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.

And of those two tactics only the minimum drops so you get second turn priority is a specific anti-secondturn attempt at a list. The powerful alpha strike is always a good solid plan in games without the doubleturn being a thing.

However with doubleturn it becomes far more powerful and important to take over other potential strategy options. So it drastically cuts down on strategic choice within the game.

He also quotes one of the slaanesh armies even though we all know that 3 keepers summoning more keepers is already broken in the game and is generating way too much power compared to other 2.0 armies.




In the game itself it doesn't project any attempt to mitigate the doubleturn. Again I agree with what you say. People talk about "planning for it" but have no actual plans. I think what they mean is "mentally you prepare yourself to deal with it and accept it as a thing you might get slapped with if your opponent gets it" Rather than a "plan" to actually deal and tackle with it in game terms.


I also agree that GW has a legacy of casual rules writers in competitive rules writing jobs; its the reason we still have issues with technical language and even when GW does open beta testing of some armies they still don't send out the full rules but pre-constructed armies to play against each other (from what we've heard from closed beta testing groups). It's sadly a legacy that I think GW is going to retain until new staff and new blood (eg people like Bottle) start to get into higher ranks within GW and push a culture change. That a shift from totally casual to competitive in theory with AoS turned a failing product into a success I think goes a long way to show that there IS money in that approach (more so than ultra casual). That the computergames market is going through a massive e-sports phase which is growing every year - that Magic the Gathering also has the same - it all shows that a solid foundation with a well made system can generate more income.

I played one game of AOS. It was 1000pts, I played Gitz (two Looncurse boxes, so all squigs) against Khorne. I had turn 1. I moved my units forward but couldn't really do much and new the goal was going to be to just weather the storm of khorne melee attacks and spells for a round. So I moved in ways to encourage that.

Korne gets his first turn, but I planned my movement well and I'm just out of range of his endless spells and mortal wound dealing priests. The charge phase happens. The squig herd and some very weak khorne guys get in a fight. No big issues.

Then Khorne gets a double turn, ends up dealing enough mortal wounds and wiping out effectively half my army. So now we are at the bottom of round 2 and the game essentially just became 600pts vs 800 pts due to the double turn. Not one to admit defeat I send my squig hoppers and boingrot bounders after the units dealing all the mortal wounds to me. I do a relatively good job, but end up conceding in round 3 when we tally up objectives and I realize I don't have enough models left to actually claim objectives and take the victory points.

There are a number of things I could have done differently in this situation. If I had put the squig riders on tthe same side of the board as my opponents HQ's during deployment I would have gotten them tied up much faster. However whenever I play over it in my head it always just goes back to "I should have just taken the second turn."

Between the double turn and the abundance of mortal wounds. I haven't really tried to see out a game of AOS since. I'm not against playing it, but it left a bad taste in my mouth and there are other games I would rather play.

In regards to other games existing, i agree there are but would like to play with my room full of gw models again and enjoy it. Ive got massive tomb kings, dark elves, high elves, and chaos models that id like to use.

4 page pew pew just means simplified rules. The game is far too simplified, its missing a few important components and fixates around board gamey elements instead of wargame elements.

Thats a matter if taste.

I'm on the fence atm if I want to get back into 40k or AOS. I have the urge to play Warhammer again since I can't deny it's popular. The issue is that both games have their own big problems, and I can only pick one right now and can't do both. 40k has more issues it seems as well as the potential of a "9th" edition (hopefully like AOS 2.0 was just a revision not a rewrite) coming sometime next year makes me think that AOS is in a slightly better place. But I've long thought that while AOS has its fair share of issues (the codex creep and double turn being the most egregious) that AOS at least has something of a care towards rules, even if they get it wrong or purposely make things imbalanced (which we have no true idea and enough reasons it could be either). AOS at leat has standardized language and rules, for the most part. It doesn't have soup in the same way as 40k that dominates and punishes mono-armies. Even though there are outliers like Slaanesh out there, you see a decent mix of armies doing well in AOS even if they do have a single "tournament" build (which really isn't all that bad; there will always be a "best" build) and you do sometimes see non-tournament builds performing decently.

Quite the conundrum.

I don't want to feel like I am jumping on some "Plz nerf Bonereapers" bandwagon. I am not. It is just the only faction I currently have experience with. However, my limited experience has thinking that the Mortek Guard and Chaos Warriors are actually pretty close mechanically. I might be wrong with some of this, I believe they are the same amount of points per wound with the same save, have pretty close weapon options though I think the Mortek ones are better Rend swords, +3H, +3 wound 2" reach weapons (that probably aren't an upgrade kit) and better wounding great weapon. Their Move is one inch less (making the Bonereapers not feel as slow to me a people like to point out) and don't seem to have Mortal Wound protection. Chaos Warriors do get marks to help in fighting, but if given the Bravery buff come short of the Mortek Guard. However, Guard have 6=2 hits which seems far more impressive than re-rolling 1s.

It does have me what should be the differences between Chaos Warriors and Mortek Guard? Personally, I think the Warriors should be the more killy of the two and the less durable. That just seems like how Slaves of Darkness should compare to Bonereapers. But right now, it seems that S2D are slightly more durable and a noticeable amount less killy that bonereapers to me.

***

As for the Double Turn thing. It is far too early for me to solidify my opinion on it. However, I can definitely see if being very disruptive to the game. In my game when it happened it just sped up my losing. I can also say that games that have alternating activation or random activation (like Bolt Action) stacking cheap units to control the flow of activations is very much a thing. How I have been activation juggled in those games by good opponents. Fortunately, most of the time there is a limit in those sort games to how much activation stacking a player can effectively do since cheap units still cost points and there gets to be a tipping point where the points for more control come at the cost of effective units. Age of Sigmar doesn't really have those controls. So I can see a lot of plans can be thrown out a window to the whims of luck.

I almost think it would be better of AoS to go the same route as Kill Team if they want to roll for Initiative each round in that there isn't any choice--higher roll player goes first. Which still makes factions like GSC very tough to play since you can say plan for not getting Initiative all you want, but having a glass hammer team that really has get the first swing in game where going first is 50/50 and making charges is inherently risky beyond 2". There is simply little planing I see that can be done beyond the already stated mental preparation that it can happen. Keeping your units at a distance makes just another stage of luck to make longer charge rolls. No really plan there beyond what you think is a safe distance.

The difference is that Slaves to Darkness also have access to a lot of cheaper units such as the Marauders and Warcry Warbands. They've also access to the four demon armies as well. So they've a huge amount of potential variety.

Bonereapers are very single focused in their design. This means that they reinforce each other really well; but it also leaves gaps. They also can't take allies, but can take mercenaries if the game you're playing allows for it (and you've not taken either Nagash and/or Arkhan).

So Slaves to Darkness can pull tricks like cheap chaff units; harrasment units; faster moving units etc... Demons also bring a host of special abilities and niches of their own. They might take one body of warriors as a core of their power and then use a lot more cheaper marauders/warcry warbands to chock up the battlefield and deny/secure points. Reapers can't repeat that tactic and have to rely on their fewer numbers.

 Overread wrote:
The difference is that Slaves to Darkness also have access to a lot of cheaper units such as the Marauders and Warcry Warbands. They've also access to the four demon armies as well. So they've a huge amount of potential variety.

Bonereapers are very single focused in their design. This means that they reinforce each other really well; but it also leaves gaps. They also can't take allies, but can take mercenaries if the game you're playing allows for it (and you've not taken either Nagash and/or Arkhan).

So Slaves to Darkness can pull tricks like cheap chaff units; harrasment units; faster moving units etc... Demons also bring a host of special abilities and niches of their own. They might take one body of warriors as a core of their power and then use a lot more cheaper marauders/warcry warbands to chock up the battlefield and deny/secure points. Reapers can't repeat that tactic and have to rely on their fewer numbers.

So Bonereapers aren't broken because they only a few units that are good where Slave to Darkness are fine because they have access to a bunch of middling units and allies? If I like Chaos Warriors and Chaos Knights am I SOL? I have to buy a bigger collection, buy units that provide the a similar role but I don't like and more battletombs to have good army? Maybe I just the Bonereaper Battletomb then and have my Chaos Warriors count as Mortek Guard and Knights as Deathriders. Because my collection is always going to have gaps. Might has well play the faction that buffs that out of game.

Maybe Everchosen should just be two units: Archaon and Varangaurd. Both units can have unlimited Wounds, automatically hit/wound and have bunch of other powers. But it is fair because they only have two units to pick from and being really expensive points wise (money too) they won't be able to control the table well. Sound crazy? That is just an unrealistic exaggeration of what you are trying to say. But it also slippery slope too, so I not advocating it, just illustrating my point with it. I don't see a lack of unit options being a draw back that allows a faction to have overpowered units. Nor do I think a faction that has a lot of options have their individual units weaker because of it. That both assumes the player with faction bought all those models to have those options and then sussed out which ones or which combinations of them are the good ones. If just creates a worst situation of a lot of false options and beginner traps for the player with a lot of options and gives the player with the few options faction little to work with.

As a side, I am not sure where this idea comes from that Slaves of Darkness has faster moving units comes from. People are aware that Deathriders have a 12" right? Which is faster than Chaos Knights. About the only thing that can keep up is Winged Demon Princes and Chaos Marauder Horsemen. Like I said Chaos Warriors have Move 1" faster than Mortek Guard. They aren't going to running circles around them.

I apologize in advance if that sounds a little aggressive. I am reading it as a possible explanation more than a rationalization to the whys. It does bother me as an explanation as it keeps coming up in the miniatures war games I play. I didn't think it was fair that German WWII players had bad National Traits in Bolt Action 1st edition and people defending it with the idea they have tons more unit options available to them. I have the same issue with CSM. Just because I can take Cultists doesn't mean Chaos Space Marines should be objectively weaker than their loyalist counter parts. That just creates false choices. I don't believe in more options means more better. Bad options are often worst than no option since they shouldn't be done anyways and often just clutter or create static.

Everything Warhammer is tainted by IGOUGO and how Initiative affects that. Especially skirmish games, where a double turn is exaggerated even more.

I have so much more fun with games that alternating activations, or even hybrids, where they are Alternating at their core but then you've got resources that can be used to manipulate how/when units are activated. (Like how games like Draculas America use a card ante where you are gambling versus your opponent for who goes when for each activation)

Saturmorn I think the core problem is that you're currently comparing a brand new 2.0 functional army which is, to all intents and purposes, a very durable, if expensive (in points) army against a similar style of army made from a large army force, which has no Battletome.

So your impressions are getting confused because you're basically comparing an army which works with one which doesn't. I think your comparisons will be better in a few weeks time when the new Battletome for Slaves to Darkness is released.



As an aside its important to realise that, ideally, armies are balanced as a whole army. Therefore whilst Slaves to Darkness can take a whole army of Chaos Warriors and Knights and heck it might even have a sub-army option to do just that in the new Tome; it might be a themed list. That is to say you're taking a specific theme and running with it. Themed lists can be very powerful, but they can also leave you with "Gap" that other units in the army fill in.


As an example your chaos army with all warriors and knights (under new rules) might well be tough and hard hitting; however it might lack mobility and numbers if you are denying yourself the marauder and warcry cultist models. That's ok, that's a tactical choice its just like an Ossiarch player denying themselves ranged attacks by not taking a crawler. However its important to realise what the list is giving you and what its not.



Again these chats are currently tainted by Slaves not having a tome - even in an ideal match up with a perfectly build slaves army at present you're underpowered compared to every 2.0 army (pretty much). Slaves also appear to really suffer with this whilst armies like Seraphon have done ok (and have also been really popular as a theme too, which helps).

I think I would be more inclined to play AOS again if I could find an army that I liked which was able to turn up or tone down for competitive/casual games without having to basically have two completely different versions for either.

Like for example an army where if you take more of Unit X you become more competitive, or if you swap out a few Xs for Unit Y you tone it down for less competitive games. If that makes sense at all. But most of the competitive lists seem to focus so much on a tiny handful of units that you really need to have two entirely different armies of the same faction.

Overread wrote:Saturmorn I think the core problem is that you're currently comparing a brand new 2.0 functional army which is, to all intents and purposes, a very durable, if expensive (in points) army against a similar style of army made from a large army force, which has no Battletome.
Again these chats are currently tainted by Slaves not having a tome - even in an ideal match up with a perfectly build slaves army at present you're underpowered compared to every 2.0 army (pretty much). Slaves also appear to really suffer with this whilst armies like Seraphon have done ok (and have also been really popular as a theme too, which helps).

Again, that's not the problem. The problem is that anyone considers this answer an acceptable explanation.
It's bs that some armies are vastly inferior like this. GW deserves to loose every customer that walks away because of this.

Wayniac wrote:
I think I would be more inclined to play AOS again if I could find an army that I liked which was able to turn up or tone down for competitive/casual games without having to basically have two completely different versions for either.

Like for example an army where if you take more of Unit X you become more competitive, or if you swap out a few Xs for Unit Y you tone it down for less competitive games. If that makes sense at all. But most of the competitive lists seem to focus so much on a tiny handful of units that you really need to have two entirely different armies of the same faction.

There are some armies that are easily scalable. Skaven run the whole line of having some of the worst choices in the game up to their tier-1 tourney status, but it is easy to have a core army that scales up or down based on its character choices. Fyreslayers are extremely simple to scale (more hearthguard berzerkers = better), Slaanesh can actually be scaled well based on hero investment/number of KoS, Stormcast can scale based on unit choices (liberators/paladins for low scale, sequitors/evocators for higher end). There's others but I can't recall them at the moment.

 DarkBlack wrote:

Overread wrote:Saturmorn I think the core problem is that you're currently comparing a brand new 2.0 functional army which is, to all intents and purposes, a very durable, if expensive (in points) army against a similar style of army made from a large army force, which has no Battletome.
Again these chats are currently tainted by Slaves not having a tome - even in an ideal match up with a perfectly build slaves army at present you're underpowered compared to every 2.0 army (pretty much). Slaves also appear to really suffer with this whilst armies like Seraphon have done ok (and have also been really popular as a theme too, which helps).

Again, that's not the problem. The problem is that anyone considers this answer an acceptable explanation.
It's bs that some armies are vastly inferior like this. GW deserves to loose every customer that walks away because of this.

Well considering that 2.0 is only 1.5 years old and GW has been updating them 1 battletome per month (on average) since then. Based on the 30odd years of GW's history that's a pretty good rate in the last 20 years or so in terms of rule updates. And that's before we consider that AoS until 2.0 had multiple major product focus swings. It started life as a boutique model line with casual rules. Slaves were not alone and I agree that its a pain that Slaves and other armies were left out in the cold and that we lost High Elf models (as well as some key dwarven cannon) and such. However come December 14th Slaves will be updated.

Personally I think one can either hold a grudge or look to the future. Granted go back to AoS at launch and I was right there with many in being very dissapointed with GW's direction - however since 2.0 they've really turned it around.

While things like the three keeper of secrets list exists that can essentially plow most any other list over with little effort barring a certain hard counter, and while that situation ALWAYS exists, i wouldnt be saying anything about gw knocking it out of the park as it pertains to the game.

There's always something so grossly out of power and has been grossly out of power the entire lifespan of AOS since they pushed their first GHB and got rid of fan comps in favor of an official point system again.

Overread wrote:

 DarkBlack wrote:

Overread wrote:Saturmorn I think the core problem is that you're currently comparing a brand new 2.0 functional army which is, to all intents and purposes, a very durable, if expensive (in points) army against a similar style of army made from a large army force, which has no Battletome.
Again these chats are currently tainted by Slaves not having a tome - even in an ideal match up with a perfectly build slaves army at present you're underpowered compared to every 2.0 army (pretty much). Slaves also appear to really suffer with this whilst armies like Seraphon have done ok (and have also been really popular as a theme too, which helps).

Again, that's not the problem. The problem is that anyone considers this answer an acceptable explanation.
It's bs that some armies are vastly inferior like this. GW deserves to loose every customer that walks away because of this.

Well considering that 2.0 is only 1.5 years old and GW has been updating them 1 battletome per month (on average) since then. Based on the 30odd years of GW's history that's a pretty good rate in the last 20 years or so in terms of rule updates. And that's before we consider that AoS until 2.0 had multiple major product focus swings. It started life as a boutique model line with casual rules. Slaves were not alone and I agree that its a pain that Slaves and other armies were left out in the cold and that we lost High Elf models (as well as some key dwarven cannon) and such. However come December 14th Slaves will be updated.

Why does the age of the game matter? How long after release should we give GW to get the game right?

Mantic released Kings of War 3rd edition last month and it's balanced just fine. You sure as feth can't predict the out come of the a game before it starts based on the factions being played. The rest of the armies (the lists that Mantic don't make minis for) are being released soon and we're not expecting those to be significantly better or worse than the armies in the rulebook (yes, all the armies are in those two books).

Wyrd released Malifaux third edition less than six, months ago and that game is also balanced well enough. All the new cards were relesead in faction packs with the new rules.

Corvus Belli has been releasing new factions as they go. Some of their faction have been left behind and have even gone OOP, but rules for those factions are still supported and playing them doesn't mean that you're getting stomped in that game (your games may be a little harder).

Gasland got a re-release recently too and it's balanced better now, things have been fixed.
I know that Warhammer is more complex than Gaslands, but Mike is a guy who published a rulebook and GW is multi-million Pound company. In fact all of these companies are smaller than GW, but somehow they can have a games balanced well enough at release.

Personally I think one can either hold a grudge or look to the future. Granted go back to AoS at launch and I was right there with many in being very dissapointed with GW's direction - however since 2.0 they've really turned it around.

There's also calling GW out on their bs and looking to other games, from companies who care about putting out a good game.
40k 8th edition made me realise what "the future" with GW looks like. They had a new edition with better rules. They had indexes with armies on roughly the same level. They had a chance to turn things around.
Then they started releasing codexes a few months later. I would have liked more use out of my index, but that was alright.
Armies with codexes were better though. Fine, give them a chance to get all the rules out.
Some codexes were better than others. Not even the new ones, just the ones GW seemed to favour. How did they feth that up? If the wanted to do it right they could have, but they chose not to. AGAIN
That's when I realised that they had no intention to. The next thing your hopes are pinned to for a better game is to string you along.



That's and awfully salty rant and I don't usually like to see negativity spewed like that. I have a reason and a point though.
A new player had a horrible play experience and we're lucky they didn't quit the hobby because of it.
Someone should say that GW is to blame for that. Not the new player's mindset. Not they new player choosing an army they like. GW not bothering to make their game properly.
The hobby isn't like that. GW is like that.

 DarkBlack wrote:

40k 8th edition made me realise what "the future" with GW looks like. They had a new edition with better rules. They had indexes with armies on roughly the same level. They had a chance to turn things around.
Then they started releasing codexes a few months later. I would have liked more use out of my index, but that was alright.
Armies with codexes were better though. Fine, give them a chance to get all the rules out.
Some codexes were better than others. Not even the new ones, just the ones GW seemed to favour. How did they feth that up? If the wanted to do it right they could have, but they chose not to. AGAIN
That's when I realised that they had no intention to. The next thing your hopes are pinned to for a better game is to string you along.

I see that you're relatively new to GW games....

See, GWs been using this model for at least 30 years. Maybe longer, but I'm not familiar with WFB 1st or 2nd edition. They aren't going to stop.

ccs wrote:

 DarkBlack wrote:

40k 8th edition made me realise what "the future" with GW looks like. They had a new edition with better rules. They had indexes with armies on roughly the same level. They had a chance to turn things around.
Then they started releasing codexes a few months later. I would have liked more use out of my index, but that was alright.
Armies with codexes were better though. Fine, give them a chance to get all the rules out.
Some codexes were better than others. Not even the new ones, just the ones GW seemed to favour. How did they feth that up? If the wanted to do it right they could have, but they chose not to. AGAIN
That's when I realised that they had no intention to. The next thing your hopes are pinned to for a better game is to string you along.

I see that you're relatively new to GW games....

See, GWs been using this model for at least 30 years. Maybe longer, but I'm not familiar with WFB 1st or 2nd edition. They aren't going to stop.

So why do people keep going on about how much better 8e 40k/AoS is than everything that's come before?

 AnomanderRake wrote:

ccs wrote:

 DarkBlack wrote:

40k 8th edition made me realise what "the future" with GW looks like. They had a new edition with better rules. They had indexes with armies on roughly the same level. They had a chance to turn things around.
Then they started releasing codexes a few months later. I would have liked more use out of my index, but that was alright.
Armies with codexes were better though. Fine, give them a chance to get all the rules out.
Some codexes were better than others. Not even the new ones, just the ones GW seemed to favour. How did they feth that up? If the wanted to do it right they could have, but they chose not to. AGAIN
That's when I realised that they had no intention to. The next thing your hopes are pinned to for a better game is to string you along.

I see that you're relatively new to GW games....

See, GWs been using this model for at least 30 years. Maybe longer, but I'm not familiar with WFB 1st or 2nd edition. They aren't going to stop.

So why do people keep going on about how much better 8e 40k/AoS is than everything that's come before?

Honestly? The miniatures. That is the first thing people see and in that regard the gulf of first impressions between GW and Mantic is difficult to put into words. Humans are very bad at using objective reasoning to overcome their first impressions.

Pretty much. The number of people here and in various groups that have all but admitted they really don't care about a quality game just good miniatures is astounding. The language you see used when people talk about AOS/40K shows this:

"Great models to put together"
"These were an absolute joy to paint"
"Love these models!"

And so on. Never anything about how they like the rules or think the army has a cool theme or whatnot, it's always gushing about the models to the exclusion of all else. You find this elsewhere too but not to the same level.

So again I say the GW fanbase accepts mediocrity for whatever reason, either because they play in a group that doesn't see an issue with having to fix rules themselves, because they've never seen anything outside the GW bubble so don't get why GW rules are bad, or some other reason. Some people actually think the rules are good which, while they're entitled to their opinion, I find absolutely ludicrous to think.

In fairness one model might take an hour to clean and several hours to paint. One single model on the table might represent the same amount of time as a single game. So when you put 30 models down that might be 30 weeks worth of games (assuming one game per week).

I get that, of course, but one would think there would be more concern about the actual game. But it really does seem like a lot of people don't care about playing (or play so infrequently that it doesn't matter) and really just buy a ton of models to paint up and stick on a shelf somewhere. Either that or they are so devoted to GW that they just can't see a good game because they're too caught up in the models the company sells (even when the models they sell aren't a requirement to use)

If you query tabletop gamers in general, quality of game is a top concern.

If you break those gamers into their primary games, aos and 40k players have quality of game far down their list of cares. Models are high yes but so too is size of community.

Size of community is paramount. For tournament sizes, for safety in investment knowing you have games to play, to a large base to profit personally from with pay wall blogs, pay wall battle reports, paywall discords and coaching patreons.

If joes game shop pushed out aos with the same models, i strongly believe no one would give it a second look other than to use the models in other games.

Ive seen many people post that very thing. Joe sledoba on tga is famous for tearing into people that complain about aos and had an enlightening post where he commented he had tens of thousands invested in gw in both miniatures and stock (as in the market) and was protecting his investment.

Its been a fascinating trip down learning lane for me over the past going on five years now of the death of whfb and aos replacing it. Doing azyr comp and seeing the complaints about too much balance legit surprised me.

But go to a kings of war or warmachine group and ask them how important the game is and see the stark difference in results.

Wayniac wrote:
Pretty much. The number of people here and in various groups that have all but admitted they really don't care about a quality game just good miniatures is astounding. The language you see used when people talk about AOS/40K shows this:

"Great models to put together"
"These were an absolute joy to paint"
"Love these models!"

And so on. Never anything about how they like the rules or think the army has a cool theme or whatnot, it's always gushing about the models to the exclusion of all else. You find this elsewhere too but not to the same level.

So again I say the GW fanbase accepts mediocrity for whatever reason, either because they play in a group that doesn't see an issue with having to fix rules themselves, because they've never seen anything outside the GW bubble so don't get why GW rules are bad, or some other reason. Some people actually think the rules are good which, while they're entitled to their opinion, I find absolutely ludicrous to think.

People accept GW mediocrity because its an easy game. Not everyone wants to play something as strict and precise as Warmachine or as complex as Malifaux or Infinity. Sometimes people just want to get cool models on a table, throw dice and have a laugh without having to think too hard.

Having a "one stop shop" is also a big thing. Having recently gotten into historical gaming it's like night and day NOT having a single manufacturer to order everything from, or having a game store that's well-stocked you can just run down to pick up a box.

 Sim-Life wrote:


People accept GW mediocrity because its an easy game. Not everyone wants to play something as strict and precise as Warmachine or as complex as Malifaux or Infinity. Sometimes people just want to get cool models on a table, throw dice and have a laugh without having to think too hard.

Pretty much this. Whfb was in the weird spot where it was a bad game compared to other offerings even at the time, but also in love with complexity for the sake of some minor tabletop effects. AoS is still, compared to more complex and thought out rules, a bad game, but it's boiled down to that simple core, so if all you want is have a nice game of moving toy soldiers and having some chance of winning because you were better than the opponent, it works perfectly fine. Neither system was/is as involved as Malifaux (which I'm sure I will enjoy again, once 3rd edition rulebook is released to the masses) or Infinity or say, Tomorrow's War.

So why do people keep going on about how much better 8e 40k/AoS is than everything that's come before?

The rules were cleaned up and it's a really low bar.

Sim-Life wrote:People accept GW mediocrity because its an easy game. Not everyone wants to play something as strict and precise as Warmachine or as complex as Malifaux or Infinity. Sometimes people just want to get cool models on a table, throw dice and have a laugh without having to think too hard.

Ever heard of Gaslands or Frostgrave? D&D 5e?
Mantic games are not hard to learn either, because they are well written and designed to be. Winning takes some thinking, depending on how well your opponent plays though.

Perhaps its simple to explain it that what people enjoy does not have to be the best of the best in all matters and that enjoyment does not always correlate to a given concept of best.

GW has strengths and weaknesses like any other company and whilst there are some clear areas where they can improve their system is not so horrifically bad that its beyond enjoyment.

their system is not so horrifically bad that its beyond enjoyment.

Well actually thats exactly the schism lol. We all have different bars of enjoyment you need to adhere to. There are no perfect games.

But at the very least I will not play a game where if i show up with a faction that I'm dead on arrival nor will I play a game that if my opponent decides hes going to field a certain build that I'm dead on arrival. Especially if I'm paying hundreds of dollars and hundreds of hours of my time hobbying it to participate. Thats my bar, and GW has not been able to give me that one request yet.

 DarkBlack wrote:

So why do people keep going on about how much better 8e 40k/AoS is than everything that's come before?

The rules were cleaned up and it's a really low bar.

Sim-Life wrote:People accept GW mediocrity because its an easy game. Not everyone wants to play something as strict and precise as Warmachine or as complex as Malifaux or Infinity. Sometimes people just want to get cool models on a table, throw dice and have a laugh without having to think too hard.

Ever heard of Gaslands or Frostgrave? D&D 5e?
Mantic games are not hard to learn either, because they are well written and designed to be. Winning takes some thinking, depending on how well your opponent plays though.

Yeah but you know who plays Frostgrave and Gaslands? Hardly anyone. Its much easier to find people who play 40k or AoS because most people starting the hobby start with Warhammer and already have a financial and time investment in it. D&D isn't even comparible, its a totally different type of game and social commitment, I don't even know why you'd think to compare that.

And the reason people hardly play frostgrave and gaslands is because... often anyway... everyone is playing GW games instead and people want to go where everyone else is playing. Its all about where everyone is playing not how good the game is in general.