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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:
There are a lot of axes being ground in this thread. Well beyond critical thinking and quite solidly in "bitter ex" territory, where a person has "left" someone or something, but can't stop obsessively thinking and talking about it (and gaking on it) rather than showing indifference towards something no longer of interest and simply moving on (and often looking at the distant past with nothing but rose-rimmed glasses). Personal preference and personal bias being presented as empirical evidence, all that good stuff. While I feel that GW is FAR from perfect, and in fact is a mix of good and bad, excellent and terrible across their many products and business practices - and have stated such over many years, simply pointing out the "bitter ex" thing typically just makes me a White Knight or Fanboi, because a lot of people (not everyone) can't stand to have their (constant) behaviours pointed out in such a way.

Perhaps you get those "white knight" accusations because you resort to blatant ad hominem attacks instead of addressing the substance of what people are saying.

It's like rain on your wedding day...

Thebiggesthat wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:
There are a lot of axes being ground in this thread. Well beyond critical thinking and quite solidly in "bitter ex" territory, where a person has "left" someone or something, but can't stop obsessively thinking and talking about it (and gaking on it) rather than showing indifference towards something no longer of interest and simply moving on (and often looking at the distant past with nothing but rose-rimmed glasses). Personal preference and personal bias being presented as empirical evidence, all that good stuff. While I feel that GW is FAR from perfect, and in fact is a mix of good and bad, excellent and terrible across their many products and business practices - and have stated such over many years, simply pointing out the "bitter ex" thing typically just makes me a White Knight or Fanboi, because a lot of people (not everyone) can't stand to have their (constant) behaviours pointed out in such a way.

Perhaps you get those "white knight" accusations because you resort to blatant ad hominem attacks instead of addressing the substance of what people are saying.

It's like rain on your wedding day...

Predictable that someone who doesn't know the meaning of "ironic" would make a ridiculous "YOU CALLED ME AN AD HOMINEM THAT MAKES YOU AN AD HOMINEM" post.

Dude, I have to ask this, but have you ever considered that if you try posting in a somewhat less aggressive and "I am" way, you may get some more levied and reasonable responses?

 Peregrine wrote:

Thebiggesthat wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:
There are a lot of axes being ground in this thread. Well beyond critical thinking and quite solidly in "bitter ex" territory, where a person has "left" someone or something, but can't stop obsessively thinking and talking about it (and gaking on it) rather than showing indifference towards something no longer of interest and simply moving on (and often looking at the distant past with nothing but rose-rimmed glasses). Personal preference and personal bias being presented as empirical evidence, all that good stuff. While I feel that GW is FAR from perfect, and in fact is a mix of good and bad, excellent and terrible across their many products and business practices - and have stated such over many years, simply pointing out the "bitter ex" thing typically just makes me a White Knight or Fanboi, because a lot of people (not everyone) can't stand to have their (constant) behaviours pointed out in such a way.

Perhaps you get those "white knight" accusations because you resort to blatant ad hominem attacks instead of addressing the substance of what people are saying.

It's like rain on your wedding day...

Predictable that someone who doesn't know the meaning of "ironic" would make a ridiculous "YOU CALLED ME AN AD HOMINEM THAT MAKES YOU AN AD HOMINEM" post.

Eh... if that's supposed to be irony... you're doing an awful job at it.

I kinda wonder if GW just doesn't care much to innovate, up to AoS and 40k 8th, they just rehashed old editions, ignoring old problems and making new ones out of stuff that was previously working.

Its kind of a double edged sword. I'd like to see them cover new ground, but at the same time Id like to take another shot at games that were awesome 15+ years ago, like Epic and Mordheim, and Warmaster, but their modern efforts prove how its hard to catch lightning in a bottle. Necromunda is already making some strange half-assed stumbles with equipment and legacy rules, and it's barely out, when they had a sure-fire template to follow.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:
There are a lot of axes being ground in this thread. Well beyond critical thinking and quite solidly in "bitter ex" territory, where a person has "left" someone or something, but can't stop obsessively thinking and talking about it (and gaking on it) rather than showing indifference towards something no longer of interest and simply moving on (and often looking at the distant past with nothing but rose-rimmed glasses). Personal preference and personal bias being presented as empirical evidence, all that good stuff. While I feel that GW is FAR from perfect, and in fact is a mix of good and bad, excellent and terrible across their many products and business practices - and have stated such over many years, simply pointing out the "bitter ex" thing typically just makes me a White Knight or Fanboi, because a lot of people (not everyone) can't stand to have their (constant) behaviours pointed out in such a way.

Perhaps you get those "white knight" accusations because you resort to blatant ad hominem attacks instead of addressing the substance of what people are saying.

That's just crazy talk!

One of the things left out by the 'white knights' and the 'black knights', both, is that AoS has, apparently, undergone a lot of change since that initial release - with the White Knights defending the current AoS and try to downplay the initial release, while the Black Knights (fear my wrath!) taking the stance that the initial release is reason enough to hate the game, and feel no urge to spend the money to fix a game that they (and I) loathe.

The White Knights may well be better informed on the current version of the game - but the Black Knights have good reason to ignore AoS, based on the initial release.

GW could have avoided a lot of crap, just by actually testing the rules before releasing them into the wild as is.

Right now I am holding off on getting the new Necromunda - not because I don't want it, but because I have things I want to buy from Black Friday sales. But I am hearing... not so great things on editing, right now - so I may hold off for the second printing.

The Auld Grump - still planning to get the game, mind - even if the rules are not up to snuff, Necromunda minis are something I want.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:
There are a lot of axes being ground in this thread. Well beyond critical thinking and quite solidly in "bitter ex" territory, where a person has "left" someone or something, but can't stop obsessively thinking and talking about it (and gaking on it) rather than showing indifference towards something no longer of interest and simply moving on (and often looking at the distant past with nothing but rose-rimmed glasses). Personal preference and personal bias being presented as empirical evidence, all that good stuff. While I feel that GW is FAR from perfect, and in fact is a mix of good and bad, excellent and terrible across their many products and business practices - and have stated such over many years, simply pointing out the "bitter ex" thing typically just makes me a White Knight or Fanboi, because a lot of people (not everyone) can't stand to have their (constant) behaviours pointed out in such a way.

Perhaps you get those "white knight" accusations because you resort to blatant ad hominem attacks instead of addressing the substance of what people are saying.

That's just crazy talk!

One of the things left out by the 'white knights' and the 'black knights', both, is that AoS has, apparently, undergone a lot of change since that initial release - with the White Knights defending the current AoS and try to downplay the initial release, while the Black Knights (fear my wrath!) taking the stance that the initial release is reason enough to hate the game, and feel no urge to spend the money to fix a game that they (and I) loathe.

The White Knights may well be better informed on the current version of the game - but the Black Knights have good reason to ignore AoS, based on the initial release.

GW could have avoided a lot of crap, just by actually testing the rules before releasing them into the wild as is.

Right now I am holding off on getting the new Necromunda - not because I don't want it, but because I have things I want to buy from Black Friday sales. But I am hearing... not so great things on editing, right now - so I may hold off for the second printing.

The Auld Grump - still planning to get the game, mind - even if the rules are not up to snuff, Necromunda minis are something I want.

The biggest problem I have (as a current player of AoS) is they really did not fix anything. The core of the game is bad, the little tweeks around the edges from the ghbs havent done anything to address that. I know my group initially tried it based on the GW guy saying it was "skirmish" and cheaper to get into with smaller armies and less expensive. I found that to be mostly untrue, the new models are just as expensive and you usually need just as many. I will give it credit where I think it deserves it, but I wont hesitate to criticize it where I feel it deserves it as well. The game had been hyped up far beyond its meager capabilities.

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

Thebiggesthat wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:
There are a lot of axes being ground in this thread. Well beyond critical thinking and quite solidly in "bitter ex" territory, where a person has "left" someone or something, but can't stop obsessively thinking and talking about it (and gaking on it) rather than showing indifference towards something no longer of interest and simply moving on (and often looking at the distant past with nothing but rose-rimmed glasses). Personal preference and personal bias being presented as empirical evidence, all that good stuff. While I feel that GW is FAR from perfect, and in fact is a mix of good and bad, excellent and terrible across their many products and business practices - and have stated such over many years, simply pointing out the "bitter ex" thing typically just makes me a White Knight or Fanboi, because a lot of people (not everyone) can't stand to have their (constant) behaviours pointed out in such a way.

Perhaps you get those "white knight" accusations because you resort to blatant ad hominem attacks instead of addressing the substance of what people are saying.

It's like rain on your wedding day...

Predictable that someone who doesn't know the meaning of "ironic" would make a ridiculous "YOU CALLED ME AN AD HOMINEM THAT MAKES YOU AN AD HOMINEM" post.

Eh... if that's supposed to be irony... you're doing an awful job at it.

You... you... have heard an incredibly well known (and inaccurate) song by Alanis Morissette, right? That's what is being referenced and refuted by Perri here.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

One of the things left out by the 'white knights' and the 'black knights', both, is that AoS has, apparently, undergone a lot of change since that initial release - with the White Knights defending the current AoS and try to downplay the initial release, while the Black Knights (fear my wrath!) taking the stance that the initial release is reason enough to hate the game, and feel no urge to spend the money to fix a game that they (and I) loathe.

The White Knights may well be better informed on the current version of the game - but the Black Knights have good reason to ignore AoS, based on the initial release.

Endlessly bashing AoS won't make Kings of War any more popular than it is, TheAuldGrump.

If KoW was such a GREEEEEAT wargame anyway, then why would you need to be such a white knight for it? Can't it just stand or fall on it's own merits without you needing to attack its competition any chance you get?

You've been trying hard for two and a half years now and the KoW subsection of this forum is still a barren wasteland. Time to move on and find something else to obsess about.

motski wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

One of the things left out by the 'white knights' and the 'black knights', both, is that AoS has, apparently, undergone a lot of change since that initial release - with the White Knights defending the current AoS and try to downplay the initial release, while the Black Knights (fear my wrath!) taking the stance that the initial release is reason enough to hate the game, and feel no urge to spend the money to fix a game that they (and I) loathe.

The White Knights may well be better informed on the current version of the game - but the Black Knights have good reason to ignore AoS, based on the initial release.

Endlessly bashing AoS won't make Kings of War any more popular than it is, TheAuldGrump.

If KoW was such a GREEEEEAT wargame anyway, then why would you need to be such a white knight for it? Can't it just stand or fall on it's own merits without you needing to attack its competition any chance you get?

You've been trying hard for two and a half years now and the KoW subsection of this forum is still a barren wasteland. Time to move on and find something else to obsess about.

And KoW has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. So please don't A) derail the thread B) snipe his post and C) induce to a... let's say heated discussion.

motski wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

One of the things left out by the 'white knights' and the 'black knights', both, is that AoS has, apparently, undergone a lot of change since that initial release - with the White Knights defending the current AoS and try to downplay the initial release, while the Black Knights (fear my wrath!) taking the stance that the initial release is reason enough to hate the game, and feel no urge to spend the money to fix a game that they (and I) loathe.

The White Knights may well be better informed on the current version of the game - but the Black Knights have good reason to ignore AoS, based on the initial release.

Endlessly bashing AoS won't make Kings of War any more popular than it is, TheAuldGrump.

If KoW was such a GREEEEEAT wargame anyway, then why would you need to be such a white knight for it? Can't it just stand or fall on it's own merits without you needing to attack its competition any chance you get?

You've been trying hard for two and a half years now and the KoW subsection of this forum is still a barren wasteland. Time to move on and find something else to obsess about.

I enjoy KoW - and I really did not enjoy AoS.

It is really that simple - I don't like AoS.

And very little that I have read or been told about AoS has done much to change that.

My local area has virtually no AoS, and a small but thriving KoW community. (The word local is important - I will not pretend that my area is the norm.)

Both together are smaller than WHFB was when it was a healthy and thriving game. In the early 200ss, there were forty some odd Warhammer players, most of whom had both a 40K army and a Fantasy army.

There may be as many as thirty KoW players - but most of their armies are repurposed from WHFB. (It may be worth mentioning that nearly all are either members of the SCA or former members.)

I like KoW more than I did WHFB - but WHFB did a better job of building a community than either KoW or AoS.

My ideal is not that KoW replace AoS - it is that GW brings out (or back) a better version of fantasy. GW has the market to do a better game than AoS, that will reach a better market share than either AoS or Kow.

I am not arguing that KoW should take over - I am arguing that AoS is not as healthy for the market as the game that it replaced, and that GW needs to kill it and replace it with something better.

That something better may not be rank and file game, like I enjoy - but it is not AoS, either.

GW used to be very good at building a community.

*EDIT* In part because GW used to put money into building that community - if there is anything that I miss about the old GW it is how much effort they put in to holding events, even at minor venues.

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* To put it another way - my liking KoW and my hating AoS are very separate - I would hate AoS just as much if I were into WARMACHINE. If and when GW produces a wargame that I like, I will be just as obnoxiously yammering about how much I like the new game. I still yammer about how much I like Mordheim, and I am still building new terrain to use in Necromunda, whether new or old. I still pull out Warhammer Quest now and again.

A good game is a good game - and I actually like some of the smaller games that GW has released recently - even if they are rehashings of older games. Like I have said elsewhere in this thread- innovation is just not that important - making a fun game is.

I do not need to love KoW to hate AoS, and my hating AoS will not change whether or not I like another GW game. I hate AoS on its own merits.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

motski wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

One of the things left out by the 'white knights' and the 'black knights', both, is that AoS has, apparently, undergone a lot of change since that initial release - with the White Knights defending the current AoS and try to downplay the initial release, while the Black Knights (fear my wrath!) taking the stance that the initial release is reason enough to hate the game, and feel no urge to spend the money to fix a game that they (and I) loathe.

The White Knights may well be better informed on the current version of the game - but the Black Knights have good reason to ignore AoS, based on the initial release.

Endlessly bashing AoS won't make Kings of War any more popular than it is, TheAuldGrump.

If KoW was such a GREEEEEAT wargame anyway, then why would you need to be such a white knight for it? Can't it just stand or fall on it's own merits without you needing to attack its competition any chance you get?

You've been trying hard for two and a half years now and the KoW subsection of this forum is still a barren wasteland. Time to move on and find something else to obsess about.

I enjoy KoW - and I really did not enjoy AoS.

It is really that simple - I don't like AoS.

And very little that I have read or been told about AoS has done much to change that.

My local area has virtually no AoS, and a small but thriving KoW community. (The word local is important - I will not pretend that my area is the norm.)

Both together are smaller than WHFB was when it was a healthy and thriving game. In the early 200ss, there were forty some odd Warhammer players, most of whom had both a 40K army and a Fantasy army.

There may be as many as thirty KoW players - but most of their armies are repurposed from WHFB. (It may be worth mentioning that nearly all are either members of the SCA or former members.)

I like KoW more than I did WHFB - but WHFB did a better job of building a community than either KoW or AoS.

My ideal is not that KoW replace AoS - it is that GW brings out (or back) a better version of fantasy. GW has the market to do a better game than AoS, that will reach a better market share than either AoS or Kow.

I am not arguing that KoW should take over - I am arguing that AoS is not as healthy for the market as the game that it replaced, and that GW needs to kill it and replace it with something better.

That something better may not be rank and file game, like I enjoy - but it is not AoS, either.

GW used to be very good at building a community.

The Auld Grump

Not as rare a locality as you may think, Same thing here, while KoW is still a minor player, AoS is extinct, with me and one other holdout still sometime playing it. Its not a very good game, but its ok for small action while waiting for a better game or have more time.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Azazelx wrote:
There are a lot of axes being ground in this thread. Well beyond critical thinking and quite solidly in "bitter ex" territory, where a person has "left" someone or something, but can't stop obsessively thinking and talking about it (and gaking on it) rather than showing indifference towards something no longer of interest and simply moving on (and often looking at the distant past with nothing but rose-rimmed glasses). Personal preference and personal bias being presented as empirical evidence, all that good stuff. While I feel that GW is FAR from perfect, and in fact is a mix of good and bad, excellent and terrible across their many products and business practices - and have stated such over many years, simply pointing out the "bitter ex" thing typically just makes me a White Knight or Fanboi, because a lot of people (not everyone) can't stand to have their (constant) behaviours pointed out in such a way.

Perhaps you get those "white knight" accusations because you resort to blatant ad hominem attacks instead of addressing the substance of what people are saying.

Nothing in that was ad hominem, much less blatant. It was addressing why people argue so passionately, in which case motives are very important.

also, you throw around a lot of incendiary language. That's fine, you've found your niche on the side of Rule #1, so bully for you. But allow others to be snarky if they want.

 thekingofkings wrote:

Spoiler:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

motski wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

One of the things left out by the 'white knights' and the 'black knights', both, is that AoS has, apparently, undergone a lot of change since that initial release - with the White Knights defending the current AoS and try to downplay the initial release, while the Black Knights (fear my wrath!) taking the stance that the initial release is reason enough to hate the game, and feel no urge to spend the money to fix a game that they (and I) loathe.

The White Knights may well be better informed on the current version of the game - but the Black Knights have good reason to ignore AoS, based on the initial release.

Endlessly bashing AoS won't make Kings of War any more popular than it is, TheAuldGrump.

If KoW was such a GREEEEEAT wargame anyway, then why would you need to be such a white knight for it? Can't it just stand or fall on it's own merits without you needing to attack its competition any chance you get?

You've been trying hard for two and a half years now and the KoW subsection of this forum is still a barren wasteland. Time to move on and find something else to obsess about.

I enjoy KoW - and I really did not enjoy AoS.

It is really that simple - I don't like AoS.

And very little that I have read or been told about AoS has done much to change that.

My local area has virtually no AoS, and a small but thriving KoW community. (The word local is important - I will not pretend that my area is the norm.)

Both together are smaller than WHFB was when it was a healthy and thriving game. In the early 2000s, there were forty some odd Warhammer players, most of whom had both a 40K army and a Fantasy army.

There may be as many as thirty KoW players - but most of their armies are repurposed from WHFB. (It may be worth mentioning that nearly all are either members of the SCA or former members.)

I like KoW more than I did WHFB - but WHFB did a better job of building a community than either KoW or AoS.

My ideal is not that KoW replace AoS - it is that GW brings out (or back) a better version of fantasy. GW has the market to do a better game than AoS, that will reach a better market share than either AoS or Kow.

I am not arguing that KoW should take over - I am arguing that AoS is not as healthy for the market as the game that it replaced, and that GW needs to kill it and replace it with something better.

That something better may not be rank and file game, like I enjoy - but it is not AoS, either.

GW used to be very good at building a community.

The Auld Grump

Not as rare a locality as you may think, Same thing here, while KoW is still a minor player, AoS is extinct, with me and one other holdout still sometime playing it. Its not a very good game, but its ok for small action while waiting for a better game or have more time.

I honestly never expect KoW to match WHFB at the peak of its popularity.

Hell, I don't expect AoS and KoW combined to reach that level of popularity.

I also honestly think that GW should have promoted AoS as a separate game from the Rank and File Warhammer - there was room for both games.

Though I also realize that WHFB was already dying when somebody had the 'brilliant' idea of AoS - it is quite possible that WHFB was not salvageable, much as I might wish that it were. (And I still hope that Specialist Games does a 'Legacy' game for WHFB.)

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* I might as well admit that I have enjoyed the heck out of both games of Lost Patrol that I have managed to play since the new version came out - it is still a good game, and the fog of war mechanic still works just fine.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

Spoiler:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

motski wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

One of the things left out by the 'white knights' and the 'black knights', both, is that AoS has, apparently, undergone a lot of change since that initial release - with the White Knights defending the current AoS and try to downplay the initial release, while the Black Knights (fear my wrath!) taking the stance that the initial release is reason enough to hate the game, and feel no urge to spend the money to fix a game that they (and I) loathe.

The White Knights may well be better informed on the current version of the game - but the Black Knights have good reason to ignore AoS, based on the initial release.

Endlessly bashing AoS won't make Kings of War any more popular than it is, TheAuldGrump.

If KoW was such a GREEEEEAT wargame anyway, then why would you need to be such a white knight for it? Can't it just stand or fall on it's own merits without you needing to attack its competition any chance you get?

You've been trying hard for two and a half years now and the KoW subsection of this forum is still a barren wasteland. Time to move on and find something else to obsess about.

I enjoy KoW - and I really did not enjoy AoS.

It is really that simple - I don't like AoS.

And very little that I have read or been told about AoS has done much to change that.

My local area has virtually no AoS, and a small but thriving KoW community. (The word local is important - I will not pretend that my area is the norm.)

Both together are smaller than WHFB was when it was a healthy and thriving game. In the early 2000s, there were forty some odd Warhammer players, most of whom had both a 40K army and a Fantasy army.

There may be as many as thirty KoW players - but most of their armies are repurposed from WHFB. (It may be worth mentioning that nearly all are either members of the SCA or former members.)

I like KoW more than I did WHFB - but WHFB did a better job of building a community than either KoW or AoS.

My ideal is not that KoW replace AoS - it is that GW brings out (or back) a better version of fantasy. GW has the market to do a better game than AoS, that will reach a better market share than either AoS or Kow.

I am not arguing that KoW should take over - I am arguing that AoS is not as healthy for the market as the game that it replaced, and that GW needs to kill it and replace it with something better.

That something better may not be rank and file game, like I enjoy - but it is not AoS, either.

GW used to be very good at building a community.

The Auld Grump

Not as rare a locality as you may think, Same thing here, while KoW is still a minor player, AoS is extinct, with me and one other holdout still sometime playing it. Its not a very good game, but its ok for small action while waiting for a better game or have more time.

I honestly never expect KoW to match WHFB at the peak of its popularity.

Hell, I don't expect AoS and KoW combined to reach that level of popularity.

I also honestly think that GW should have promoted AoS as a separate game from the Rank and File Warhammer - there was room for both games.

Though I also realize that WHFB was already dying when somebody had the 'brilliant' idea of AoS - it is quite possible that WHFB was not salvageable, much as I might wish that it were. (And I still hope that Specialist Games does a 'Legacy' game for WHFB.)

The Auld Grump

*EDIT* I might as well admit that I have enjoyed the heck out of both games of Lost Patrol that I have managed to play since the new version came out - it is still a good game, and the fog of war mechanic still works just fine.

they could have done a "ravening hordes" style update on pdf, kept warhammer as a specialist game, but I think they wanted to get all the warhammer players to switch to AoS. If so that was a massive amount of delusion on their part.

I had a little discussion today and discovered... with salt... that the dev team is very small and all very young as well.

That might have something to do with it.

I know that a couple of the current batch of gw devs used to post here and that they were very much all 100% for AOS direction and did not like the whfb direction as players before they were devs...

I don't think they wanted to get rid of players. Rather I think they wanted to appeal to what is popular these days, and ranks and files just isn't popular. And keeping the dev team fairly young keeps them grounded with what their prime audience wants.

 auticus wrote:
I had a little discussion today and discovered... with salt... that the dev team is very small and all very young as well.

That might have something to do with it.

I know that a couple of the current batch of gw devs used to post here and that they were very much all 100% for AOS direction and did not like the whfb direction as players before they were devs...

I don't think they wanted to get rid of players. Rather I think they wanted to appeal to what is popular these days, and ranks and files just isn't popular. And keeping the dev team fairly young keeps them grounded with what their prime audience wants.

None of that would surprise me, I just think they did a half assed job with AoS. I am also thinking that the average age of tabletop gamers is considerably older than 20's. I could see devs making that call, but I dont think it was a very good one. AoS really fractured the warhammer fanbase, it may be popular some places but it is also outright despised in others, and all those places used to be at least accepting warhammer.

Yeah, the hobby scene is all over the place where some dominate a place while others wither and at times can change completely around.

I certainly can't see that as a bad thing, though. With the fall of the crumbling Wfb empire arose new hobby kingdoms and a renaissance of gaming and new companies able to develop.

Which is even good for GW as the competition keeps them on their toes and helps bring in new hobbyists that can easily be tempted by their gorgeous products(even as proxies for other games) and by their now easy entry games of 40k 8th and AoS which can go hand-in-hand with other fun games like KoW or Frostgrave.

It's a win all round.

I don't think they wanted to get rid of players. Rather I think they wanted to appeal to what is popular these days, and ranks and files just isn't popular. And keeping the dev team fairly young keeps them grounded with what their prime audience wants.

Agreed.

The pain point for me is that the simpler games that are popular today do not attract me very much and it would be nice if they re-released LOTR and supported it or gave us a bone of some kind.

 Polonius wrote:
Nothing in that was ad hominem, much less blatant. It was addressing why people argue so passionately, in which case motives are very important.

No, it was an ad hominem. It went beyond mere "explanation" into the same old attempt to label certain people "haters" and therefore dismiss everything they have to say. Rather than addressing the substance of the criticism on its own merits, regardless of who is saying it, they went straight for insulting the people making the criticism and trying to de-legitimize their opinion.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Polonius wrote:
Nothing in that was ad hominem, much less blatant. It was addressing why people argue so passionately, in which case motives are very important.

No, it was an ad hominem. It went beyond mere "explanation" into the same old attempt to label certain people "haters" and therefore dismiss everything they have to say. Rather than addressing the substance of the criticism on its own merits, regardless of who is saying it, they went straight for insulting the people making the criticism and trying to de-legitimize their opinion.

Hmm, yes, it would be terrible if people responded with insults...

 Peregrine wrote:
Then why use power levels? If the quality of the game is similar then you're conceding that power levels have no advantage to make up for their disadvantages. Is this just another case of people wanting to use a less-balanced system for virtue signalling about how "casual" they are?

oh wait...

Thank you for that deep and insightful analysis of GW's rules team. I'll take this as your concession that you don't actually have any criticism of the substance of what I'm saying, and just hate negative posts on principle?

huh

FW bans are TFG behavior. They come in three categories:

1) People who will accept any level of broken rules as long as it has the magic "codex" word on it, but if any FW unit is ever overpowered it's an excuse for a blanket ban on the whole category. This is usually accompanied by various lies about how FW is a "separate company" or "requires permission" or whatever.

2) Bad tournament players who are afraid of allowing FW units to change the meta and create lists they aren't prepared to beat. Why risk your chances of winning when you can just ban the potential threat? Why spend time playtesting against FW units/lists and trying to figure out how to beat them if you don't have to? These players are usually nowhere near as skilled as they want to believe, but the whole "big fish in a small pond" thing often feeds their ego.

3) TFG store owners (and GW employees) who ban anything they can't personally profit from. They can't sell FW kits, they don't allow them. Who cares about the good of the community, it's all about their personal profit numbers.

None of these reasons are acceptable, and none deserve any respect or sympathy.

that's a lot of uses of TFG from a guy that loves calling out others on ad hominems.

But hey, at least you show respect to other people's opinions...

Your view is wrong.

oh.

Look, your relentless criticism heaped on 8th edition is incredibly relevant when discussing said criticism. Yes, we are delegitimizing your opinion, because your opinion isn't interesting or insightful or funny or in any way adding of value. Its just bile spewed out, in such volume and frequency that it carries with it an implied contempt for those that enjoy it.

 auticus wrote:
The pain point for me is that the simpler games that are popular today do not attract me very much and it would be nice if they re-released LOTR and supported it or gave us a bone of some kind.

You know that the new rulebook is coming out spring next year and that the Battle Companies book is up for pre-order this Saturday right?

 thekingofkings wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I had a little discussion today and discovered... with salt... that the dev team is very small and all very young as well.

That might have something to do with it.

I know that a couple of the current batch of gw devs used to post here and that they were very much all 100% for AOS direction and did not like the whfb direction as players before they were devs...

I don't think they wanted to get rid of players. Rather I think they wanted to appeal to what is popular these days, and ranks and files just isn't popular. And keeping the dev team fairly young keeps them grounded with what their prime audience wants.

None of that would surprise me, I just think they did a half assed job with AoS. I am also thinking that the average age of tabletop gamers is considerably older than 20's. I could see devs making that call, but I don't think it was a very good one. AoS really fractured the warhammer fanbase, it may be popular some places but it is also outright despised in others, and all those places used to be at least accepting warhammer.

I think that the half assing the rules, right at the gate, lost AoS more players than the change from massed units to... whatever the hell AoS is supposed to represent. Large scale skirmish?

If they had done a better job with the rules - and put in some freakin' balance from the beginning, it might have been an excellent gateway drug introductory game.

I use Mordheim for the same reason. (Well, that and the fact that I freakin' love Mordheim.) I use KoW because of the simplicity of the rules, but for getting kids into fantasy tabletop gaming, nothing beats Mordheim, at least in my totally biased opinion.

Being able to start with smaller warbands is one of the things that I can point at with AoS and say they were doing right. But for gogamogog's sake, put in some form of balance aside from 'the side with fewer figures has a minor advantage'.

It felt lazy - and that annoyed me, in part because it was the replacement for my preferred GW game.

On the other hand, I think that GW learned a lot from the failure - and that failure finally got rid of Kirby....

Right now, GW is rebuilding - finally growing again after a decade of constantly dropping sales.

Going back to the things that they know used to sell makes sense - and smaller scaled games also allow them to limit the risk.

So, we have the new Necromunda - less expensive to produce, and the risk spread across two products.

It would not surprise me if the old Necromunda box, sold through hobby outlets, rather than GW stores, only broke even.

The new Necromunda has to show a profit, coming out the gate. They cannot afford to have it break even at this point in time.

When Mordheim pokes its nose around the corner, I expect to see a similar attempt - unless sales of Newcromunda shows either that this was a really great idea, or that it was a really bad idea.

I am hoping that Newcromunda is vastly popular.

The Auld Grump

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

 auticus wrote:
The pain point for me is that the simpler games that are popular today do not attract me very much and it would be nice if they re-released LOTR and supported it or gave us a bone of some kind.

You know that the new rulebook is coming out spring next year and that the Battle Companies book is up for pre-order this Saturday right?

Isn't it basically skirmish low model count though?

I want a proper wargame. Is there a link to more information?

I've heared rumblings about a reboot of LOTR, I think now branded as Middle Earth Strategy Games. I'm intrigued, as I have some Minas Tiritth sitting in a tub.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

Spoiler:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I had a little discussion today and discovered... with salt... that the dev team is very small and all very young as well.

That might have something to do with it.

I know that a couple of the current batch of gw devs used to post here and that they were very much all 100% for AOS direction and did not like the whfb direction as players before they were devs...

I don't think they wanted to get rid of players. Rather I think they wanted to appeal to what is popular these days, and ranks and files just isn't popular. And keeping the dev team fairly young keeps them grounded with what their prime audience wants.

None of that would surprise me, I just think they did a half assed job with AoS. I am also thinking that the average age of tabletop gamers is considerably older than 20's. I could see devs making that call, but I don't think it was a very good one. AoS really fractured the warhammer fanbase, it may be popular some places but it is also outright despised in others, and all those places used to be at least accepting warhammer.

I think that the half assing the rules, right at the gate, lost AoS more players than the change from massed units to... whatever the hell AoS is supposed to represent. Large scale skirmish?

If they had done a better job with the rules - and put in some freakin' balance from the beginning, it might have been an excellent gateway drug introductory game.

I use Mordheim for the same reason. (Well, that and the fact that I freakin' love Mordheim.) I use KoW because of the simplicity of the rules, but for getting kids into fantasy tabletop gaming, nothing beats Mordheim, at least in my totally biased opinion.

Being able to start with smaller warbands is one of the things that I can point at with AoS and say they were doing right. But for gogamogog's sake, put in some form of balance aside from 'the side with fewer figures has a minor advantage'.

It felt lazy - and that annoyed me, in part because it was the replacement for my preferred GW game.

On the other hand, I think that GW learned a lot from the failure - and that failure finally got rid of Kirby....

Right now, GW is rebuilding - finally growing again after a decade of constantly dropping sales.

Going back to the things that they know used to sell makes sense - and smaller scaled games also allow them to limit the risk.

So, we have the new Necromunda - less expensive to produce, and the risk spread across two products.

It would not surprise me if the old Necromunda box, sold through hobby outlets, rather than GW stores, only broke even.

The new Necromunda has to show a profit, coming out the gate. They cannot afford to have it break even at this point in time.

When Mordheim pokes its nose around the corner, I expect to see a similar attempt - unless sales of Newcromunda shows either that this was a really great idea, or that it was a really bad idea.

I am hoping that Newcromunda is vastly popular.

The Auld Grump

Just to point out on the AoS rules, Jervis Johnson mentioned in a HeelanHammer podcast interview (Christmas Special), the hardest part with creating the rules was being told they had to fit on four A4 sheets. It sounded like a number of your issues were dictated to the rules team by management, aka Kirby and Merret.

 silent25 wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

Spoiler:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I had a little discussion today and discovered... with salt... that the dev team is very small and all very young as well.

That might have something to do with it.

I know that a couple of the current batch of gw devs used to post here and that they were very much all 100% for AOS direction and did not like the whfb direction as players before they were devs...

I don't think they wanted to get rid of players. Rather I think they wanted to appeal to what is popular these days, and ranks and files just isn't popular. And keeping the dev team fairly young keeps them grounded with what their prime audience wants.

None of that would surprise me, I just think they did a half assed job with AoS. I am also thinking that the average age of tabletop gamers is considerably older than 20's. I could see devs making that call, but I don't think it was a very good one. AoS really fractured the warhammer fanbase, it may be popular some places but it is also outright despised in others, and all those places used to be at least accepting warhammer.

I think that the half assing the rules, right at the gate, lost AoS more players than the change from massed units to... whatever the hell AoS is supposed to represent. Large scale skirmish?

If they had done a better job with the rules - and put in some freakin' balance from the beginning, it might have been an excellent gateway drug introductory game.

I use Mordheim for the same reason. (Well, that and the fact that I freakin' love Mordheim.) I use KoW because of the simplicity of the rules, but for getting kids into fantasy tabletop gaming, nothing beats Mordheim, at least in my totally biased opinion.

Being able to start with smaller warbands is one of the things that I can point at with AoS and say they were doing right. But for gogamogog's sake, put in some form of balance aside from 'the side with fewer figures has a minor advantage'.

It felt lazy - and that annoyed me, in part because it was the replacement for my preferred GW game.

On the other hand, I think that GW learned a lot from the failure - and that failure finally got rid of Kirby....

Right now, GW is rebuilding - finally growing again after a decade of constantly dropping sales.

Going back to the things that they know used to sell makes sense - and smaller scaled games also allow them to limit the risk.

So, we have the new Necromunda - less expensive to produce, and the risk spread across two products.

It would not surprise me if the old Necromunda box, sold through hobby outlets, rather than GW stores, only broke even.

The new Necromunda has to show a profit, coming out the gate. They cannot afford to have it break even at this point in time.

When Mordheim pokes its nose around the corner, I expect to see a similar attempt - unless sales of Newcromunda shows either that this was a really great idea, or that it was a really bad idea.

I am hoping that Newcromunda is vastly popular.

The Auld Grump

Just to point out on the AoS rules, Jervis Johnson mentioned in a HeelanHammer podcast interview (Christmas Special), the hardest part with creating the rules was being told they had to fit on four A4 sheets. It sounded like a number of your issues were dictated to the rules team by management, aka Kirby and Merret.

That is no beginning of a surprise.

I am always willing to blame GW's failings on those two.

Ah, well - while what I am hearing about the rules content for Newcromunda is disappointing, the miniatures look fantastic - which will be enough reason to buy Underhive, and use the spiffy plastics with Oldermunda. (Not joking or being sarcastic about the models - the Goliaths in particular look about a million times better than the plastics that came in the long ago game. The Escher... I want to use in a tabletop Fallout game.)

The Orlocks also look good, and, again, a whole lot better than the long ago plastics. (I may be a minority - I liked the Orlock plastics better than the Goliaths, in that old game.)

And the Scum, definitely in favor of the new Scum.

So... I am willing to chalk it up as GW victory, just not as big a victory as I had hoped. I will be spending money on GW product.

The Auld Grump

 auticus wrote:

 Inquisitor Gideon wrote:

 auticus wrote:
The pain point for me is that the simpler games that are popular today do not attract me very much and it would be nice if they re-released LOTR and supported it or gave us a bone of some kind.

You know that the new rulebook is coming out spring next year and that the Battle Companies book is up for pre-order this Saturday right?

Isn't it basically skirmish low model count though?

I want a proper wargame. Is there a link to more information?

Battle Companies is a warband development game. Kinda Mordheimy or Necromunda. But the game has already been rebranded into Middle Earth Strategy Battle Gaming. (see the link). Battle companies is out for pre-order on saturday and as i said above, a new rulebook is due out around spring time. There's no core mechanics or anything changing, it's essentially a tidy up and a review of older profiles that need adjusting.

Also, did you miss There and Back Again that came out earlier in the year? It had army lists for Gundabad and Iron Hills that have been released through Forgeworld.

https://www.warhammer-community.com/2017/11/26/blood-bowl-blood-angels-battle-companies-next-weeks-pre-orders/

Appreciate the update sir.

I did miss There and Back Again. The question is... is it worth picking up with the new ruleset coming...

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 auticus wrote:
I had a little discussion today and discovered... with salt... that the dev team is very small and all very young as well.

That might have something to do with it.

I know that a couple of the current batch of gw devs used to post here and that they were very much all 100% for AOS direction and did not like the whfb direction as players before they were devs...

I don't think they wanted to get rid of players. Rather I think they wanted to appeal to what is popular these days, and ranks and files just isn't popular. And keeping the dev team fairly young keeps them grounded with what their prime audience wants.

None of that would surprise me, I just think they did a half assed job with AoS. I am also thinking that the average age of tabletop gamers is considerably older than 20's. I could see devs making that call, but I don't think it was a very good one. AoS really fractured the warhammer fanbase, it may be popular some places but it is also outright despised in others, and all those places used to be at least accepting warhammer.

I think that the half assing the rules, right at the gate, lost AoS more players than the change from massed units to... whatever the hell AoS is supposed to represent. Large scale skirmish?

If they had done a better job with the rules - and put in some freakin' balance from the beginning, it might have been an excellent gateway drug introductory game.

I use Mordheim for the same reason. (Well, that and the fact that I freakin' love Mordheim.) I use KoW because of the simplicity of the rules, but for getting kids into fantasy tabletop gaming, nothing beats Mordheim, at least in my totally biased opinion.

Being able to start with smaller warbands is one of the things that I can point at with AoS and say they were doing right. But for gogamogog's sake, put in some form of balance aside from 'the side with fewer figures has a minor advantage'.

It felt lazy - and that annoyed me, in part because it was the replacement for my preferred GW game.

On the other hand, I think that GW learned a lot from the failure - and that failure finally got rid of Kirby....

Right now, GW is rebuilding - finally growing again after a decade of constantly dropping sales.

Going back to the things that they know used to sell makes sense - and smaller scaled games also allow them to limit the risk.

So, we have the new Necromunda - less expensive to produce, and the risk spread across two products.

It would not surprise me if the old Necromunda box, sold through hobby outlets, rather than GW stores, only broke even.

The new Necromunda has to show a profit, coming out the gate. They cannot afford to have it break even at this point in time.

When Mordheim pokes its nose around the corner, I expect to see a similar attempt - unless sales of Newcromunda shows either that this was a really great idea, or that it was a really bad idea.

I am hoping that Newcromunda is vastly popular.

The Auld Grump

I hope necromunda goes well, but if they do a mordheim reboot, I am hoping its not in the "mortal realms" as I have found that setting extremely uninteresting. One of the kicks in the teeth about AoS is that it not only nuked a system, but a setting as well.