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: one thing that you need to keep in mind, when discussing AoS, is that it is clearly Jervis Johnson's baby...
you want to say that Kirby did it all because of "collecting", but did you read Jervis' articles in White Dwarf for the last two decades???
between his and Jeremy Vetock's articles on gaming, since the late 90's, you could see AoS coming from a mile away in hindsight...
even the "joke" rules are their sense of humor...

you want to attribute to malice something that is clearly the result of a goofball who finally ended up alone at the top of the seniority ladder in the design studio...
even i can see that, and i'm one of those non-gaming collectors that you mention...

cheers
jah

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.

Where am I trying to convert anyone here?

Where am I trying to change someone's mind? Please show me where I am trying to convert someone and tell them they are wrong? All I said was how can you give a valid opinion when someone didn't try something where others have tired something and you are still telling them they are wrong? Also the person said he never tried it or played it. So again where are you putting words into my mouth of making an excuse?

If anything you have lost my respect. It's ok for you to give opinions, but someone who has a differing opinion is then a "fan" and trying to change people's opinion?

So we're starting on page 10 and no closer to any sort of evidence either way except the usual Love AOS/Hate AOS thing? Got it.


Also the Old World was scrapped to replace it with something more trademark-able. Or should I say traiyedemaurque-aboule?

 Just Tony wrote:
So we're starting on page 10 and no closer to any sort of evidence either way except the usual Love AOS/Hate AOS thing? Got it.


Also the Old World was scrapped to replace it with something more trademark-able. Or should I say traiyedemaurque-aboule?

yep, you got it in one
"wait for the reports" just doesn't have the same ring to it as " rabble rabble rabble"...
still, it beats talking politics

cheers
jah

Doesn't it, though? I'm tired of being a personist phobophobe every time I show up. I guess it wins the argument when you make the other person not see the point in debating anymore.

 Bottle wrote:
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).

Yearly points update is definitively something 40K should do if they don't want to invest in a statisticians team to adjust the points cost. It would greatly reduced the imbalance which is my main beef (along with formations) with 7th Ed. 40K. I was looking at the new WarmaHorde the other day and not only will they revised points cost twice a year, they'll release a new card set, in different color, with each revision. That's what 40K should do, no points value in the codex (you could put them in the digital one though) but comes in with a sets of cards, one for each units in the codex (with points on them obviously) which gets revised and released yearly. Even better would be some kind of army builder application.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 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.) :-)

I'll definitively give AoS another shot once they release a second version of the game. I liked the Old World better than the new one but realize it will take some time to build a compelling settings (though the few fluff I've read from AoS was terrible, I've heard it was improved in the newer books) and personally, setting is a distant second to gameplay when it comes to my choice of games (in fact, in comes in 3rd behind miniature quality which, most will agree, GW is leading on this front). But the current version of AoS just looks so boring to me. I was looking at a couple of battle reports the other day's and found nothing that excited me in the system. Basically reminded me of Risks. It's simply not for me with the current 4 pages game mechanism, no matter how tight are the scenarios and balance.

text removed.

Reds8n

Trying to get back on topic.. I feel sales of Age of Sigmar is not to the levels of previous editions or; I can say that by just looking at this thread..

What other posters have said...
1. Icv2 (Geek Culture Industry web page) AoS has never hit their "Hot Properties" list meaning it never met sales or interest of other geek properties
2. A number of posters including myself see the AoS community in their area as dead or very small compared to previous.
3. Just seeing the animosity towards the game in general means it not inviting to all players.
4. Many people feel the rules are lobotomize version or a work in progress instead of a strong complete product.

Mr. CyberPunk wrote:
Yearly points update is definitively something 40K should do if they don't want to invest in a statisticians team to adjust the points cost. It would greatly reduced the imbalance which is my main beef (along with formations) with 7th Ed. 40K. I was looking at the new WarmaHorde the other day and not only will they revised points cost twice a year, they'll release a new card set, in different color, with each revision. That's what 40K should do, no points value in the codex (you could put them in the digital one though) but comes in with a sets of cards, one for each units in the codex (with points on them obviously) which gets revised and released yearly. Even better would be some kind of army builder application.

Haters will still hate, sadly. And I've already see I need in WMH mk3. As awesome as the twice-yearly errata and 'living rulebook' is, there is an alternative viewpoint out there that an errata based game is actually a bad thing, as it (apparently) constitutes proof that privateer press (a) are unprofessional, (b) are incapable of gettibg things right first time, and (c)are happy to simply shove a half-finished product out the door and sort out the mess later. The thinking goes that Things should apparently be released as fundamentally known never changing quantities, rather than having the uncertainly of knowing what you buy may be change s and invalidated on a whim. Bear in mind, I don't agree - I think the errata, and patch based approach is nothing but good for the long term health of the game, but I can see this thinking take root amongst the player base were gw to adopt it. Because gw rabble rabble. The other concern is related to this - while the errata based approach is attractive, there are risks to the bottom line, as you can argue that gsmers will not invest in the first place until they know what's going to happen, or because they don't know what will happen. Pp saw this in the mk2 playtest where their sales flatline said for about six months while a lot of people waited to see how things wouldn't shake up before buying stuff. I can see gw being very careful andcagey, considering this possibility.

Genoside07 wrote:Trying to get back on topic.. I feel sales of Age of Sigmar is not to the levels of previous editions or; I can say that by just looking at this thread..

What other posters have said...
1. Icv2 (Geek Culture Industry web page) AoS has never hit their "Hot Properties" list meaning it never met sales or interest of other geek properties
2. A number of posters including myself see the AoS community in their area as dead or very small compared to previous.
3. Just seeing the animosity towards the game in general means it not inviting to all players.
4. Many people feel the rules are lobotomize version or a work in progress instead of a strong complete product.

Though you are not wrong, There are other ways of looking at it though.

1: icv2 must be taken with more than a pinch of salt. It is voluntarily returned information in a single territory and doesn't include direct input from gw.
2. A number of posters state the opposite. A lot of the pro-aos people simply left here because the atmosphere was so toxic, and went elsewhere. It might very well be that it is somewhat popular, we're just not exposed to it. Thst wouldn't surprise me to be honest. There are plenty small games that are successful, there isn't no reason so believe a small aos can't be one of them, or that it's can grow from that point into something bigger. After all, the haters have all been driven away. A small core of enthusiasts are left. They're the ones you need to grow a community. Whether that works or not, is something for the future however.
3. This can be said of all gsmes. And To be fair, what is not inviting to one person is bread and butter to another. we all know first hand people drawn To games, Andy to aspeçts of games thst would make you or I run a mile.
4. I think of aos as homeopathic warmachine. It's got the combos and synergies etc., just on a very diluted level. I think if anything, it was a minimum input release with the plan to grow the game organically based on where the interest seems to be. Nothing wrong with this approach. Not everything needs to be planned via an unbendable ten year plan.

1. It is, however, representative of that market. So it's not doing well in US independents.

2. The major pro-AoS member on here (I've forgotten his name) admitted that he'd been bigging up AoS in the hopes of getting it to take off, then gave up and sold it all off. So I'm not sure how much of the pro-AoS is because it's doing well or because people want it to do well. Even if it's doing well in clusters (which it must be), it's not a universal thing, and that must still hurt sales.

3. It's generating a lot more animosity than I've ever seen before.

Well on whineseer there was a pretty infamous AoS fanboy who was always bigging up how popular it was.

Turns out it was all a lie and he ended up selling all his stuff to buy a gaming pc instead.

That's why I don't take "it's big in our area" comments to be proof of anything and am waiting for real reports of success.

When independent reports show AoS is this massive hit i'll believe it and not before.

My gut feeling is that it is doing at least well enough for GW to keep up support for the foreseeable future, and gradually it probably will grow to rival 40K in sales volume.

hobojebus wrote:
Well on whineseer there was a pretty infamous AoS fanboy who was always bigging up how popular it was.

Turns out it was all a lie and he ended up selling all his stuff to buy a gaming pc instead.

That's why I don't take "it's big in our area" comments to be proof of anything and am waiting for real reports of success.

When independent reports show AoS is this massive hit i'll believe it and not before.

hahah thanks for the story bro. Warseer = bastion of truth.

hobojebus wrote:
Well on whineseer there was a pretty infamous AoS fanboy who was always bigging up how popular it was.

Turns out it was all a lie and he ended up selling all his stuff to buy a gaming pc instead.

That's why I don't take "it's big in our area" comments to be proof of anything and am waiting for real reports of success.

When independent reports show AoS is this massive hit i'll believe it and not before.

His name was Kirby or Kirby-something, as I recall. I also recall he once claimed his group was so into AoS, they bought multiple Chaos Dreadhold jumbo bundles (the one priced at around a thousand pounds). Turned out to be a crock of s***.

He was very vocal and proselytized in every thread, seemingly spending half his waking hours browsing Warseer and informing the unfaithful of the virtues of AoS. It was sad in a way. Not that there aren't such people on Dakka currently.

You sure it wasn't HelloKitty on Warseer? I remember him/her going on about how prosperous the AOS community was, and it was in a neighbor state, so it was easy to pop down and see that was BS. He also hade anecdotal figures that were... fluid to say the least.

 Just Tony wrote:
You sure it wasn't HelloKitty on Warseer? I remember him/her going on about how prosperous the AOS community was, and it was in a neighbor state, so it was easy to pop down and see that was BS. He also hade anecdotal figures that were... fluid to say the least.

You're totally right, not Kirby but Kitty. At least I got the first and last letter right! ")

His claims were outrageous, you have to admit.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
My gut feeling is that it is doing at least well enough for GW to keep up support for the foreseeable future, and gradually it probably will grow to rival 40K in sales volume.

I would definitely agree with the former, but the latter is still hazy.

The whole perspectives thing fits neatly with the recent elections in the UK and US, where people in their individual bubbles couldn't comprehend Brexit or Trump winning.

hobojebus wrote:That's why I don't take "it's big in our area" comments to be proof of anything and am waiting for real reports of success.

When independent reports show AoS is this massive hit i'll believe it and not before.

Where do you live in the UK? I believe the same as you in the opposite direction, when people say "it's dead in my area" I am of the inclination they just mean their friends don't play it. Especially in the UK.

-DE- wrote:He was very vocal and proselytized in every thread, seemingly spending half his waking hours browsing Warseer and informing the unfaithful of the virtues of AoS. It was sad in a way. Not that there aren't such people on Dakka currently.

Who are you referring to on Dakka?

To be honest, I'm not sure what game is really outselling the other. What I can see is that there are a bit more "boxed games" about 40k than AoS these last months.

About games at my local shop, it's hard to say...I can see a lot of painting with either AoS or 40k, and it also depends on what GW is selling this week/month.

What I feel is that the rules aren't really the main reason why people buy the books/models. Some parts of the world have more fans for fantasy, others for sci-fi. In my region, it's a bit more sci-fi than fantasy, IMHO.

And now, it's about Blood Bowl, of course. For how much time, well future will tell.

Davor wrote:

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.

Where am I trying to convert anyone here?

Where am I trying to change someone's mind? Please show me where I am trying to convert someone and tell them they are wrong? All I said was how can you give a valid opinion when someone didn't try something where others have tired something and you are still telling them they are wrong? Also the person said he never tried it or played it. So again where are you putting words into my mouth of making an excuse?

If anything you have lost my respect. It's ok for you to give opinions, but someone who has a differing opinion is then a "fan" and trying to change people's opinion?

What is not OK is telling some one that they must not have tried the game if they do not like it. Not trying to convert someone - but rather downplaying their experience with the game - and right there in the portion that I quoted is where you did that. I have bolded the text, and given it a loverly green color, to make it easier to find.

You are allowed to like the game - more power to you, if you do. You are allowed to be a "fan".

You are even allowed to try to get other people to try the game - converting people is fine. It is how gaming communities can grow.

But do not tell people that because their experience was different from your own that they must not have played the game.

I played the game - a grand total of four times.

Four times when I really did not enjoy the game. Four times more than I really should have wasted my time doing.

I am not even a little tempted to give it try #5 - I have better things to enjoy wasting my time playing.

The Auld Grump


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jah-joshua wrote:
@TheAuldGrump: one thing that you need to keep in mind, when discussing AoS, is that it is clearly Jervis Johnson's baby...
you want to say that Kirby did it all because of "collecting", but did you read Jervis' articles in White Dwarf for the last two decades???
between his and Jeremy Vetock's articles on gaming, since the late 90's, you could see AoS coming from a mile away in hindsight...
even the "joke" rules are their sense of humor...

you want to attribute to malice something that is clearly the result of a goofball who finally ended up alone at the top of the seniority ladder in the design studio...
even i can see that, and i'm one of those non-gaming collectors that you mention...

cheers
jah

Funny thing - I stopped reading White Dwarf about ten years ago.

That said - I actually have no difficulty believing you in regards to Johnson. I have a weird feeling that Jervis Johnson is one of those people that I would enjoy gaming with, but dearly dislike his rules when playing them with other people. (He plays a Halfling Bloodbowl team - at one point taking pride in the fact that the team had never won a game! But I have no doubt that he had a great time getting trounced. And that the folks that he was playing against also had a good time.)

But I do also believe that the majority of people that buy GW miniatures at least plan on playing games with them - not just paint and collect. (Or worse, leave unopened, in the hopes that their value increases.... I can have respect for a person that enjoys painting and collecting for the sake of the enjoyment. But a person that treats toy soldiers as an investment? Not so much.)

And that corporate belief in the collectors being the primary market did shape AoS.

And that belief came from the top down, not from the folks that had boots on the ground.

Rountree seems to be making an effort - GHB added something that should have been there in the first place.

I will not say that the GHB is not a step in the right direction.

But neither will I say that the rules as initially published were in any way a balanced set of rules - which, I will admit, is not a bad fit for a man that enjoys playing a Halfling Bloodbowl team....

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* I will however also say that I believe that 8th edition WHFB had much more to do with the death of WHFB than AoS did - AoS was an attempt to breath new life into a dying property. That I do not like the way the attempt was made does not mean that it was made with malice - but rather that it marks a disconnect between the company and the players of their games. Rountree seems to be making an attempt to learn what the audience wants, while Kirby seemed of the opinion that the company could drive the audience.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

Davor wrote:
I will however also say that I believe that 8th edition WHFB had much more to do with the death of WHFB than AoS did - AoS was an attempt to breath new life into a dying property.

We stopped playing WFB very shortly after 8E came out.

Taco Bell expressed the basic sentiment, and our group finally admitted the same:

I don't enjoy this game.

And that was that.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
My gut feeling is that it is doing at least well enough for GW to keep up support for the foreseeable future, and gradually it probably will grow to rival 40K in sales volume.

I would definitely agree with the former, but the latter is still hazy.

The whole perspectives thing fits neatly with the recent elections in the UK and US, where people in their individual bubbles couldn't comprehend Brexit or Trump winning.

Yeah. AoS outselling 40k is bs. Nobody here in our group is buying AoS stuff. AoS has no perspective whatsoever.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
I will however also say that I believe that 8th edition WHFB had much more to do with the death of WHFB than AoS did - AoS was an attempt to breath new life into a dying property.

We stopped playing WFB very shortly after 8E came out.

Taco Bell expressed the basic sentiment, and our group finally admitted the same:

I don't enjoy this game.

And that was that.

Personally I don't really care whether 8th killed WHFB or AoS killed WHFB. Poor management by GW killed it either way, I'm not going to blame the games nor am I going to blame the players.

The reason I don't play AoS is not because I blame it for WHFB it's because it does not interest me as a game nor as a setting. WHFB did, but they killed it to release AoS.

 wuestenfux wrote:
Yeah. AoS outselling 40k is bs. Nobody here in our group is buying AoS stuff. AoS has no perspective whatsoever.

The flag next to your post says Germany, but your post suggests that Senator Inhofe has now moved into tabletop gaming.

I would expect to see more releases of AoS in the future if it is selling well.

If GW can spend £50 and get back £100 on a 40K release then they will do more of those.

If they spend £50 and only get back £60 for AoS then we will see a lot less of these releases.

However, I don't think GW is prepared to give up on the fantasy market.

Just my prediction: AoS will continue but with infrequent and small releases - probably tied to stand alone box games.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
I will however also say that I believe that 8th edition WHFB had much more to do with the death of WHFB than AoS did - AoS was an attempt to breath new life into a dying property.

We stopped playing WFB very shortly after 8E came out.

Taco Bell expressed the basic sentiment, and our group finally admitted the same:

I don't enjoy this game.

And that was that.

Personally I don't really care whether 8th killed WHFB or AoS killed WHFB. Poor management by GW killed it either way, I'm not going to blame the games nor am I going to blame the players.

The reason I don't play AoS is not because I blame it for WHFB it's because it does not interest me as a game nor as a setting. WHFB did, but they killed it to release AoS.

Exactly you never blame the player it's up to the company to make a product people want to buy, if they put out crap like AoS they have no one to blame but themselves.

We don't owe any company a living it's not communist Russia we live in a capitalist society you want my money you earn it.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

What is not OK is telling some one that they must not have tried the game if they do not like it.

Maybe it's time we drop this. You are picking an argument on a principle that I never said, but you think I said it or ment it. I ment nothing like this, said nothing like this and this is not even about someone not liking something because they never tired it, but as I said someone telling people they are wrong for liking something because they actually tried it.

Davor wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

What is not OK is telling some one that they must not have tried the game if they do not like it.

Maybe it's time we drop this. You are picking an argument on a principle that I never said, but you think I said it or ment it. I ment nothing like this, said nothing like this and this is not even about someone not liking something because they never tired it, but as I said someone telling people they are wrong for liking something because they actually tried it.

What I posted was a direct quote.

So, yes, you did say exactly such a thing - which I quoted and highlighted in green.

Care to try again?

The Auld Grump


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
I will however also say that I believe that 8th edition WHFB had much more to do with the death of WHFB than AoS did - AoS was an attempt to breath new life into a dying property.

We stopped playing WFB very shortly after 8E came out.

Taco Bell expressed the basic sentiment, and our group finally admitted the same:

I don't enjoy this game.

And that was that.

Personally I don't really care whether 8th killed WHFB or AoS killed WHFB. Poor management by GW killed it either way, I'm not going to blame the games nor am I going to blame the players.

The reason I don't play AoS is not because I blame it for WHFB it's because it does not interest me as a game nor as a setting. WHFB did, but they killed it to release AoS.

And that is the very best reason not to play the game.

It is also worth mentioning that in spite of what it may say on the box, I do not consider AoS to be Warhammer, let alone WHFB - different setting, different system with some shared mechanics, and, really, not much to recommend it to fans of the older games.

It is to Warhammer what 4e was to D&D - an new game with an older title.

The Auld Grump

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
What I posted was a direct quote.

So, yes, you did say exactly such a thing - which I quoted and highlighted in green.

Care to try again?

The Auld Grump

No I don't care to try again. This will be the last I say. So I guess I am trying again. I just told you it was someone telling someone who tried something they like it but yet are told they are wrong but coming up with new excuses why someone shouldn't like AoS. I just find it funny someone who tried something, likes it, but yet someone is telling them they are wrong and shouldn't like it, even though they didn't even try it.

How can you tell someone who tired something they are wrong for liking something they tried? If I don't comment in the next while, I am sick not feeling good, so might not be able to comment till I feel better. Time for early bed.

Believe it or not - there are a large number of people that can tell that they will not like a game, just by reading the rules.

I had a bad feeling about the rules, yet tried them anyway - and found myself wishing that I had gone with my initial impulse to ignore the game.

In short - I was right the first time, with the game untried.

The mistake was in trying the game anyway.

Conversely, it can work the other way - I have not tried 5e D&D, yet suspect that I will in fact enjoy the game, should I ever do so.

The Auld Grump