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.

 streetsamurai wrote:
seems like a few posters didn't turned their sarcasm detector on.

It is because I have no idea what sarcasm is.

And I never use it myself.

The (Sarcastic) Auld Grump

 Bottle wrote:
Have you guys played AoS with the GHB or just with the 4 pages of core rules? The GHB improved the game so so much. I recommend you give it another shot before dismissing it. The 4 pages serve as an introduction only in my opinion for younger wargamers.

I've read this a lot of time, but apart adding points and scenarios, I fail to see how GHB add anything of values to the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Plus, people complain about bloat in 40K, but AoS, with every units having units having unique rules, can get very bloated very quickly quick, with the added flaw of having no serious game mechanics behind it (though 40K also has a bit of tthis problem with formations, one of the reasons why I don't like them).

Mr. CyberPunk wrote:

I've read this a lot of time, but apart adding points and scenarios, I fail to see how GHB add anything of values to the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Plus, people complain about bloat in 40K, but AoS, with every units having units having unique rules, can get very bloated very quickly quick, with the added flaw of having no serious game mechanics behind it.

Actually, it's the opposite. Not having rules reference the main rulebook means that you don't get tacked on rules that interact funny with other rules. They literally work the way they are written on the scroll. It's amazingly simple and straight forward rules wise. You can't memorize them but the good news is when you look them up (for free) you only have to look in a single place. Not dig back and forth to see how things work.

I'll give you an example. With Genestealer Cult in 40k a lot of confusion comes from how their deployment rules work with Infiltrate and Reserves rules from the Rulebook. In AoS if they have a deployment rule it's on the sheet and works just like it's spelled out.

The GHB added the very solid scenarios for general play that encourage pretty balanced list building. Requirements for actual list building (Battleline and limited Hero/Artillery/Monsters). It also requires single Grand Allegiance armies and added some customability in Command Traits, Allegiance Traits, and Artifacts.

 Hulksmash wrote:

Mr. CyberPunk wrote:

I've read this a lot of time, but apart adding points and scenarios, I fail to see how GHB add anything of values to the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Plus, people complain about bloat in 40K, but AoS, with every units having units having unique rules, can get very bloated very quickly quick, with the added flaw of having no serious game mechanics behind it.

Actually, it's the opposite. Not having rules reference the main rulebook means that you don't get tacked on rules that interact funny with other rules. They literally work the way they are written on the scroll. It's amazingly simple and straight forward rules wise. You can't memorize them but the good news is when you look them up (for free) you only have to look in a single place. Not dig back and forth to see how things work.

I'll give you an example. With Genestealer Cult in 40k a lot of confusion comes from how their deployment rules work with Infiltrate and Reserves rules from the Rulebook. In AoS if they have a deployment rule it's on the sheet and works just like it's spelled out.

The GHB added the very solid scenarios for general play that encourage pretty balanced list building. Requirements for actual list building (Battleline and limited Hero/Artillery/Monsters). It also requires single Allegiance armies and added some customability in Command Traits, Allegiance Traits, and Artifacts.

And what happen when one of the scroll rules interact with one of the other scroll rules ?? Basically the same thing that happens with 40K, you've got to ''argue'' which one takes priority over the other. As for GHB, as I said, it doesn't add anything to the core rules. To each its own, but I never could get behind a game system with 4 pages of rules.

Name a warscroll that interacts with another warscroll. Not trying to be aggressive at all it's just to my knowledge they don't exist. And there is no incentive for them to do so so why would the game designers go that route? I mean, they made scrolls for the entire range. If they were going to do that don't you think it would have happened?

Unless you're talking about Battalion warscrolls but even then there isn't any argument because just like 40k they are clear how they work from the super formation down to the individual unit warscrolls.

Hulksmash has the right of it here. AoS, you simply follow what's ont he scroll. And it's better because there is more of a limit on just how complex a rule (or unit) can get because GW runs out of space on the scroll to make it more complex. 40k just layers and layers rules (the rules mountain for a GMC is ridiculous).

And really 4 pages isn't, because it's just the core engine. Most of the rules are on the scrolls.

When AoS scrolls do interact, they tend to interact simply, at a very basic and obvious level.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Hulksmash has the right of it here. AoS, you simply follow what's ont he scroll. And it's better because there is more of a limit on just how complex a rule (or unit) can get because GW runs out of space on the scroll to make it more complex. 40k just layers and layers rules (the rules mountain for a GMC is ridiculous).

And really 4 pages isn't, because it's just the core engine. Most of the rules are on the scrolls.

When AoS scrolls do interact, they tend to interact simply, at a very basic and obvious level.

Once again, I don't really see the point here. If you have difficulty remembering the rules for GMC (which, let's be honest, shouldn't be used in a casual game unless your opponent agrees to it), just write it down on a card, it's not more cumbersome than carrying around a scrolls for every units as you need to do in AoS. I agree that 40K is a game you need to invest in if you want to have fun game (i.e. not having your nose constantly in the rulebook). But considering it's an hobby you invested thousands of $$$ and spent a ton of hours building and painting your models, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect players to learn about 60 pages of rules. The bloat (Formations and the never ending supplement) should be severely limited though.

Once again, for how much one pays, all of that stuff should be built into the things that players touch and use. Like in AoS.

Mr. CyberPunk wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Hulksmash has the right of it here. AoS, you simply follow what's ont he scroll. And it's better because there is more of a limit on just how complex a rule (or unit) can get because GW runs out of space on the scroll to make it more complex. 40k just layers and layers rules (the rules mountain for a GMC is ridiculous).

And really 4 pages isn't, because it's just the core engine. Most of the rules are on the scrolls.

When AoS scrolls do interact, they tend to interact simply, at a very basic and obvious level.

Once again, I don't really see the point here. If you have difficulty remembering the rules for GMC (which, let's be honest, shouldn't be used in a casual game unless your opponent agrees to it), just write it down on a card, it's not more cumbersome than carrying around a scrolls for every units as you need to do in AoS. I agree that 40K is a game you need to invest in if you want to have fun game (i.e. not having your nose constantly in the rulebook). But considering it's an hobby you invested thousands of $$$ and spent a ton of hours building and painting your models, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect players to learn about 60 pages of rules. The bloat (Formations and the never ending supplement) should be severely limited though.

You don't see the point because you haven't tried it. You have no experience with it. You can't see it because you have a closed mind and are still arguing with people who have actual experience but you need to be validated that your way is the correct way. Why don't you stop while you are ahead. It's one thing you don't want to try it because it doesn't suit you, but please stop stating facts when you don't have proof from actual experience. You are having people who have had actual experience explain it to you how it works but yet you who hasn't tried the game, are telling people who have experience how it goes.

Just because you have a differing opinion than others, you don't need to change their opinion who have actual experience and know why they like it.

I just saw on Games Workshop Facebook page (never thought I would say that); They are about to start working on a second Generals Handbook and asking for feedback
and changes everyone would like to see.. I kind of feel like what other forum posters have said that the game feels like a Lobotomized version of Warhammer..

Not sure what I would ask for.. With the reset of the universe It feels to me kind of lost.. I miss the feel of the old world being dirty, grimy with death around every corner..
And that just going down the street for bread..The Sigmarites feel shoe horned in and empire was one of the most popular armies had nothing since the release of
Age of Sigmar.

The rules now work better with the Generals Handbook, but the game went to far in simplifying it. In my eyes the game is a fancy version of magic.. with miniatures..

 Genoside07 wrote:


The rules now work better with the Generals Handbook, but the game went to far in simplifying it. In my eyes the game is a fancy version of magic.. with miniatures..

Forgive me as i never really got into magic other than the basics, but I'm not really seeing how that comparison works?

 Genoside07 wrote:
I just saw on Games Workshop Facebook page (never thought I would say that); They are about to start working on a second Generals Handbook and asking for feedback
and changes everyone would like to see.. I kind of feel like what other forum posters have said that the game feels like a Lobotomized version of Warhammer..

Not sure what I would ask for.. With the reset of the universe It feels to me kind of lost.. I miss the feel of the old world being dirty, grimy with death around every corner..
And that just going down the street for bread..The Sigmarites feel shoe horned in and empire was one of the most popular armies had nothing since the release of
Age of Sigmar.

The rules now work better with the Generals Handbook, but the game went to far in simplifying it. In my eyes the game is a fancy version of magic.. with miniatures..

A good start would be to design a game where there's a bit more strategy than mindlessly roll dices hoping to get a 4+. But to be honest, like you, I despise the new fluff so much that I don't think I'll ever be able to get in AOS, even if they manage to make the rules interesting

Don't go into this expecting to play Warhammer Fantasy, this isn't it. I love AoS. I've played WFB since 6th ed, and AoS (with the GHB) is the superior game to me. I've had to have played upwards of 50 games at this point, probably more. We can get in a game in a couple hours, last week we played multiple 1000 point games in a 2 hour time period.

I think not having to look up multiple rules and how they interact all over the place has made things way better. All those complicated rules from the BRB are now instead on the free Warscrolls, available on an easy to look up app. There is tons of synergy and tricks, and I find that overall Strategy combined with Tactics is way more fulfilled in AoS. You could lose a game in deployment in WFB, that just doesn't happen in AoS. The double turn can be mean, but there isn't a game I've played yet where I've lost because of it. In fact I think I've LOST the double turn more than anything else. Be ready for it, lay down your plans in a Tzeentchian way prepared for multiple paths of grinding your opponents army into dust!

I totally get people loved the Old World, I did too. I like where they are headed with AoS so far though, the books I've read and the Audiobooks are great. They are set up to have a MASSIVE world, and they are laying down the framework for us now. The Old World wasn't built in a day (or even a year) there was 30 years of fluff behind it in a finite amount of space. The Mortal Realms are crazy, high fantasy places.

Give it another whirl. Don't look at as WFB, but as a new game altogether.

 streetsamurai wrote:

A good start would be to design a game where there's a bit more strategy than mindlessly roll dices hoping to get a 4+.

If that's your experience you're probably not trying very hard.

 Dez wrote:
Don't go into this expecting to play Warhammer Fantasy, this isn't it. I love AoS. I've played WFB since 6th ed, and AoS (with the GHB) is the superior game to me. I've had to have played upwards of 50 games at this point, probably more. We can get in a game in a couple hours, last week we played multiple 1000 point games in a 2 hour time period.

I think not having to look up multiple rules and how they interact all over the place has made things way better. All those complicated rules from the BRB are now instead on the free Warscrolls, available on an easy to look up app. There is tons of synergy and tricks, and I find that overall Strategy combined with Tactics is way more fulfilled in AoS. You could lose a game in deployment in WFB, that just doesn't happen in AoS. The double turn can be mean, but there isn't a game I've played yet where I've lost because of it. In fact I think I've LOST the double turn more than anything else. Be ready for it, lay down your plans in a Tzeentchian way prepared for multiple paths of grinding your opponents army into dust!

I totally get people loved the Old World, I did too. I like where they are headed with AoS so far though, the books I've read and the Audiobooks are great. They are set up to have a MASSIVE world, and they are laying down the framework for us now. The Old World wasn't built in a day (or even a year) there was 30 years of fluff behind it in a finite amount of space. The Mortal Realms are crazy, high fantasy places.

Give it another whirl. Don't look at as WFB, but as a new game altogether.

That's the problem for me right there. I hate high fantasy. The appeal of WHFB background for me was that there was numerous connections to historical real civilizations, and that it was a fairly low fantasy world.

 streetsamurai wrote:
A good start would be to design a game where there's a bit more strategy than mindlessly roll dices hoping to get a 4+.

To be fair, that describes 40k, too...

While everyone has a valid opinion on the appeal of AoS, we have wandered far away from the original topic of its sales compared to 40K.

If there is nothing new to add to the subject it is better that the thread be locked.

When do the ICv2 and GW sales numbers come out?

Is it game design or the level of fantasy? I can understand there being several levels. I think that unfortunately The Internet has been told what is what, and that helps form our opinions. Best bet is to try it again with an open mind. Trust me, I had to do the same thing: Look at it as something totally new.

If you don't like a little craziness in your Fantasy, well then that's that. I think there are a lot of really cool, creative ideas personally that breaks beyond the Tolkein universe. To dismiss this game as '4 pages of rules with no depth' is not good, it means you need to give it another whirl or try learning from someone else. Like I had mentioned above, I've played tons of games and I still feel like I'm learning something new every time I play. Nuances, tricks, tactics, strategy, call it what you will. It's all in there.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
When do the ICv2 and GW sales numbers come out?

well just checked the last ICV2 report, and it was for spring 2016, and AOS is nowhere to be seen.. SInce the only release for AOS since Spring was the sylvaneth (and one SC character), I think we can pretty much put this rumour in the bs category. Since I sincerly doubt that sylvaneth alone were able to do such a swing, even if they are supposedly good sellers.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dez wrote:
Is it game design or the level of fantasy? I can understand there being several levels. I think that unfortunately The Internet has been told what is what, and that helps form our opinions. Best bet is to try it again with an open mind. Trust me, I had to do the same thing: Look at it as something totally new.

If you don't like a little craziness in your Fantasy, well then that's that. I think there are a lot of really cool, creative ideas personally that breaks beyond the Tolkein universe. To dismiss this game as '4 pages of rules with no depth' is not good, it means you need to give it another whirl or try learning from someone else. Like I had mentioned above, I've played tons of games and I still feel like I'm learning something new every time I play. Nuances, tricks, tactics, strategy, call it what you will. It's all in there.

Fluff wise i dont like high fantasy. When I was playing video games back in the day, I always liked the beggining when everyting was fairly low scale, and hated the end, where things were getting too crazy. As for the rules, I've read them numerous times, and even tried them and they simply don't appeal too me. I like micromanagement and complexity in a game, and AOS is simply way too streamlined for me (the magic system being a perfect example of that). I can see why it appeals to some, but personnaly, it's simply not my cup of tea..

Davor wrote:

Mr. CyberPunk wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Hulksmash has the right of it here. AoS, you simply follow what's ont he scroll. And it's better because there is more of a limit on just how complex a rule (or unit) can get because GW runs out of space on the scroll to make it more complex. 40k just layers and layers rules (the rules mountain for a GMC is ridiculous).

And really 4 pages isn't, because it's just the core engine. Most of the rules are on the scrolls.

When AoS scrolls do interact, they tend to interact simply, at a very basic and obvious level.

Once again, I don't really see the point here. If you have difficulty remembering the rules for GMC (which, let's be honest, shouldn't be used in a casual game unless your opponent agrees to it), just write it down on a card, it's not more cumbersome than carrying around a scrolls for every units as you need to do in AoS. I agree that 40K is a game you need to invest in if you want to have fun game (i.e. not having your nose constantly in the rulebook). But considering it's an hobby you invested thousands of $$$ and spent a ton of hours building and painting your models, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect players to learn about 60 pages of rules. The bloat (Formations and the never ending supplement) should be severely limited though.

You don't see the point because you haven't tried it. You have no experience with it. You can't see it because you have a closed mind and are still arguing with people who have actual experience but you need to be validated that your way is the correct way. Why don't you stop while you are ahead. It's one thing you don't want to try it because it doesn't suit you, but please stop stating facts when you don't have proof from actual experience. You are having people who have had actual experience explain it to you how it works but yet you who hasn't tried the game, are telling people who have experience how it goes.

Just because you have a differing opinion than others, you don't need to change their opinion who have actual experience and know why they like it.

I love that AoS fans always assume that the reason somebody doesn't like AoS is because they haven't tried it.

As opposed to 'I tried it, and the rules stank on ice'.

It is possible that they have fixed some or many of the reasons that I compare the game to fish that is far past its sell by, but I have no urge to find out - I tried the game, and pretty much loathed it. And loathed it more with each time we tried it.

I am not going to invest time in seeing whether GW has fixed a rule set that I pretty much hated, when there are games that I know that I like - some of them even by GW! (Getting my arse handed to me in GorkaMorka currently, for example - by a person that was at the bottom of our Kings of War campaign... I am having a great time!)

That said, I think that we may well have a 3e/4e D&D situation here - where each side has reasons that they prefer one set of rules or the other - and each keeps trying to convince the other that they are in the wrong.

The Auld Grump - we know how that turned out for D&D... and Vampire... and WHFRPG... but not for Fallout.... Reboots are risky.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

Davor wrote:

Mr. CyberPunk wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Hulksmash has the right of it here. AoS, you simply follow what's ont he scroll. And it's better because there is more of a limit on just how complex a rule (or unit) can get because GW runs out of space on the scroll to make it more complex. 40k just layers and layers rules (the rules mountain for a GMC is ridiculous).

And really 4 pages isn't, because it's just the core engine. Most of the rules are on the scrolls.

When AoS scrolls do interact, they tend to interact simply, at a very basic and obvious level.

Once again, I don't really see the point here. If you have difficulty remembering the rules for GMC (which, let's be honest, shouldn't be used in a casual game unless your opponent agrees to it), just write it down on a card, it's not more cumbersome than carrying around a scrolls for every units as you need to do in AoS. I agree that 40K is a game you need to invest in if you want to have fun game (i.e. not having your nose constantly in the rulebook). But considering it's an hobby you invested thousands of $$$ and spent a ton of hours building and painting your models, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect players to learn about 60 pages of rules. The bloat (Formations and the never ending supplement) should be severely limited though.

You don't see the point because you haven't tried it. You have no experience with it. You can't see it because you have a closed mind and are still arguing with people who have actual experience but you need to be validated that your way is the correct way. Why don't you stop while you are ahead. It's one thing you don't want to try it because it doesn't suit you, but please stop stating facts when you don't have proof from actual experience. You are having people who have had actual experience explain it to you how it works but yet you who hasn't tried the game, are telling people who have experience how it goes.

Just because you have a differing opinion than others, you don't need to change their opinion who have actual experience and know why they like it.

I love that AoS fans always assume that the reason somebody doesn't like AoS is because they haven't tried it.

As opposed to 'I tried it, and the rules stank on ice'.

It is possible that they have fixed some or many of the reasons that I compare the game to fish that is far past its sell by, but I have no urge to find out - I tried the game, and pretty much loathed it. And loathed it more with each time we tried it.

I am not going to invest time in seeing whether GW has fixed a rule set that I pretty much hated, when there are games that I know that I like - some of them even by GW! (Getting my arse handed to me in GorkaMorka currently, for example - by a person that was at the bottom of our Kings of War campaign... I am having a great time!)

That said, I think that we may well have a 3e/4e D&D situation here - where each side has reasons that they prefer one set of rules or the other - and each keeps trying to convince the other that they are in the wrong.

The Auld Grump - we know how that turned out for D&D... and Vampire... and WHFRPG... but not for Fallout.... Reboots are risky.

Great post. Indeed it is a generalised, annoying, tendancy among AOS fans (though of course, not all of them act like this). Had a similar agument withsomeone about the fluff not long ago. Was claiming that the reason I didn't like it was because I didn't reald all of it. I've skimped through enough book to know that it doesn't interest me, and I sure won't was more hours reading something that I don't like just to see if it could change my opinion about it


and indeed, it is very similar to the DD 4th edition situation. And as someone who teach management and marketing in an university, I can tell you that alienating so much of of your fan base is pretty much a sure shot to failure. Someone who has a bad experience with a company is 10x more likely to talk about it than someone who has a good experience. That's one of the reason why I'm pretty sure AOS will end badly.

I'm more curious as to how much hobbit stock will be moved with the success of the revamp so far. Pitiful amounts compared to 40k but still

Well, hopefully AoS sales become and stay healthy, as that's the only way we can ever approach a strong universe for the game. I know one thing they need to improve is how the universe can be seen by casual observers.

I have only a passing familiarity with AoS and it's realms right now, and the developing setting is very hard to get a grasp on. There are crazy high fantasy setpieces and very trippy artistic maps, but many basic building blocks seem to be missing. One of the best parts of the Old World was a cohesive map.

If WFB 8E hadn't already alienated most of the 6E fans, whatever more were lost to AoS moving the clock might actually matter. As it is, GW seems to have made a streamlined Fantasy game that is sustainable.

What's still not entirely clear is whether it's actually outperforming 40k, as was originally claimed.

But it's almost certain that AoS cleared the low hurdle that WFB 8E presented. And that might just be enough.

Consider that freeing up WFB resources has now allowed GW to release things like Silver Tower and the other board games. Seems to be a win.

Mr. CyberPunk wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
Have you guys played AoS with the GHB or just with the 4 pages of core rules? The GHB improved the game so so much. I recommend you give it another shot before dismissing it. The 4 pages serve as an introduction only in my opinion for younger wargamers.

I've read this a lot of time, but apart adding points and scenarios, I fail to see how GHB add anything of values to the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Plus, people complain about bloat in 40K, but AoS, with every units having units having unique rules, can get very bloated very quickly quick, with the added flaw of having no serious game mechanics behind it (though 40K also has a bit of tthis problem with formations, one of the reasons why I don't like them).

It adds lots to the game because the points allow you to play within a competitive framework and the scenarios are all about board control and don't allow people to castle up/gun line. The game is really tactically rewarding for me now, whereas I found it to be unsatisfying playing just the core rules. I also prefer the special rules all contained on the Warscroll. It doesn't matter if shields have different effects for different units, all that matters are the units in the combat you are resolving at the time and everything can be found in the 4 pages or the warscrolls of the units.

I am only saying I recommend giving it another shot - as an AoS player the GHB vastly improved my gaming experience and it might be enough for you to start enjoying the game (or not, it's up to you.) :-)

 Bottle wrote:

Mr. CyberPunk wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
Have you guys played AoS with the GHB or just with the 4 pages of core rules? The GHB improved the game so so much. I recommend you give it another shot before dismissing it. The 4 pages serve as an introduction only in my opinion for younger wargamers.

I've read this a lot of time, but apart adding points and scenarios, I fail to see how GHB add anything of values to the rules.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Plus, people complain about bloat in 40K, but AoS, with every units having units having unique rules, can get very bloated very quickly quick, with the added flaw of having no serious game mechanics behind it (though 40K also has a bit of tthis problem with formations, one of the reasons why I don't like them).

It adds lots to the game because the points allow you to play within a competitive framework and the scenarios are all about board control and don't allow people to castle up/gun line. The game is really tactically rewarding for me now, whereas I found it to be unsatisfying playing just the core rules. I also prefer the special rules all contained on the Warscroll. It doesn't matter if shields have different effects for different units, all that matters are the units in the combat you are resolving at the time and everything can be found in the 4 pages or the warscrolls of the units.

I am only saying I recommend giving it another shot - as an AoS player the GHB vastly improved my gaming experience and it might be enough for you to start enjoying the game (or not, it's up to you.) :-)

Okay - well stated.

I am still unlikely to try AoS again - as the saying goes you only have one chance to make a good first impression, and, well... they fumbled that roll.

I am about 80% convinced that the crappy first version of the AoS rules was because Kirby and the Kronies had managed to convince themselves that the sole reason that people were buying GW miniatures was for collecting - so they crapped out the rules. (I picture them scribbled on the back of barroom place mats.*)

I also think that charging money to put in the necessary fixes was a bad move, PR wise.

That they should have taken the time to produce a decent rules set in the first place.

Going so far as to have the 'joke' Battlescrolls was a really, really bad blunder on their part. It pissed people off with both good reason and to no gain.

But, well, they didn't produce a good game with that initial release, and they did produce those 'funny' Battlescrolls - and so are stuck with the impression that the original release of the rules created.

Another way to put it - the GHB might well be what GW should have released in the first place, but didn't, which does not mollify those that had been alienated by so many bad releases in a row.

The Auld Grump

* I have made enough of my own initial game design notes on the back of fast food tray liners that I can sympathize....

That's fair enough. It's important to note that I was also not a fan of the joke abilities on the warscrolls. They included them on some newer warscrolls too (one of the Fyreslayer units had one). They have since largely removed them from the game (most of those old warscrolls were updated when the Grand Alliance books came out - and for free in the app). It's things like this that make me say GW have become a better company through the lessons learned at AoS's launch - and I think they are really striving to make a good game now.

I don't see having to pay for the GHB a bad thing really. For me the 4 pages are still good to introduce wargaming to those who have never played it before (especially younger wargamers). The GHB has much more than just matched play in it with a variety of campaign systems, narrative scenarios, a historical super battle and multiple multiplayer modes. The great thing about it is the yearly update to the points means the meta game is going to be in a better place 40k for the foreseeable future. I am sure that many 40k players are now looking at the competitive state of AoS with envious eyes - being able to run a full competitive tournament out the book without further comp is testament to the solid rules the game now has (if they are your cup of tea or not is a different matter).

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
I am about 80% convinced that the crappy first version of the AoS rules was because Kirby and the Kronies had managed to convince themselves that the sole reason that people were buying GW miniatures was for collecting - so they crapped out the rules. (I picture them scribbled on the back of barroom place mats.*)

I also think that charging money to put in the necessary fixes was a bad move, PR wise.

That they should have taken the time to produce a decent rules set in the first place.

Going so far as to have the 'joke' Battlescrolls was a really, really bad blunder on their part. It pissed people off with both good reason and to no gain.

Another way to put it - the GHB might well be what GW should have released in the first place, but didn't, which does not mollify those that had been alienated by so many bad releases in a row.

Back when GW released AoS, I made an effort to convert my Dogs of War to something playable. In going through a variety of Orc / Human / Elf scrolls, it became very clear to me that GW had put a fair amount of work into those 4 pages, and a *LOT* more work into the battlescrolls. The underlying design of each army / faction was done, and it's rather thematic. But it's all wrapped up in the batttlescrolls so it's not as obvious. Now, you are free to dislike the rules, for any reason, even inaccurate, superficial reasons. But the AoS rules are actually quite good, when you recognize that the 4-pages are just the basic setup, flow & resolution engine, and all of the special rules are on the unit sheets.

Now, one can debate whether GW needed to blow up the Old World, but it's clear that GW wanted to make a sharp break into the new edition, and make it something very different. Hence, the decision to eschew points (or comp), the decision to bring back some of the pre-6E silliness, etc.. The transition was not handled very well for many players. But one can't fault GW for actually cleaning up the mess that 8E was, and producing a cohesive work that fully replaced it. And releasing it for FREE, considering that 40k 3E and WFB 6E both cost money to buy. That the subsequent items cost money and have points is not surprising. It's what the players are accustomed to, so it's fine.

Finally, I'm going to state for the record that it is a LOT harder to write a small game than a large one. Large games with unlimited page count prevent the designer from making the hard decisions of what to cut and what to keep. Whereas tiny games force the designer to understand what's critical and how to differentiate. If you've ever carried a game design all the way through, I think you'd understand that.

Anyhow, a year in, and the haters have moved on, clearing space for new eyes and new blood. That's good.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
I am about 80% convinced that the crappy first version of the AoS rules was because Kirby and the Kronies had managed to convince themselves that the sole reason that people were buying GW miniatures was for collecting - so they crapped out the rules. (I picture them scribbled on the back of barroom place mats.*)

I also think that charging money to put in the necessary fixes was a bad move, PR wise.

That they should have taken the time to produce a decent rules set in the first place.

Going so far as to have the 'joke' Battlescrolls was a really, really bad blunder on their part. It pissed people off with both good reason and to no gain.

Another way to put it - the GHB might well be what GW should have released in the first place, but didn't, which does not mollify those that had been alienated by so many bad releases in a row.

Back when GW released AoS, I made an effort to convert my Dogs of War to something playable. In going through a variety of Orc / Human / Elf scrolls, it became very clear to me that GW had put a fair amount of work into those 4 pages, and a *LOT* more work into the battlescrolls. The underlying design of each army / faction was done, and it's rather thematic. But it's all wrapped up in the batttlescrolls so it's not as obvious. Now, you are free to dislike the rules, for any reason, even inaccurate, superficial reasons. But the AoS rules are actually quite good, when you recognize that the 4-pages are just the basic setup, flow & resolution engine, and all of the special rules are on the unit sheets.

Now, one can debate whether GW needed to blow up the Old World, but it's clear that GW wanted to make a sharp break into the new edition, and make it something very different. Hence, the decision to eschew points (or comp), the decision to bring back some of the pre-6E silliness, etc.. The transition was not handled very well for many players. But one can't fault GW for actually cleaning up the mess that 8E was, and producing a cohesive work that fully replaced it. And releasing it for FREE, considering that 40k 3E and WFB 6E both cost money to buy. That the subsequent items cost money and have points is not surprising. It's what the players are accustomed to, so it's fine.

Finally, I'm going to state for the record that it is a LOT harder to write a small game than a large one. Large games with unlimited page count prevent the designer from making the hard decisions of what to cut and what to keep. Whereas tiny games force the designer to understand what's critical and how to differentiate. If you've ever carried a game design all the way through, I think you'd understand that.

Anyhow, a year in, and the haters have moved on, clearing space for new eyes and new blood. That's good.

It is not that much harder to write a good short rules set than it is to write a good long rules set - and I have done game design.

The emphasis is on 'good' and, as originally released, AoS wasn't.

They made no attempt to balance the rules, at all. The rules themselves were slipshod, and rushed - I very much doubt that they put any amount of real work into their effort.

The 'haters' may have moved on, but whether that is good or not remains to be seen - locally the AoS scene is dead. Gone to meet its maker. Shuffled off this mortal coil and gone to join the choir invisible!

If those 'haters' have moved on, but not replaced by a sufficient number of new players, then it is a bad thing.

The thing that you really need to bear in mind is that a lot of those people that you are calling haters were enormous fans of GW, their settings, and their games, not all that long ago.

Calling them 'haters' is dismissing a vocal group that is well justified in their dislike of the way GW has been behaving for the past decade.

I would go so far as to call your stance antagonistic - and likely to make the 'haters' all the more vocal.

The Auld Grump