any point of the base, regardless of which way the model is facing, so if my model has a long tail, I can charge backwards into the enemy to attack with my teeth!

Verdict - Crappy.

Then we have the whole 'Bring whatever models you want' rule - so if Bob over there wants his High Elves, his Chaos Daemons, and his Vampire counts (Again - I am avoiding the pseudo-names that they have decided was such a great idea) then he can!

Verdict - Crappy.

And then there is the number one point that people bring up, for very good reason - no attempt made in the original version of the game to impose any sort of game balance at all. Not even the poorly balanced point system that had been in the previous incarnations of Warhammer.

Verdict - Crappy.

These were all problems that should have been caught long before the game was released.

Now, I gather that the folks at GW have started to address many of these points - but the fact remains that when the game was pooped onto an unsuspecting audience these problems were integral to the game.

And I also gather that some of the rules that were not repaired in General's Handbook will be addressed in version 2 - which makes how many revisions in how short a time? And folks used to complain that Warhammer Fantasy Battle had revisions too often? (On the flip side, I think that it is fair to say that what I am describing as problems has now been recognized as problems, so just trying to wave them away no longer works - going back and fixing those problems is an admission that they were problems.)

The game holds together about as well as the plot of The Lego Movie - and with just about as much structure. But without the actual humor that allowed the Lego Movie to work as a movie. (I actually liked the Lego Movie - and there was an in movie reason for why the plot was so disjointed.)

Then add in the orphaned armies - Tomb Kings and Brettonians - one had rules on the GW site for a time, but last I heard they had been taken down when they put the Tomb Kings on Buy It Now. The other never even poked its nose around the corner.

I am glad that GW has started addressing most of those problems - but it remains that they released the rules in a state that made them useless for anything more involved than Advanced Let's Pretend. I wrote better rules when I was twelve years old, and wanted my cheap plastic dinosaurs to fight my cheap plastic toy soldiers. (I wanted it to be an even fight - one bag of cheap toy soldiers vs. one bag of cheap toy dinosaurs.)

It is not the simplicity of the rules that are the problem - I like simple rules - the core rules for Kings of War is hardly any longer than the core rules of Age of Sigmar - so it is not the short length of the rules that caused the problems. The basic core of AoS might be salvageable, there is nothing wrong with the base mechanics - it was in the implementation of those mechanics that GW fell down.

The central problem was that the rules they had for the game, at initial release, were poorly considered, and quite likely untested before release.

The 'funny' rules just added insult to injury.

Then add that AoS is replacing a ranked combat game with a free-for-all skirmish game, and you get some seriously disgruntled players.

I have said it before, and I will say it again - AoS was enough of a departure from the older game that there would have been room for both games - and if they had handed out the AoS rules for an independent playtest before release then it might also have been a worthwhile game, or at least a decent introductory game.

Instead, they seem to have decided that all of there players were thirteen years old, and would jump after the 'cool' of twirling an imaginary mustache. (I had better taste when I was thirteen.)

So, my final verdict of the rules - Crappy. It is to WHFB what Dreadfleet* was to Man O'War.

I also disliked the aesthetics of the figures - but I will not argue about whether they are good or bad - my personal thought, when I saw the daemon with skull zits was 'wow, that looks like crap' - but I am sure that there are people that like the cartoony nature of the new style. But me, I preferred the warts and all look of the older figures, even if the technical skill of the modellers has been noticeably improved. I want a touch more realism, or at least verisimilitude, both in the models and the rules. I have not much liked most of the models for the AoS range.

The setting irritates me - So, like Sigmar got drunk after the world was destroyed, and had, like this crazy dream, man! So all we have now are, like, these dream bubbles that float around!

There is no solid aspect of the game that I like.

The Auld Grump

* Again, the technical aspects of the models in Dreadfleet were miles above those of Man O'War - there were some jaw droppingly gorgeous models in the box - but they had been stapled to rules that were worse than Age of Sigmar's.

*EDIT* I find it ironic that as far as I was concerned, the important part of my original post was that I was considering getting the reissue of the figures from Island of Blood - not that the AoS rules are crappy. That I was seeing improvement in the company, if not in their current games.

I believe the current line is 'since the generals handbook, it's gotten a lot better'.

Anecdotally, I mentioned this at my FLGS a couple of days ago in front of a guy who is pretty system agnostic and doesn't seem to have any real dislike for Games Workshop other than the usual Australian prices - I'm pretty sure he plays everything possible - and an old GW vet who plays 40k still, and played Fantasy for multiple editions.

Both said it's still terrible. The generals handbook added points, but at its core the game is still that 4 pages of pretty poor rules written on a napkin while having a brew one afternoon at Bugmans. There's just, plain and simple, better games out right now.

@TheAuldGrump: you DO realize I was taking a playful stab at the pro-AOS crowd with my post, right? I wasn't personally asking you to defend yourself.

Are we still going on about "funny rules" when I haven't seen anyone use or talk about in over a year?

That said, I respect you have a differing opinion and don't like AoS and not trying to change your opinion or saying you are wrong.

 Just Tony wrote:
@TheAuldGrump: you DO realize I was taking a playful stab at the pro-AOS crowd with my post, right? I wasn't personally asking you to defend yourself.

Actually, I didn't - I am so sorry.

You did a very good job of imitating some of the actual responses that I have seen from True Believers.

Even though it is unlikely that I was ever going to like the game, I wish that GW had put enough effort into creating it that I could at least see the attraction.

And, yeah, five minutes on a pub napkin was what I felt, too. (From what I gather, Cavatore did not spend all that long on Kings of War, either - but he had a better sense of what he wanted to accomplish, I think. And probably wasn't in a pub at the time. ) I have read that it was Jervis Johnson's baby, and exemplifies his PoV for rules... gods above and below, that is depressing if true.

If it weren't for the miniatures, I would think that the rules for AoS were created at the last minute because the End Times was supposed to wrap WHFB completely - but sold better than expected, so they wanted to rush something out. (Much as I dislike the figures, a lot more effort went into them than into the rules.)

And, to be fair - if I had liked the miniatures better, I might have been tempted by the box - I always like having new miniatures in large numbers, even if I was going to throw away the four pages of rules. Instead... skull zits....

The Auld Grump - and, as much as I dislike those figures, I have an easier time understanding folks that like the figures than I do those that like the rules....

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
@TheAuldGrump: you DO realize I was taking a playful stab at the pro-AOS crowd with my post, right? I wasn't personally asking you to defend yourself.

Actually, I didn't - I am so sorry.

You did a very good job of imitating some of the actual responses that I have seen from True Believers.

Even though it is unlikely that I was ever going to like the game, I wish that GW had put enough effort into creating it that I could at least see the attraction.

And, yeah, five minutes on a pub napkin was what I felt, too. (From what I gather, Cavatore did not spend all that long on Kings of War, either - but he had a better sense of what he wanted to accomplish, I think. And probably wasn't in a pub at the time. ) I have read that it was Jervis Johnson's baby, and exemplifies his PoV for rules... gods above and below, that is depressing if true.

If it weren't for the miniatures, I would think that the rules for AoS were created at the last minute because the End Times was supposed to wrap WHFB completely - but sold better than expected, so they wanted to rush something out. (Much as I dislike the figures, a lot more effort went into them than into the rules.)

And, to be fair - if I had liked the miniatures better, I might have been tempted by the box - I always like having new miniatures in large numbers, even if I was going to throw away the four pages of rules. Instead... skull zits....

The Auld Grump - and, as much as I dislike those figures, I have an easier time understanding folks that like the figures than I do those that like the rules....

From someone who greatly enjoyed AOS from it's release, (and played WFB for 15+ years) the rules are quite simply fun. And if i find them fun, that's good rules to me. Personally, i've played about two dozen games of Kings of War and i can't see the attraction. It is just so dull. There's no soul or feeling of excitement from the game. It's not necessarily bad, but just dull is the only word i can use to describe it. The GHB had some nice options when it was released. Kind of sad they brought points back in, but it does make for the easier pickup game.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
@TheAuldGrump: you DO realize I was taking a playful stab at the pro-AOS crowd with my post, right? I wasn't personally asking you to defend yourself.

Actually, I didn't - I am so sorry.

You did a very good job of imitating some of the actual responses that I have seen from True Believers.

Even though it is unlikely that I was ever going to like the game, I wish that GW had put enough effort into creating it that I could at least see the attraction.

And, yeah, five minutes on a pub napkin was what I felt, too. (From what I gather, Cavatore did not spend all that long on Kings of War, either - but he had a better sense of what he wanted to accomplish, I think. And probably wasn't in a pub at the time. ) I have read that it was Jervis Johnson's baby, and exemplifies his PoV for rules... gods above and below, that is depressing if true.

If it weren't for the miniatures, I would think that the rules for AoS were created at the last minute because the End Times was supposed to wrap WHFB completely - but sold better than expected, so they wanted to rush something out. (Much as I dislike the figures, a lot more effort went into them than into the rules.)

And, to be fair - if I had liked the miniatures better, I might have been tempted by the box - I always like having new miniatures in large numbers, even if I was going to throw away the four pages of rules. Instead... skull zits....

The Auld Grump - and, as much as I dislike those figures, I have an easier time understanding folks that like the figures than I do those that like the rules....

From someone who greatly enjoyed AOS from it's release, (and played WFB for 15+ years) the rules are quite simply fun. And if i find them fun, that's good rules to me. Personally, i've played about two dozen games of Kings of War and i can't see the attraction. It is just so dull. There's no soul or feeling of excitement from the game. It's not necessarily bad, but just dull is the only word i can use to describe it. The GHB had some nice options when it was released. Kind of sad they brought points back in, but it does make for the easier pickup game.

I suspect that what you call dull is what I call depth, and what you call fun is what I call fizz with no substance - I found that AoS felt pointless to me, with no meat to the rules.

You probably like a lighter, faster game - beer & pretzels. With a large dollop of over the top fantasy. Which can be fun, but really was not what the older WHFB was about. (Again - I think that there was room for both, but GW felt the need to blow up their setting....)

I like games with a deeper, slower pace, with a bigger nod to realism,

The old Warhammer was a lot closer to Kings of War in terms of tactics. AoS... is a bit like a really simplified 40K with a layer of silly thrown on top - and I despise the silliness. (I would like to whack whatever yahoo that thought that twirling an imaginary mustache was a good addition to the game over the head with a Wiffle bat, just so that I can enjoy the 'bonk' as a hollow plastic bat hits a hollow head.)

So, I find AoS dull.

*EDIT* For the record, I had a worse time when playing 4th edition D&D than I did with AoS - in spite of 4th edition D&D being a better written set of rules. I just did not like either game. In the case of Kings of War, it took a while to grow on me - I really missed Rallying from WHFB.

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
@TheAuldGrump: you DO realize I was taking a playful stab at the pro-AOS crowd with my post, right? I wasn't personally asking you to defend yourself.

Actually, I didn't - I am so sorry.

You did a very good job of imitating some of the actual responses that I have seen from True Believers.

Even though it is unlikely that I was ever going to like the game, I wish that GW had put enough effort into creating it that I could at least see the attraction.

And, yeah, five minutes on a pub napkin was what I felt, too. (From what I gather, Cavatore did not spend all that long on Kings of War, either - but he had a better sense of what he wanted to accomplish, I think. And probably wasn't in a pub at the time. ) I have read that it was Jervis Johnson's baby, and exemplifies his PoV for rules... gods above and below, that is depressing if true.

If it weren't for the miniatures, I would think that the rules for AoS were created at the last minute because the End Times was supposed to wrap WHFB completely - but sold better than expected, so they wanted to rush something out. (Much as I dislike the figures, a lot more effort went into them than into the rules.)

And, to be fair - if I had liked the miniatures better, I might have been tempted by the box - I always like having new miniatures in large numbers, even if I was going to throw away the four pages of rules. Instead... skull zits....

The Auld Grump - and, as much as I dislike those figures, I have an easier time understanding folks that like the figures than I do those that like the rules....

From someone who greatly enjoyed AOS from it's release, (and played WFB for 15+ years) the rules are quite simply fun. And if i find them fun, that's good rules to me. Personally, i've played about two dozen games of Kings of War and i can't see the attraction. It is just so dull. There's no soul or feeling of excitement from the game. It's not necessarily bad, but just dull is the only word i can use to describe it. The GHB had some nice options when it was released. Kind of sad they brought points back in, but it does make for the easier pickup game.

I suspect that what you call dull is what I call depth, and what you call fun is what I call fizz with no substance - I found that AoS felt pointless to me, with no meat to the rules.

You probably like a lighter, faster game - beer & pretzels. With a large dollop of over the top fantasy. Which can be fun, but really was not what the older WHFB was about. (Again - I think that there was room for both, but GW felt the need to blow up their setting....)

I like games with a deeper, slower pace, with a bigger nod to realism,

The old Warhammer was a lot closer to Kings of War in terms of tactics. AoS... is a bit like a really simplified 40K with a layer of silly thrown on top - and I despise the silliness. (I would like to whack whatever yahoo that thought that twirling an imaginary mustache was a good addition to the game over the head with a Wiffle bat, just so that I can enjoy the 'bonk' as a hollow plastic bat hits a hollow head.)

So, I find AoS dull.

*EDIT* For the record, I had a worse time when playing 4th edition D&D than I did with AoS - in spite of 4th edition D&D being a better written set of rules. I just did not like either game. In the case of Kings of War, it took a while to grow on me - I really missed Rallying from WHFB.

The Auld Grump

Nah, not really. I've dug deeper into AOS's system and there is a great deal of depth there if you're willing to dig. I've never been a particular fan of beer and pretzels games as i like to think about what i'm doing. Makes me wonder why i stuck with WFB for so long quite frankly. It sure as hell didn't have any depth. Or no meaningful depth anyway. But i'm not sure where you keep getting this "silly" thing from. The rules you seem to take offense too haven't been used since it started. They just seemed like a funny change over, but haven't been used since.

I think blowing up the setting was necessary at this point. It may not have been generic 20 odd years ago, but now there is nothing too WFB you can't find in a 1001 other settings these days. There was nothing unique there to draw new blood. If i was new, there would be nothing there to draw me in. At least with AOS it's going in a new direction (maybe too flashy perhaps, but that's the world we live in right now. adapt or die as they say).

I've dug deeper into AOS's system and there is a great deal of depth there if you're willing to dig

That's still sounding dangerously close to "play it til you like it."

I can't honestly say I've appreciated the full depth of every game I've ever played, but I have at least been able to see the depth, even if I didn't grasp it, within a game or so, a couple of turns in some cases.

But, as I'm largely ignorant of the inner workings of AOS, perhaps you could outline what you consider to be depth within the gameplay? Because that's likely relative to each player's own experience, someone who's only played GW is unlikely to view "depth" as the same thing as someone who's played many other systems, so it would be useful to have a comparative baseline.

 Azreal13 wrote:

I've dug deeper into AOS's system and there is a great deal of depth there if you're willing to dig

That's still sounding dangerously close to "play it til you like it."

I can't honestly say I've appreciated the full depth of every game I've ever played, but I have at least been able to see the depth, even if I didn't grasp it, within a game or so, a couple of turns in some cases.

But, as I'm largely ignorant of the inner workings of AOS, perhaps you could outline what you consider to be depth within the gameplay? Because that's likely relative to each player's own experience, someone who's only played GW is unlikely to view "depth" as the same thing as someone who's played many other systems, so it would be useful to have a comparative baseline.

Perhaps. But isn't the point of a game to play and enjoy it? Like i said above, i gave KOW a good two dozen attempts before i realized it wasn't for me.

For me personally, i've found a lot of depth comes from surprisingly clever unit synergy. As you play more, you can see clear strategies forming between units and how they interact. Kind of like older Eldar for 40k (forgive my memory, but i haven't played 40k for ages, but i think around 4th or 5th they were like that)? Now i haven't played all armies, just Death and Sylvaneth mostly, but if most other armies are like that, (and general word that i have heard is they are) there is a subtle cleverness in the system that i hope isn't lost.

As a side note with the GHB coming out yearly and updating ALL armies at the same time, i think the game has got an outstanding chance of becoming extremely balanced.

The concept of investing more in something you don't like confuses the hell out of me honestly, if I go for a meal someplace and its bad I won't eat there again but if I dislike a free game I'm supposed to pay for scenarios and a points system.

Sorry but no that's just crazy talk to my mind.

hobojebus wrote:
The concept of investing more in something you don't like confuses the hell out of me honestly, if I go for a meal someplace and its bad I won't eat there again but if I dislike a free game I'm supposed to pay for scenarios and a points system.

Sorry but no that's just crazy talk to my mind.

Was that aimed at me?

If it was, please read below:

Who said anything about investing more into anything? I didn't invest anything into KOW, i proxied and gave it a fair chance. I didn't invest into AOS. I had a few sizable armies from WFB to try out the Free rules with and enjoyed it., so i picked up the GHB and enjoyed it even more. I never spend unnecessary money and won't unless i know i will get enjoyment out of it.

-

The more I read pro AoS posts, the more I'm convinced AoS is some kind of pyramid scheme, and you get some kind of benefit the more people you get to join.
Try, just try it, oh you didn't like it, well, there's been a change, try it now, you still didn't like it? Are you sure you actually tried it? It's been a few minutes, you're a bit older and with age comes wisdom, try it now.
Has anyone ever posted "oh you didn't like AoS, yes well it's not to everyone's liking."?

Joyboozer wrote:
The more I read pro AoS posts, the more I'm convinced AoS is some kind of pyramid scheme, and you get some kind of benefit the more people you get to join.
Try, just try it, oh you didn't like it, well, there's been a change, try it now, you still didn't like it? Are you sure you actually tried it? It's been a few minutes, you're a bit older and with age comes wisdom, try it now.
Has anyone ever posted "oh you didn't like AoS, yes well it's not to everyone's liking."?

Frequently. But it tends to get drowned out through the usual vitriol that comes with that sort of post. People seem to have an excessively hard time moving on for some reason. Despite the myriad of claims there are better games out there. And there are, no arguing that. But as ever, it's all down to personal taste and what you want from a game.

Isn't that the average theme for any hobbyists, though?

AoS- the new book changed things so give it another chance.

KoW- that was the old KoW, the newest version makes things alot more fun and tactical.

9th age- Oh that was the last update, the new update addressed alot of issues so give it another go.

40k- it's bloated and unbalanced yeah but look at this new stuff coming out!

In the end it's all just a hobby that you choose to spend money and time on to get full enjoyment out of. So if it doesn't suit you go find something else that does. Pretty simple in my opinion.

Also, anyone else find it funny how the Anti-AoS crowd forgets about all the unique warscrolls when saying GW made the 4 rule pages because they were lazy and didn't care but remember them immediately when they want to point out it's just as overcomplicated as Wfb was?

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
@TheAuldGrump: you DO realize I was taking a playful stab at the pro-AOS crowd with my post, right? I wasn't personally asking you to defend yourself.

Actually, I didn't - I am so sorry.

You did a very good job of imitating some of the actual responses that I have seen from True Believers.

Even though it is unlikely that I was ever going to like the game, I wish that GW had put enough effort into creating it that I could at least see the attraction.

And, yeah, five minutes on a pub napkin was what I felt, too. (From what I gather, Cavatore did not spend all that long on Kings of War, either - but he had a better sense of what he wanted to accomplish, I think. And probably wasn't in a pub at the time. ) I have read that it was Jervis Johnson's baby, and exemplifies his PoV for rules... gods above and below, that is depressing if true.

If it weren't for the miniatures, I would think that the rules for AoS were created at the last minute because the End Times was supposed to wrap WHFB completely - but sold better than expected, so they wanted to rush something out. (Much as I dislike the figures, a lot more effort went into them than into the rules.)

And, to be fair - if I had liked the miniatures better, I might have been tempted by the box - I always like having new miniatures in large numbers, even if I was going to throw away the four pages of rules. Instead... skull zits....

The Auld Grump - and, as much as I dislike those figures, I have an easier time understanding folks that like the figures than I do those that like the rules....

From someone who greatly enjoyed AOS from it's release, (and played WFB for 15+ years) the rules are quite simply fun. And if i find them fun, that's good rules to me. Personally, i've played about two dozen games of Kings of War and i can't see the attraction. It is just so dull. There's no soul or feeling of excitement from the game. It's not necessarily bad, but just dull is the only word i can use to describe it. The GHB had some nice options when it was released. Kind of sad they brought points back in, but it does make for the easier pickup game.

I suspect that what you call dull is what I call depth, and what you call fun is what I call fizz with no substance - I found that AoS felt pointless to me, with no meat to the rules.

You probably like a lighter, faster game - beer & pretzels. With a large dollop of over the top fantasy. Which can be fun, but really was not what the older WHFB was about. (Again - I think that there was room for both, but GW felt the need to blow up their setting....)

I like games with a deeper, slower pace, with a bigger nod to realism,

The old Warhammer was a lot closer to Kings of War in terms of tactics. AoS... is a bit like a really simplified 40K with a layer of silly thrown on top - and I despise the silliness. (I would like to whack whatever yahoo that thought that twirling an imaginary mustache was a good addition to the game over the head with a Wiffle bat, just so that I can enjoy the 'bonk' as a hollow plastic bat hits a hollow head.)

So, I find AoS dull.

*EDIT* For the record, I had a worse time when playing 4th edition D&D than I did with AoS - in spite of 4th edition D&D being a better written set of rules. I just did not like either game. In the case of Kings of War, it took a while to grow on me - I really missed Rallying from WHFB.

The Auld Grump

Nah, not really. I've dug deeper into AOS's system and there is a great deal of depth there if you're willing to dig. I've never been a particular fan of beer and pretzels games as i like to think about what i'm doing. Makes me wonder why i stuck with WFB for so long quite frankly. It sure as hell didn't have any depth. Or no meaningful depth anyway. But i'm not sure where you keep getting this "silly" thing from. The rules you seem to take offense too haven't been used since it started. They just seemed like a funny change over, but haven't been used since.

I think blowing up the setting was necessary at this point. It may not have been generic 20 odd years ago, but now there is nothing too WFB you can't find in a 1001 other settings these days. There was nothing unique there to draw new blood. If i was new, there would be nothing there to draw me in. At least with AOS it's going in a new direction (maybe too flashy perhaps, but that's the world we live in right now. adapt or die as they say).

I have heard that every pile of manure has a golden treasure if you dig enough!

But I don't believe that, either, so I will leave both the piles of manure and AoS steaming in the winter air.

The Auld Grump - actually, the manure is a better choice - if you have a garden.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bottle wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

Then add in the orphaned armies - Tomb Kings and Brettonians - one had rules on the GW site for a time, but last I heard they had been taken down when they put the Tomb Kings on Buy It Now. The other never even poked its nose around the corner.

Not here to go round the houses this time, Grump, but wanted to point out the above isn't true. Both factions got rules on release. Both factions rules are still there. And both got full points in the General's Handbook.

Also the General's Handbook addresses everyone of your qualms above (except for the funny rules which had already been largely addressed), so I would urge you to give it another chance.

Merry Christmas Auld :-)

This does not change that they are problems that should not have been problems if GW had bothered doing an even halfway decent playtest - GW didn't bother, and so those problems were there.

I will be honest that I don't know about whether or not Brettonians or Tomb Kings are on their site - I had no interest in either for WHFB, and no interest left for AoS, either. I am repeating what I had heard, so am not all that surprised to be wrong.

It is ironic - I am actually interested more in Tomb Kings and Brettonians, both, for Kings of War than I was for WHFB. If GW still had the battalion box for Tomb Kings I would likely have bought one. I would almost certainly have bought a box of serpent surfers. (The heart of comedy is the timing.)

But to end on a positive(ish) note - I do find it encouraging that GW did put out the GH - though I feel that it should have taken the form of free errata, but instead takes the form of a paid supplement for a free set of rules. (If they were free, I likely still would not have bothered - I really was not impressed with AoS.)

And I also find it encouraging that many of those complaints are going to be addressed in 2.0 - but, again, they should never have found their way into a published work by one of the primary companies in the industry.

So, I see GW moving from Worse to just Bad, with a hope that if/when they do a new Mordheim then it will be something that I find worth purchasing.

The Auld Grump - AoS is nowhere near the worst set of rules that I have seen, but they were far worse than they should have been.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
@TheAuldGrump: you DO realize I was taking a playful stab at the pro-AOS crowd with my post, right? I wasn't personally asking you to defend yourself.

Actually, I didn't - I am so sorry.

You did a very good job of imitating some of the actual responses that I have seen from True Believers.

Even though it is unlikely that I was ever going to like the game, I wish that GW had put enough effort into creating it that I could at least see the attraction.

And, yeah, five minutes on a pub napkin was what I felt, too. (From what I gather, Cavatore did not spend all that long on Kings of War, either - but he had a better sense of what he wanted to accomplish, I think. And probably wasn't in a pub at the time. ) I have read that it was Jervis Johnson's baby, and exemplifies his PoV for rules... gods above and below, that is depressing if true.

If it weren't for the miniatures, I would think that the rules for AoS were created at the last minute because the End Times was supposed to wrap WHFB completely - but sold better than expected, so they wanted to rush something out. (Much as I dislike the figures, a lot more effort went into them than into the rules.)

And, to be fair - if I had liked the miniatures better, I might have been tempted by the box - I always like having new miniatures in large numbers, even if I was going to throw away the four pages of rules. Instead... skull zits....

The Auld Grump - and, as much as I dislike those figures, I have an easier time understanding folks that like the figures than I do those that like the rules....

From someone who greatly enjoyed AOS from it's release, (and played WFB for 15+ years) the rules are quite simply fun. And if i find them fun, that's good rules to me. Personally, i've played about two dozen games of Kings of War and i can't see the attraction. It is just so dull. There's no soul or feeling of excitement from the game. It's not necessarily bad, but just dull is the only word i can use to describe it. The GHB had some nice options when it was released. Kind of sad they brought points back in, but it does make for the easier pickup game.

I suspect that what you call dull is what I call depth, and what you call fun is what I call fizz with no substance - I found that AoS felt pointless to me, with no meat to the rules.

You probably like a lighter, faster game - beer & pretzels. With a large dollop of over the top fantasy. Which can be fun, but really was not what the older WHFB was about. (Again - I think that there was room for both, but GW felt the need to blow up their setting....)

I like games with a deeper, slower pace, with a bigger nod to realism,

The old Warhammer was a lot closer to Kings of War in terms of tactics. AoS... is a bit like a really simplified 40K with a layer of silly thrown on top - and I despise the silliness. (I would like to whack whatever yahoo that thought that twirling an imaginary mustache was a good addition to the game over the head with a Wiffle bat, just so that I can enjoy the 'bonk' as a hollow plastic bat hits a hollow head.)

So, I find AoS dull.

*EDIT* For the record, I had a worse time when playing 4th edition D&D than I did with AoS - in spite of 4th edition D&D being a better written set of rules. I just did not like either game. In the case of Kings of War, it took a while to grow on me - I really missed Rallying from WHFB.

The Auld Grump

Nah, not really. I've dug deeper into AOS's system and there is a great deal of depth there if you're willing to dig. I've never been a particular fan of beer and pretzels games as i like to think about what i'm doing. Makes me wonder why i stuck with WFB for so long quite frankly. It sure as hell didn't have any depth. Or no meaningful depth anyway. But i'm not sure where you keep getting this "silly" thing from. The rules you seem to take offense too haven't been used since it started. They just seemed like a funny change over, but haven't been used since.

I think blowing up the setting was necessary at this point. It may not have been generic 20 odd years ago, but now there is nothing too WFB you can't find in a 1001 other settings these days. There was nothing unique there to draw new blood. If i was new, there would be nothing there to draw me in. At least with AOS it's going in a new direction (maybe too flashy perhaps, but that's the world we live in right now. adapt or die as they say).

I have heard that every pile of manure has a golden treasure if you dig enough!

But I don't believe that, either, so I will leave both the piles of manure and AoS steaming in the winter air.

The Auld Grump - actually, the manure is a better choice - if you have a garden.

You're of course free to believe what you wish. You're in a free country (for the moment at least).
It's just a shame you have such a closed mind about things.
But as i say, you have your opinion and do yourself credit for sticking too it.

Joyboozer wrote:The more I read pro AoS posts, the more I'm convinced AoS is some kind of pyramid scheme, and you get some kind of benefit the more people you get to join.
Try, just try it, oh you didn't like it, well, there's been a change, try it now, you still didn't like it? Are you sure you actually tried it? It's been a few minutes, you're a bit older and with age comes wisdom, try it now.
Has anyone ever posted "oh you didn't like AoS, yes well it's not to everyone's liking."?

When people keep saying they don't like something over and over again, of course someone new will come in and say "try it, it has changed". There is no scheme to get more people playing especially when in most case you will never see these people to play with.

Maybe if people stop saying how bad Age of Sigmar is, then people will stop trying to defend something they like. It's called respecting people's opinion. When the person who doesn't like AoS but claims it "sucks" as "fact" that upsets people who like it when in "fact" to them it doesn't suck. So maybe in stead of people talking as "fact" they start talking in "opinion" and then there will be less "defending" or as you say "scheming" going on.

^exalted for truth.

But yeah,

It's called respecting people's opinion. 

good luck getting that when talking online.

How is it respecting people's opinion only when it's what you agree with?
It's respecting someone's opinion to say tough luck you liked warhammer but sales were bad because the game was terrible?

 Bottle wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

Then add in the orphaned armies - Tomb Kings and Brettonians - one had rules on the GW site for a time, but last I heard they had been taken down when they put the Tomb Kings on Buy It Now. The other never even poked its nose around the corner.

Not here to go round the houses this time, Grump, but wanted to point out the above isn't true. Both factions got rules on release. Both factions rules are still there. And both got full points in the General's Handbook.

Also the General's Handbook addresses everyone of your qualms above (except for the funny rules which had already been largely addressed), so I would urge you to give it another chance.

Merry Christmas Auld :-)

And this is how you say "play it til you like it" without coming right out and saying it. I remember when someone told me that I couldn't critique Beast Wars without watching it in its entirety, so I bought a boxed set of the series and watched it all the way through. I still didn't like the show, and the recommendation was "Well, maybe you should rewatch it since you don't see what's good about it." I didn't go for that then, and I won't go for it with AOS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Joyboozer wrote:
How is it respecting people's opinion only when it's what you agree with?
It's respecting someone's opinion to say tough luck you liked warhammer but sales were bad because the game was terrible?

Cult of "new shiny version", also known as Applepostle-ism.

-

So after ignoring the player base for over a decade , GW plc has lost over half its sales volumes focusing just on loyal customers who just collect but dont play or care about the rules.

So now GW are in full panic mode, and desperately trying to win back PLAYERS.

Unfortunately for GW plc, multiple other companies are on the scene now, and lots of these companies focus on game play.
This means GW plc will have to equal or beat the quality of the rules set of other companies before many will be enticed back.

GW plc make the minatures I like, at a price I can afford, but obviously just treat me like a walking wallet .

Has Changed to..

GW plc make the minatures I like, at a price I can afford.

So some could say it is an improvement.

When its Games Workshop , are producing quality rule sets to use with the minatures I like and can afford.

You would see a much more positive reaction from the community in general.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:


Quotes from several posts on this page.

From someone who greatly enjoyed AOS from it's release, (and played WFB for 15+ years)

Who said anything about investing more into anything? I didn't invest anything into KOW, i proxied and gave it a fair chance.

For me personally, i've found a lot of depth comes from surprisingly clever unit synergy.

Observations...

You played WFB for 15+ years AND needed to proxy to try KoW out? What?
Every army I owned for WFB fits into KoW except a few special units. Usually I just have to lower the unit size to a respectable amount and everything fits KoW.

As for the synergy comment? That just sounds to me like "I can find a winning combo so know I can win before I even start playing the game against you".

The more games you try outside of GW, the more, you realise GW is trying to be "The Church of GWology".

 Peregrine wrote:
Expecting prices for a whole 40k army to come down to the same level as a whole army in a skirmish-scale game is simply not reasonable, at all. 40k is never going to be that cheap because it has a much higher model count.

I don't think anyone expects that, however their proces are still ludicrous for the amount of models they expect you to buy.

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:


Quotes from several posts on this page.

From someone who greatly enjoyed AOS from it's release, (and played WFB for 15+ years)

Who said anything about investing more into anything? I didn't invest anything into KOW, i proxied and gave it a fair chance.

For me personally, i've found a lot of depth comes from surprisingly clever unit synergy.

Observations...

You played WFB for 15+ years AND needed to proxy to try KoW out? What?
Every army I owned for WFB fits into KoW except a few special units. Usually I just have to lower the unit size to a respectable amount and everything fits KoW.

As for the synergy comment? That just sounds to me like "I can find a winning combo so know I can win before I even start playing the game against you".

The more games you try outside of GW, the more, you realise GW is trying to be "The Church of GWology".

Well yeah, proxy. I'm not forking out money for a new army unless i know i'm going to enjoy the game. Plus the only minis of Mantic's worth having are the zombies. If i wanted to play the game, i would have bought a new army from them, not proxied my old ones.

Hardly. That's called learning the army and how the units interact together. I've never played to win and don't try and judge me as someone who does thanks. I like discovering how the armies work and how they interact. That's a big part of the fun for me.

I have played a number of games outside of GW.
Personally i'm looking forward to trying that new rank and file one from Fantasy Flight (who's name escapes me right now) could be fun.

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

 Gimgamgoo wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:


Quotes from several posts on this page.

From someone who greatly enjoyed AOS from it's release, (and played WFB for 15+ years)

Who said anything about investing more into anything? I didn't invest anything into KOW, i proxied and gave it a fair chance.

For me personally, i've found a lot of depth comes from surprisingly clever unit synergy.

Observations...

You played WFB for 15+ years AND needed to proxy to try KoW out? What?
Every army I owned for WFB fits into KoW except a few special units. Usually I just have to lower the unit size to a respectable amount and everything fits KoW.

As for the synergy comment? That just sounds to me like "I can find a winning combo so know I can win before I even start playing the game against you".

The more games you try outside of GW, the more, you realise GW is trying to be "The Church of GWology".

Well yeah, proxy. I'm not forking out money for a new army unless i know i'm going to enjoy the game. Plus the only minis of Mantic's worth having are the zombies. If i wanted to play the game, i would have bought a new army from them, not proxied my old ones.

The greatest trick GW ever pulled is convincing the gamer they can only use their models for their systems...

Sigh..not sure if you're being sarcastic or not, but i just said if i liked KOW i would have bought at least some of the models for it. If i'm playing a game i like, i will support the parent company.