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.

auticus wrote:
Yeah but people often still demand tournament style. My biggest hurdle if i want to continue campaigns is matching people up now.

Our powergamers are ready to melt opposing lists down and im not sure what this is going to do to interest.

That's a shame, honestly.

I feel like powergaming in AoS is like taking a magnifying glass to ants. Congratulations, you can exploit a rulset that was never designed for what you're doing. But nerd culture surrounding these games seems to be more about dick measuring than actually playing a game. "I won therefore i'm smarter! DERP"

The situation is that the current AOS design team are very close to the UK GT organizer(s) and those are also the playtestters, to the influence of the game development is and has been very much tournament/power gaming-oriented.

I would be very interested in hearing the game devs discuss the gulf between casual play and power play and how they think the current direction would be received by casual players.

Phil Kelly was asked that once at a Games Day, and him standing about 10 feet from me replied "don't play with gits"... so that might be the answer today as well.

I feel like we've moved so far away from the design paradigm that I prefer that I can't even understand what they're trying to achieve. This game is really obviously not designed to be played competitively, and trying to contort it to fit that framework produces some really dissonant statements and design.

I don't mind entirely narrative games, but making them into wargames doesn't work well as far as I'm concerned. If you want to play a narrative fantasy game, pick up a role playing game.

I'm following this thread in the vague hope that something will come through that will make me want to use my 4 fantasy armies again for something other than KoW, but I'm not seeing it so far, just more of the same design paradigm that drove me away.

Kanluwen wrote:Thundertusk spam getting cheaper though means he will have comparable mortal wound output to stormcast builds, which is likely the dev's desired goal. From a balance standpoint, this is balanced... if you are in a powergamer environment. Stormcast could do many more mortal wounds than BCR, which is why they died off.

From a casual standpoint.... this definitely makes me need to finish my power rating utility so that I can gauge actual power not by points, but by your mathematical outputs to weigh opponents for who they need matched up against.

Feeding casual lists to the power guys feels to me to be like handing over baby seals for clubbing.

I totally forget how to play AoS and waiting for the new edition before I try learning the rules so I can be wrong here. How can you have Thundertusk spam? I mean at most you can have 2, maybe 3? So how is that spam? I thought because they have the Behemoth keyword you can only have 2 or 3 if playing a large point game. Has this changed now?

Davor wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:Thundertusk spam getting cheaper though means he will have comparable mortal wound output to stormcast builds, which is likely the dev's desired goal. From a balance standpoint, this is balanced... if you are in a powergamer environment. Stormcast could do many more mortal wounds than BCR, which is why they died off.

From a casual standpoint.... this definitely makes me need to finish my power rating utility so that I can gauge actual power not by points, but by your mathematical outputs to weigh opponents for who they need matched up against.

Feeding casual lists to the power guys feels to me to be like handing over baby seals for clubbing.

I totally forget how to play AoS and waiting for the new edition before I try learning the rules so I can be wrong here. How can you have Thundertusk spam? I mean at most you can have 2, maybe 3? So how is that spam? I thought because they have the Behemoth keyword you can only have 2 or 3 if playing a large point game. Has this changed now?

Spam is a word that is used way too frequently.

You can take max monster allotment in normal thundertusks and then you can take heroes on thundertusks in addition.

When the hell did I write that?!

 Marmatag wrote:

auticus wrote:
Yeah but people often still demand tournament style. My biggest hurdle if i want to continue campaigns is matching people up now.

Our powergamers are ready to melt opposing lists down and im not sure what this is going to do to interest.

That's a shame, honestly.

I feel like powergaming in AoS is like taking a magnifying glass to ants. Congratulations, you can exploit a rulset that was never designed for what you're doing. But nerd culture surrounding these games seems to be more about dick measuring than actually playing a game. "I won therefore i'm smarter! DERP"

Honestly, the fluff players tend to be the bigger issue. Competitive players bring the best lists they can but very few of the guys that are actually placing well in GTs care about anything other than going out there and doing the best they can and testing their skill and planning against other similarly skilled players.

Meanwhile fluff players whine about armies being too powerful while misusing even good armies to such a degree that you couldn't hand them the game if you tried. They are also 100% sure how everyone SHOULD be playing the game and are VERY LOUD at expressing those beliefs.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

auticus wrote:
You can take max monster allotment in normal thundertusks and then you can take heroes on thundertusks in addition.

No you can't. 4 Behemouths, leader or not is irrelevant.

auticus wrote:You can take max monster allotment in normal thundertusks and then you can take heroes on thundertusks in addition.

I was told we couldn't do this. Is this something in the 2.0 edition or can we do this in the 1.x edition as well?

auticus wrote:
The situation is that the current AOS design team are very close to the UK GT organizer(s) and those are also the playtestters, to the influence of the game development is and has been very much tournament/power gaming-oriented.

I would be very interested in hearing the game devs discuss the gulf between casual play and power play and how they think the current direction would be received by casual players.

Phil Kelly was asked that once at a Games Day, and him standing about 10 feet from me replied "don't play with gits"... so that might be the answer today as well.

Except the realm rules are the most Anti-tournament inclusion into any tabletop game I've seen outside of release AoS's 'everything is legal'.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Davor wrote:

auticus wrote:You can take max monster allotment in normal thundertusks and then you can take heroes on thundertusks in addition.

I was told we couldn't do this. Is this something in the 2.0 edition or can we do this in the 1.x edition as well?

You cannot do that. It was in GHB 2016 and has stayed the same since.

ERJAK wrote:

Davor wrote:

auticus wrote:You can take max monster allotment in normal thundertusks and then you can take heroes on thundertusks in addition.

I was told we couldn't do this. Is this something in the 2.0 edition or can we do this in the 1.x edition as well?

You cannot do that. It was in GHB 2016 and has stayed the same since.

Correct, a unit with those keywords counts towards the counts of all the unit types they apply to. A leader that's also a behemoth counts towards the limits on leaders and behemoths.

Unless, of course, the battletome or unit rules let you bypass this somehow.

Sorry my bad, its been a while since I've seen BCR. So four max indeed.

Meanwhile fluff players whine about armies being too powerful while misusing even good armies to such a degree that you couldn't hand them the game if you tried.

I'm sure we all have our experiences. Here is the experience I try to avoid:

Show up with a normal list that may have 12 mortal wounds output a turn, basic 4+ saves, etc.

Opponent across from you is doing the stormcast build doing 30-54 mortal wounds a turn.

In an event that has been listed as a narrative campaign where those type of lists shouldn't be brought, but they decided to bring them anyway.

Thats not a very fun game. I'd assume for either people.

Thats the kind of disparity that exists in the game today that I would give anything for the developers to address, instead of making the gulf wider.

They are also 100% sure how everyone SHOULD be playing the game and are VERY LOUD at expressing those beliefs.

Most of the people that I know, power gamer or non alike, don't tell people how they should play the game. The casual guys that quit the game quit because they just want some games out at the store where they can have a close game without having to field a min/max list.

I do know some narrative guys who do scream about powergamers being evil and you should never play that way.

In converse, I was also publicly shamed across a few message boards for teaching players to play the game wrong by allowing house rules and capping power lists, which the tournament guys said handicaps the community and makes our tournaments a joke because the new players weren't being taught how to powerplay properly.

So that sword doth cut both ways.

I'm glad the article said the realm rules are optional, despite being core

ERJAK wrote:

 Marmatag wrote:

auticus wrote:
Yeah but people often still demand tournament style. My biggest hurdle if i want to continue campaigns is matching people up now.

Our powergamers are ready to melt opposing lists down and im not sure what this is going to do to interest.

That's a shame, honestly.

I feel like powergaming in AoS is like taking a magnifying glass to ants. Congratulations, you can exploit a rulset that was never designed for what you're doing. But nerd culture surrounding these games seems to be more about dick measuring than actually playing a game. "I won therefore i'm smarter! DERP"

Honestly, the fluff players tend to be the bigger issue. Competitive players bring the best lists they can but very few of the guys that are actually placing well in GTs care about anything other than going out there and doing the best they can and testing their skill and planning against other similarly skilled players.

Meanwhile fluff players whine about armies being too powerful while misusing even good armies to such a degree that you couldn't hand them the game if you tried. They are also 100% sure how everyone SHOULD be playing the game and are VERY LOUD at expressing those beliefs.

So, there's a lot wrong with your post.

No one is complaining about the fact that tournaments exist, or about people in tournaments "doing the best they can." The ultimate goal of going to a competitive event is to win. If you can crush your opponent, and he feels bad, that's his problem. I tabled a guy horribly in a tournament where I didn't lose a model, and I didn't feel bad at all for him, because it was a tournament. This is the mindset and it is acceptable.

The issue is when the tournament mindset is applied to games with players who don't share that mindset. It has nothing to do with the power of the lists, it has everything to do with the philosophy that it's OK to crush your opponent. The only way i can try and explain it is that there's a fundamental difference between playing against someone and playing with someone. These can overlap of course, but for players who only attend tournaments, and players who only play outside of tournaments, you're going to have cognitive dissonance when they meet.

Tournament players have an avenue to experience the game how they want: tournaments. Casual players have to find other ways to play. If Auticus wants to create a casual ruleset that limits powergaming, why should power gamers get upset with the rules? Do they have any right at all to feel this way? I experienced something similar running a casual narrative event. Instead of just declining to play, some local power gamers not only got angry but went on huge facebook rants about the rules and how they were exclusionary towards some lists. I don't get that. You already have your game modes. Let other people have theirs.

I'm in the camp that goes "Why the heck do tournaments exist?" to be honest. I'm not complaining that they do exist, I just don't understand how a bunch of nerds can get together, look at a game as horribly unbalanced and unpredictable, with so many random elements as Age of Sigmar (or 40k) and think:

"Y'know what? This would make a great competitive game!"

I just don't get the mindset. I don't get the mindset about winning all the time. I don't get the purpose of buying an army on e-bay because it's 'meta', slapping it together as quick as you can, paying someone else to paint it, and then selling it off as soon as it's not in the meta any more (which can be as short as two weeks, due to the frequency of FAQ's now).

When I play, I want to play those close games without min-maxing. I want to enjoy the game as a social experience and a more casual/narrative experience, while also slowly improving myself as a strategist, modeler, painter, and gamer overall. When tournament players table their opponents turn 2 and say 'good game', I roll my eyes. When they feign feeling bad because they've tabled their opponent without losing a single model, I look at them and think "Is that all this game is to you? Winning as hard as you can?"

It just doesn't make sense to me. Tournament players seem to speak their own language, have their own set of rules, and are just as ornery as the regular 'casual' player. If not for 'comp' (ie: painting, sportsmanship, etc), you'd see tournaments that are seas of gray and dickery. Nary a painted model and hardly a smile or laugh heard. You know how I know this? Look at other kinds of tournaments outside of 40k/AoS. Look at the rising tide of E-Sports. Those kids playing Overwatch or Starcraft are shaking hands at the end of the game begrudgingly, not out of any sense of sportsmanship, but because it's just an archaic expectation that they stick to. I witnessed a competitive POKEMON player flick off the audience when they booed him for slow-playing against an opponent that would have beaten him if he hadn't run down the clock on every decision, while an oblivious judge looked on and thought "this is fine". And the best part? He didn't even get banned, despite being a 20+ something d-bag and flicking off an audience of children on a livestreamed event.

Sure, there are great tournament players out there. Friendly guys, good guys that do want their opponents to have a good time and have a remarkable sense of chivalry, honor, and sportsmanship, on top of having a great sense of humor that doesn't rely on misogyny. In fact, I'd go out on a limb and say that there are more of these great players than there are awful scumbags. I'd even say that, yes, many casual players are whiny crybabies that just want their wins handed to them, that haven't learned the skill of losing gracefully and have about as much sportsmanship as a toddler that hasn't had his nappy-time yet. I agree that on both sides you have the good players and you have the bad. I don't mind that tournaments exist, I just don't play in them and I tend to avoid the gamers that think that that's the way the game should be played. Basketball? Poker? Chess? Baseball? I can understand these games being played competitively. Even Overwatch, Super Smash Brothers, League of Legends.

40k and AoS, in my mind, are the farthest you can get from a game that was meant to be played competitively.

And bringing it all back around to the new edition coming out in June, I really hope that my local group does use the new realm rules. In fact, I'm sure they will, because they're a mix of players that do want to explore all the different angles of the game, from tournament to narrative players. It seems like a lot of fun and if GW has bothered to put it all into the game, then we should see if we can have some fun with it. If you run across a jerk that wants to forego those rules in favor of tabling you by turn 2, then... don't play with that guy?

drbored wrote:
I'm in the camp that goes "Why the heck do tournaments exist?" to be honest.

People have competitive mind sets i guess. its the same thing with MTG a card game originally designed for children.


i want to say 50% for that prize money and glory, 40% grot measuring competition, 10% because they enjoy it.
with a splash of trying to be social and meet people.

I'd suggest tournaments exist so many of us can play a given game at all. Depending on your location, population density, etc... some games are obscenely hard to find players for.

If I want a game of 40k I can drive thirty minutes to a decent venue and be set, but for AoS I need to head to Albany (despite my best efforts to help the game locally), and that means an almost two-hour drive, and a full day commitment.

Tournaments mean I will get a full day of AoS in, with people who likewise travelled, meaning new lists, new opponents, etc...

I don't disagree that those games will be 50% power-game wankery, and a bad experience until you chase the dragon too... but if you really put love and time into your models, etc... its better than not getting to play at all... I guess.

Its just a byproduct of a world where people increasingly gravitate towards hobbies of instant gratification.

It gets pretty boring playing against someone who doesn't want to win. Likewise, sandbagging or steamrolling an opponent are also boring (and insulting, in the case of the former). Competitive balance is important because it ensures that the game is enjoyable and approachable regardless of the faction you choose to play. Having Timmy's list of favoured units fluctuate with the release of a new book/edition/faction from reasonable to completely oppressing his community is not good for casual or competitive mindsets. Moreover, the line between what a 'casual' and 'competitive' list is ends up being entirely arbitrary.

Healthy competitive environments encourage creativity, since they force players to come up with novel solutions in order to outmaneuver other players own solutions. They also should craft their own narratives organically.

 Fafnir wrote:
It gets pretty boring playing against someone who doesn't want to win. Likewise, sandbagging or steamrolling an opponent are also boring (and insulting, in the case of the former). Competitive balance is important because it ensures that the game is enjoyable and approachable regardless of the faction you choose to play. Having Timmy's list of favoured units fluctuate with the release of a new book/edition/faction from reasonable to completely oppressing his community is not good for casual or competitive mindsets. Moreover, the line between what a 'casual' and 'competitive' list is ends up being entirely arbitrary.

Healthy competitive environments encourage creativity, since they force players to come up with novel solutions in order to outmaneuver other players own solutions. They also should craft their own narratives organically.

Spot on.


Also FYI to those in the conversation; ERJAK has historically approached things from the perspective of competitive players being very upright in behavior and criticisms of WAAC or unsportsmanlike behavior at tournaments are very exaggerated, part of the 'narrative' community that is the real problem. Keep that in mind if engaging with him on the topic.

Ive rarely seen or experienced problems with gaming in general as long as the expectations are clear. If you go to a tournament, bring a hard list and play to win. Playing in my garage with a couple people who don’t even own their own models.. CAAC all the way.

The problems arise becuase a very small percentage of gamers are stuck in one mindset, and aren’t willing to compromise in situations where the expectations aren’t explicitly clear.

In olden days, I always brought 2 lists when playing WFB or 40k for pickup games. One that could at least put up a fight against the netlist/I’m practicing for a tournament/obviously just a competitive hombre games, and one with the cheese trimmed out. I didn’t care, becuase I was prepared to play either way.

The problem I personally have with AoS in particular though is that it seems intentionally designed, RAW, to not be very fulfilling as a competitive game. Frankly I’m surprised to hear the primary feedback and play testing is done by a tournament crowd. It must be different in the UK or Europe becuase it’s just not taken that seriously around me, as seems right.

 Da Boss wrote:
I feel like we've moved so far away from the design paradigm that I prefer that I can't even understand what they're trying to achieve. This game is really obviously not designed to be played competitively, and trying to contort it to fit that framework produces some really dissonant statements and design.

I don't mind entirely narrative games, but making them into wargames doesn't work well as far as I'm concerned. If you want to play a narrative fantasy game, pick up a role playing game.

I'm following this thread in the vague hope that something will come through that will make me want to use my 4 fantasy armies again for something other than KoW, but I'm not seeing it so far, just more of the same design paradigm that drove me away.

You probably won't, to be honest. AoS isn't the game you want it to be, and I think that's okay.

I started with narrative wargames in the late 80s. I'll never understand how people continue to push that wargames shouldn't be narrative and only RPGs should be that.

D&D used to be highly competitive and had tournaments all the way into the mid 90s... anything can be competitive. And anything can tell a story / be narrative.

I wouldn't be here today if it hadn't been for narrative wargaming coming up as a teen.

dosiere wrote:
Ive rarely seen or experienced problems with gaming in general as long as the expectations are clear. If you go to a tournament, bring a hard list and play to win. Playing in my garage with a couple people who don’t even own their own models.. CAAC all the way.

What is CAAC?

Casual At All Costs.

The Extreme opposite of WAAC

auticus wrote:
Casual At All Costs.

The Extreme opposite of WAAC

It's so extreme, CAAC players literally force the beer and pretzels down your throat.

dosiere wrote:


The problems arise because a very small percentage of gamers are stuck in one mindset, and aren’t willing to compromise in situations where the expectations aren’t explicitly clear.

In olden days, I always brought 2 lists when playing WFB or 40k for pickup games. One that could at least put up a fight against the netlist/I’m practicing for a tournament/obviously just a competitive hombre games, and one with the cheese trimmed out. I didn’t care, becuase I was prepared to play either way.

And this is where one of the major issues comes into being. A lot of people arrange their pick-up games via social media now without really putting much thought into their postings. My local group has a couple of postings for today, where people have just said "will be at local shop with 2k points. <insert army and time here>."

That's cool and all, but what are you wanting to play? A casual game? "Tournament" practice? I put quotes around "tournament" because the people who tend towards claiming this never actually attend any of the local tournaments, they just bring netlists and then somehow can't find time to attend the tournament despite showing up 15-16 times to practice.
Maybe you want to try a multi-stage game, ala the new Idoneth battleplans?

I've said this before and I can basically be assured to say it again, but communication is key for arranging games. You don't have to know someone particularly well to communicate with them. I've seen too many instances where someone tries to put the blame onto the other person for the game "not being how they wanted it to be". I personally saw a pretty ridiculous argument where someone was trying to force the other person to use the beta rules for 40k deployment because "they needed to try them out". Other person didn't know the beta rules so didn't want to use them.

auticus wrote:
Casual At All Costs.

The Extreme opposite of WAAC

Thanks, so how I play or how I use to play.

Lemondish wrote:

auticus wrote:
Casual At All Costs.

The Extreme opposite of WAAC

It's so extreme, CAAC players literally force the beer and pretzels down your throat.

That's an interesting mental image

auticus wrote:
The situation is that the current AOS design team are very close to the UK GT organizer(s) and those are also the playtestters, to the influence of the game development is and has been very much tournament/power gaming-oriented.

I would be very interested in hearing the game devs discuss the gulf between casual play and power play and how they think the current direction would be received by casual players.

Phil Kelly was asked that once at a Games Day, and him standing about 10 feet from me replied "don't play with gits"... so that might be the answer today as well.

I wonder if any of them play... well a lot of armies, but I play KO, and KO seems to be getting done dirty.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

 Fafnir wrote:
It gets pretty boring playing against someone who doesn't want to win. Likewise, sandbagging or steamrolling an opponent are also boring (and insulting, in the case of the former). Competitive balance is important because it ensures that the game is enjoyable and approachable regardless of the faction you choose to play. Having Timmy's list of favoured units fluctuate with the release of a new book/edition/faction from reasonable to completely oppressing his community is not good for casual or competitive mindsets. Moreover, the line between what a 'casual' and 'competitive' list is ends up being entirely arbitrary.

Healthy competitive environments encourage creativity, since they force players to come up with novel solutions in order to outmaneuver other players own solutions. They also should craft their own narratives organically.

Spot on.


Also FYI to those in the conversation; ERJAK has historically approached things from the perspective of competitive players being very upright in behavior and criticisms of WAAC or unsportsmanlike behavior at tournaments are very exaggerated, part of the 'narrative' community that is the real problem. Keep that in mind if engaging with him on the topic.

Personally, every single one of the best games I've ever played have been at tournaments, and the only 2 negative experiences I've EVER had in a competitive setting came from narrative players who had clearly been roped into the event by friends and weren't prepared mentally or...list-ally for that kind of environment, which I totally get.

That said, I have recently experienced the WAAC A-hole I thought was largely a myth, by following a game a couple of friends of mine were playing at a large doubles tournament. There was a 'team'(player) who was playing his daemon army so thouroughly wrong that it might as well been a homebrew book. It was to the point where there were so many lies about what the units did and what buffs they got that even if you caught a handful it wasn't enough to stop the army from being ridiculously beyond its actual ken.

So I know that crap WAAC players exists, I just take exception to the idea that non-competitive players don't have their equivalenr donkey cave or that casual/narrative play is "Real 40k/Sigmar", it's all real Sigmar, it's just different.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

stratigo wrote:

auticus wrote:
The situation is that the current AOS design team are very close to the UK GT organizer(s) and those are also the playtestters, to the influence of the game development is and has been very much tournament/power gaming-oriented.

I would be very interested in hearing the game devs discuss the gulf between casual play and power play and how they think the current direction would be received by casual players.

Phil Kelly was asked that once at a Games Day, and him standing about 10 feet from me replied "don't play with gits"... so that might be the answer today as well.

I wonder if any of them play... well a lot of armies, but I play KO, and KO seems to be getting done dirty.

They play pretty much all the armies. I know for a fact that Russ Veal was working on a Kharadron list that GHB2 killed.