Understanding AoS. Acceptance & Balance: The Break Up. The Future.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

I have seen so many different articles and reviews on this game. Complaining en~masse and the loud and bellowing cry of how broken this game is from so many players. I've decided to write this in hopes that some of the massive butt hurt (mainly from people who've played one game, or are looking to break the system) gets some ice put beneath their seats.

This isn't going to cover everything. It isn't meant to. This is more or less my view, and the views of several old fantasy players I've talked to over the last month leading up to Age of Sigmar, and its release.

Acceptance

First and foremost what we have to accept is this game is not meant in ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM meant to be played in a competitive environment. Period. This is a narrative focused game which allows you to play amazing campaigns.

All of these T.O.s trying to create comps for this game, are really taking away from how the spirit of AoS is meant to be played on a basic level, and has left many of the average players who enjoy wargaming shaking their heads. So many times before it has been reiterated that if you want to play a competitive fantasy game, there are by far better systems to play then AoS.


Next. Though several of the outspoken player base here on BoLS in general are a more focused competitive market/community of wargaming, have yet to grasp that you don't need points/wounds/whatever else meets your fancy totals to play this game and have loads of fun.

We have to accept that you no longer need points to play a game. That is probably the next hardest thing to accept. because for so long there has been this stigma that you have to have xxxx points in order to really enjoy the game. A "Balance" is pre-built into existence when you have a points system. IS a unit of 15 1 wound models the same points as a 15 wound character? No. Absolutely not, but common sense (which seems to have been lost in folds) tells you that. You don't have to have a book to tell you that. If you do, then look at the weapons guide and see that the one model will make quick work of those 15. I can't figure out why this one point has been so hard to grasp by so many.


Balance

For all the screams and wails and cries that this game is unbalanced, they need to get some tissue, blow their noses, and think before they call out. This game is INCREDIBLY balanced! Why do you say this DBH?! Because YOU get to decide what you want to play against. It is that simple. Period. Unless you're playing TFG. Those people have no business in AoS. This has been stated in articles before, but let's look at how great the balance in this game is.

The Magic Phase is so simple and unless you're taking a named character (Which are overpowered in their own rights) is balanced beyond anything we've seen in a while. Even playing against Daemon players that spawn more Daemons, you simply focus on the Sudden Death feature and run up to X objective and you have a chance of winning before being completely overwhelmed in the late game.

Shooting Phase; yes it IS good, but most shooting is pretty balanced by needing to roll either a 4+ or a 5+ to hit and then usually a 4+ to wound, and most average shooting doesn't do mortal wounds or have rending attached to them, and their close combat effectiveness is weaker than a dedicated melee unit. via saves and bravery, (Unless within the Inspiring Presence bubbles but even still, on average a dedicated melee unit will win against a shooty one.) There is also no overwatch now.

Even with random initiatives (unless you wish to play turn based agreed upon with your opponent) if you're playing a Pick up game that is agreed upon, the random initiative isn't really that big of an issue. Terrible and Amazingly fun things have happened so far from random initiative, and it has been filled with laughs. Yet there is still so much complaining about it.

The Movement phase is still extremely important in this game. Period.

I could go on and on about the Rules and what I've reviewed from the 20+ games I've played already, but ultimately, it boils down to something way easier to put into words. If you have an all close combat oriented army, and your opponent decides to only take shooty stuff, then hey guess what, you can just tell him, "No." One of the biggest parts of AoS that I have loved, so far is the amount of radically different types of games I've played. I've seen played, and everything was AGREED upon. The self balancing by the community (or at least in my area) has been fantastic, and the WAAC players who've looked for every nick and cranny to abuse rules, have already toned it down dramatically because people have outed them already. I've had to pull a couple of guys to the side myself and tell them that if they want to play rules sharking doesn't fly.

The Break-Up

The five gamers that I have talked to extensively about Age of Sigmar have a combined 70 years of gaming experience, and they all seem to agree that for a lot of players, AoS has given certain players that reason they need to "break-up" with GW. Which is fine, some people need that. But of the five guys, (three have been playing for 20+ years each) they are all excited about Age of Sigmar, and have decided to play 8th edition with their plethora of armies whenever the itch takes hold, or they have been checking out Kings of War also. To quote one of them, "20+ years of wargaming I'm not going to Rage Quit just because I didn't get my way! This game looks fun and refreshing, sure it's going to take a while to not want to rank up my units 300 skaven slaves, but I'll deal and we will still have fun."

A lot of the articles I've read have hinted at this, but no one has really out right said it yet. Except for the outspoken comments sections which speaks for itself.

The Future

It is bright sunshine and rainbows. Except for Slaanesh, who ironically loves rainbows...(I'm looking at you noise marines!) So maybe just sunshine, we'll go with that. The Game IS fun, it is SUPER easy to get into, (I've already got 10 new players who've always wanted to get into fantasy, checking out all the new stuff, and bought/split the AoS box set. It is extremely affordable because one battalion, or two boxes and you have all you'll ever need to play, unless you just want to spend the average $800 to start up a new army. If you just want to add units to your or existing new force, oh my gosh you can, and it is only going to cost you about a 5th of what you would normally pay to get into the game!

[Path Walker]

Excellently put, agree on all points, its good to see people engaging with a what is ultimately a positive for the wargaming community, competitiveness was strangling everything that made wargames special

[Auticus]

While you don't need points to have fun, in a public setting with strangers it is pretty much impossible to have events and games without some kind of boundaries in place.

If people want to create points systems it is not going to detract from your fun if you do not use point systems. I've seen about 20 comp packs roll out now and if I don't like them I typically don't chime in at all because it doesn't affect me that they are doing what they are doing.


if you want to play a competitive fantasy game, there are by far better systems to play then AoS

Granted I did not write a point system for competitive play, but there are no other fantasy games on the market except for Mantic's Kings of War, which while more suited towards tournament play - is also very bland to a lot of people. So creating a point system for AoS allows people to stay in the warhammer world and enjoy it, and again - does not affect those that feel that they don't have to have a point system. There really are no other fantasy systems on the market right now that have any real following, so saying there are far better systems to play for competitive fantasy is not true.

I don't consider WM/H to be fantasy. Its steam-punk which is a lot different and I get no enjoyment out of it. The other fantasy systems are all 10-20 model max and thats also not a substitute for WHFB.

I know for the system I wrote I am not running around scolding people for playing without points and chiding them for not using the system I wrote.

[Ben_S]

If you have an all close combat oriented army, and your opponent decides to only take shooty stuff, then hey guess what, you can just tell him, "No." ... everything was AGREED upon. The self balancing by the community (or at least in my area) has been fantastic, and the WAAC players who've looked for every nick and cranny to abuse rules, have already toned it down dramatically because people have outed them already. I've had to pull a couple of guys to the side myself and tell them that if they want to play rules sharking doesn't fly.


I think this is the problem that I have with it. Obviously you'd be better speaking to my opponents rather than me, but I don't consider myself WAAC and I regularly field 'less competitive' options. I also don't mind a game that isn't balanced, e.g. Blood Bowl or Space Hulk. But I don't know how, absent anything like points values, I'm supposed to go about balancing a game that I've never played myself. Putting my WoC up against a Dwarf gunline was never that fun in WFB 8th, but at least the points gave us an idea that it should be roughly balanced. Is it impossible to balance such forces in AoS?

[Mr Mystery]

I think it takes a tweak to the mindset of a gamer.

Before when arranging a game, you'd agree a points value in advance, or play to one players comfortable max.

Now? You just agree a game and bring what you've got, and play to one player's comfortable max.

Anyone who see their opponent has emptied their case, and then just keeps on digging out unit is a massive sagging Tramp's bellend - and would still have been a massive sagging Tramp's bellend if you were playing to points.

Early days? Going to be some hit-and-miss experiences, where it look about right, but wasn't quite right. This is tempered somewhat by most units being 'much of a muchness' in terms of damage output. The wide variances of old Warhammer just aren't there. It is of course a slightly different matter for more esoteric collections, such as any with larger amounts of Monstrous Infantry types.

Trial and error folks, that's all it takes :)

[Path Walker]

If you are finding a game unbalanced in your favour, take a unit away, it's was whisked away as the God King needed that unit elsewhere or the fickle Chaos Gods intervened, own the game for what it is. By trying to put limitations like the pervious edition, you're missing what makes Age of Signar special in my eyes. It's the first properly balanced game they've done in YEARS. You think x unit is overpowered? Tell your opponent you want to take more units because it's too good. Think y is weak against z? Leave y off the table and go for a sudden death? Or make up some fluff to change the victory conditions with your opponent.

This isn't a tournament game and trying to make it one is on a hiding to nothing, it's never going to satisfy tournament players, those people need rules and structure to dictate to them how the armies are built so that they can break it to beat the opponent. That's their hobby and that's fine but it's not the one GW want to make rules for.

Enjoy Age of Sigmar for what it is and play the game they designed.

[Auticus]

Enjoy Age of Sigmar for what it is and play the game they designed.

No thanks I'm not interested, and neither is most of my area. However, a version where there is a point system of some kind in place will keep at least 1/3 of them around so we'll stick with that, and hats off to anyone wanting to play the game as designed. You won't see me ever telling you you are playing wrong.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

I think this is the problem that I have with it. Obviously you'd be better speaking to my opponents rather than me, but I don't consider myself WAAC and I regularly field 'less competitive' options. I also don't mind a game that isn't balanced, e.g. Blood Bowl or Space Hulk. But I don't know how, absent anything like points values, I'm supposed to go about balancing a game that I've never played myself. Putting my WoC up against a Dwarf gunline was never that fun in WFB 8th, but at least the points gave us an idea that it should be roughly balanced. Is it impossible to balance such forces in AoS?

What I mean here is modeling for advantage. Allying only the best and most powerful named characters. Earlier in trial games I caught 2 kids wanting to play with lizard men and his buddy who's been playing took organ guns and cannons and placed them 36-48" away screened by iron breakers and riflemen. I just went up to him and asked why he was even playing the game and he just got red in the face and reworked his list for his buddy. These were not 12 year olds either they were probably early 20s...lol.

As far as fantasy having a tournament setting, you still have the End Times and 8th edition. It just isn't the new shiny. I understand that, and this isn't meant towards you Atticus. However it does make abusing certain aspects easier when put certain restrictions up. I've seen se pretty crazy T.O. Rule sets that have over complicated a very simple game. Making people go from not having to max/mini a list to max/mini is what I'm talking about. And changing the system in a way that allows for better math hammers. Right now there are no bad units in AoS, but handicapping via points or wounds, while stabilizes the tourney scene puts an overall barrier on the average table top player. (In my experience anyway.)

Time will indeed ultimately tell but so far the game has been brilliant.

[Lexington]

You can tell that Age of Sigmar is really fun because of the many, many articles that are required to qualify and explain its fun.

[Alaric]

You can tell that Age of Sigmar is really fun because of the many, many articles that are required to qualify and explain its fun.

Damn that was funny. Actually lold. Spot on too. You arent going to change peoples minds via this medium due to many reasons. I have seen more people get swept up in these games from a decent ambassador in rl than any amount of advertising.


No thanks I'm not interested, and neither is most of my area. However, a version where there is a point system of some kind in place will keep at least 1/3 of them around so we'll stick with that, and hats off to anyone wanting to play the game as designed. You won't see me ever telling you you are playing wrong.


Wish more had this outlook.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

Que the violins.

[Mr Mystery]

You can tell that Age of Sigmar is really fun because of the many, many articles that are required to qualify and explain its fun.

I guess 40k must be the most hated and least played wargame then, judging by the number of articles about how much people enjoy it :p

http://cdn.static.ovimg.com/episode/336177.jpg

You've not thought that one through Davey.

[Path Walker]

I guess 40k must be the most hated and least played wargame then, judging by the number of articles about how much people enjoy it :p

http://cdn.static.ovimg.com/episode/336177.jpg

You've not thought that one through Davey.

Riiiiiiight

[Mr Mystery]

They are redundant.

[Al Shut]

Enjoy Age of Sigmar for what it is and play the game they designed.

How odd, if I'm not mistaken the game they designed tells me to take as much models as I like (the more models, the more fun) and then try to completely annihilate my opponent.

All this agreeing with your opponent and balancing the game yourself is just a different way of comp, only it's horribly muddled, subjective and less efficient

[Mr Mystery]

So by all means play a different game.

[Al Shut]

Quelle surprise, that's exactly what I was planning to do. I just thought Path Walkers view of the game was particularly erroneous and warranted a comment.

[Mr Mystery]

Yes, the game is about beating your opponent.

But it's clearly not about being a penis, or mass swamping your opponent because you need to win largely pointless wargames in order to feel validated as a person (not aimed at you specifically, but those who, well they'll know who they are)

Because it's a friendly game - you can tell by the lack of points and stripped down rules set and 'anything goes' approach.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

You can tell that Age of Sigmar is really fun because of the many, many articles that are required to qualify and explain its fun.

I could easily say just read the comment sections, watch the youtube videos, or read some of the more pessimistic views on Age of Sigmar and I'm sure you can find an equal if not exceeding amount of why not to play the game.

The loudest complaints that I've notice are coming from the competitive minority. The Average war gamer that is looking to research AoS has to sift through a lot of rubble on the interwebz and don't really care about maximizing or minimizing their lists, or math hammering out how x unit does against y. Now what we have is a resounding and much more simplified system, that isn't easily broken unless you're TFGing it.

Most of people that I've talked, especially newer players, have all really shown excitement. But because the interwebz say its bad it must be. The fantasy community as a whole will grow where a few will either sell off their armies or do something else. All in all the majority of people at our locals have really had fun making fun of all the butt hurt youtube videos, articles, and forums talking about how terrible this game is. /shrug.

Maybe our group is just more laid back and doesn't put as much importance on toy soldiers.

[Katharon]

Something I said in a previous thread: if you want to play AoS -- then please do so! Just because I won't, nor think it a good game, is going to have any real bearing on whether or not others think it's the best thing since someone put the French in Toast.

I posted over a month ago that, if AoS turned out to be a let down for me personally, and if others felt this way, that it was OK to stick with 8th Edition WFB. That game is still there, if now unsupported. I took the initiative to download all the remaining FAQs that they put out for 8th via Black Library. I'll likely play AoS if someone I know wants to try it out, and I'll aim at giving them a "fair game," but after its over I'm going to explain to them why I don't play the game and instead play others.

Also, for people who are going over to Kings of War; that's cool too! Though again, I'd simply use 8th (or 6th, which was another lovely edition).

[Captain Bubonicus]

You can tell that Age of Sigmar is really fun because of the many, many articles that are required to qualify and explain its fun.

Exactly.

[Erik Setzer]

The loudest complaints that I've notice are coming from the competitive minority. The Average war gamer that is looking to research AoS has to sift through a lot of rubble on the interwebz and don't really care about maximizing or minimizing their lists, or math hammering out how x unit does against y. Now what we have is a resounding and much more simplified system, that isn't easily broken unless you're TFGing it.

Yeah, your anecdotal evidence is everything, right? Because your group enjoys it, it's gotta be the best thing ever and no one disagrees except jerks?

See, that's what makes me dislike AoS more than the rules or models or anything else. I can see the potential for fun, but I can also see the flaws. But if someone points out the flaws, they're rabidly set upon.

The "average" gamer damn well *does* care about making a good list that can compete. They wouldn't bother playing the game unless they thought they had a chance to win, and the mind is generally driven to try to win when you're competing. And this is a game, with a defined winner, so EVERY BLOODY GAME is competitive. Stop claiming that only 0.1% of games are "competitive." If you want AoS to not be a competitive game, petition Games Workshop to remove definitions of victory from the rules. Heck, even bashing tournament people makes you sound ridiculous, because you assume anyone who participates in a tournament is a WAAC player.

I've seen multiple locals selling off their armies because of AoS. Some people have enjoyed it, but usually it was either people who house ruled it to create balance - meaning they're playing a modified version of AoS - or people who were actually those WAAC style douchebags, who love the game now because they can unbalance the heck out of things and it's totally legal. You don't have to "TFG" it. The stock rules allow anyone to unbalance the game, often by accident. Claiming that a game with no balancing mechanic is automatically balanced because it ignores the idea of balance is, well... it makes my brain hurt.

It's a nice beer and pretzels game. If GW wasn't already showing they want to gouge the heck out of prices, I'd recommend it to people who want something to fill in 30-45 minutes here and there. But since the game's first releases already include $10-a-piece infantry, a $33 infantry character and a $40 infantry character (but he has a pet!) in locked poses, a $33 piece of plastic on a string to measure (because a measuring tape isn't good enough and GW has to charge four times what other companies would), and a $40 dice cup, and the rules are aimed at things like using only GW terrain, which means all your nice cheap homemade terrain is useless and you better buy a bunch of expensive chunks of plastic, even if the trees don't look as good as doing a small patch of forest with Woodland Scenics trees. To say nothing of the $74 book which seems to be the first in a series. See, AoS is a nice $25 game, or a nice free game you play with cheap models. AoS as a game trying to use premium product prices? No.

If I want to pay a ridiculous amount for a broken game, I'll go find EA's latest offering and grab all the DLC. There are plenty of people who like that, too, and will eagerly defend paying $200 to get what should have come in the $60 game.

[40kGamer]

Absolutely nothing wrong with playing the hits... old systems that is. :p

At the end of the day the entire WFB system was Squatted so long time fans of that game are not going to be happy with a watered down version that is meant to appeal to a larger audience. GW had to do something drastic to clean up the holy mess they made out of WFB over the years, same thing they are doing with 40k at the moment, making it so bloated that it will collapse under its own weight and have to be entirely rebuilt as well.

The base rules are ok, just not overwhelming so I'll reserve the right to have a strong opinion after we see a few months of releases. At the moment the single most important player tactic is having a large enough and broad enough model collection to counter deploy against your opponent in the set up phase. Good for model sales, somewhat boring for game play. If we see the rumored balancing mechanism and other options develop then I'll try game play again later. Although you have to admit that the models are quite nice and have multi-game utility (WFB, KoW and 40K) so I don't have to play this new game to buy the new toys anyhow.

[Katharon]

Yeah, your anecdotal evidence is everything, right? Because your group enjoys it, it's gotta be the best thing ever and no one disagrees except jerks?

See, that's what makes me dislike AoS more than the rules or models or anything else. I can see the potential for fun, but I can also see the flaws. But if someone points out the flaws, they're rabidly set upon.

The "average" gamer damn well *does* care about making a good list that can compete. They wouldn't bother playing the game unless they thought they had a chance to win, and the mind is generally driven to try to win when you're competing. And this is a game, with a defined winner, so EVERY BLOODY GAME is competitive. Stop claiming that only 0.1% of games are "competitive." If you want AoS to not be a competitive game, petition Games Workshop to remove definitions of victory from the rules. Heck, even bashing tournament people makes you sound ridiculous, because you assume anyone who participates in a tournament is a WAAC player.

I've seen multiple locals selling off their armies because of AoS. Some people have enjoyed it, but usually it was either people who house ruled it to create balance - meaning they're playing a modified version of AoS - or people who were actually those WAAC style douchebags, who love the game now because they can unbalance the heck out of things and it's totally legal. You don't have to "TFG" it. The stock rules allow anyone to unbalance the game, often by accident. Claiming that a game with no balancing mechanic is automatically balanced because it ignores the idea of balance is, well... it makes my brain hurt.

It's a nice beer and pretzels game. If GW wasn't already showing they want to gouge the heck out of prices, I'd recommend it to people who want something to fill in 30-45 minutes here and there. But since the game's first releases already include $10-a-piece infantry, a $33 infantry character and a $40 infantry character (but he has a pet!) in locked poses, a $33 piece of plastic on a string to measure (because a measuring tape isn't good enough and GW has to charge four times what other companies would), and a $40 dice cup, and the rules are aimed at things like using only GW terrain, which means all your nice cheap homemade terrain is useless and you better buy a bunch of expensive chunks of plastic, even if the trees don't look as good as doing a small patch of forest with Woodland Scenics trees. To say nothing of the $74 book which seems to be the first in a series. See, AoS is a nice $25 game, or a nice free game you play with cheap models. AoS as a game trying to use premium product prices? No.

If I want to pay a ridiculous amount for a broken game, I'll go find EA's latest offering and grab all the DLC. There are plenty of people who like that, too, and will eagerly defend paying $200 to get what should have come in the $60 game.

http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/614/639/9df.gif

[Dont-Be-Haten]

Yeah, your anecdotal evidence is everything, right? Because your group enjoys it, it's gotta be the best thing ever and no one disagrees except jerks?

See, that's what makes me dislike AoS more than the rules or models or anything else. I can see the potential for fun, but I can also see the flaws. But if someone points out the flaws, they're rabidly set upon.

The "average" gamer damn well *does* care about making a good list that can compete. They wouldn't bother playing the game unless they thought they had a chance to win, and the mind is generally driven to try to win when you're competing. And this is a game, with a defined winner, so EVERY BLOODY GAME is competitive. Stop claiming that only 0.1% of games are "competitive." If you want AoS to not be a competitive game, petition Games Workshop to remove definitions of victory from the rules. Heck, even bashing tournament people makes you sound ridiculous, because you assume anyone who participates in a tournament is a WAAC player.

I've seen multiple locals selling off their armies because of AoS. Some people have enjoyed it, but usually it was either people who house ruled it to create balance - meaning they're playing a modified version of AoS - or people who were actually those WAAC style douchebags, who love the game now because they can unbalance the heck out of things and it's totally legal. You don't have to "TFG" it. The stock rules allow anyone to unbalance the game, often by accident. Claiming that a game with no balancing mechanic is automatically balanced because it ignores the idea of balance is, well... it makes my brain hurt.

It's a nice beer and pretzels game. If GW wasn't already showing they want to gouge the heck out of prices, I'd recommend it to people who want something to fill in 30-45 minutes here and there. But since the game's first releases already include $10-a-piece infantry, a $33 infantry character and a $40 infantry character (but he has a pet!) in locked poses, a $33 piece of plastic on a string to measure (because a measuring tape isn't good enough and GW has to charge four times what other companies would), and a $40 dice cup, and the rules are aimed at things like using only GW terrain, which means all your nice cheap homemade terrain is useless and you better buy a bunch of expensive chunks of plastic, even if the trees don't look as good as doing a small patch of forest with Woodland Scenics trees. To say nothing of the $74 book which seems to be the first in a series. See, AoS is a nice $25 game, or a nice free game you play with cheap models. AoS as a game trying to use premium product prices? No.

If I want to pay a ridiculous amount for a broken game, I'll go find EA's latest offering and grab all the DLC. There are plenty of people who like that, too, and will eagerly defend paying $200 to get what should have come in the $60 game.

Erik...you're one of the ones we make fun of...

[Katharon]

Erik...you're one of the ones we make fun of...

Never seen anyone hit the irony that hard.

[odinsgrandson]

I'm not quite sure what to think when Charles Foster Kane is applauding you. I really mean it, I'm not sure, one way or the other if that's a sarcastic post.


Good for model sales, somewhat boring for game play. If we see the rumored balancing mechanism...

Are there actual RUMORS from reliable sources that there WILL BE A BALANCING MECHANISM? That would be great!

Or... are you talking about how many players are holding out hope that there will someday be a balancing mechanism in this game?

Because I've seen a lot of the latter, and I'd love to see the former.

[40kGamer]

Are there actual RUMORS from reliable sources that there WILL BE A BALANCING MECHANISM? That would be great!

Or... are you talking about how many players are holding out hope that there will someday be a balancing mechanism in this game?

Because I've seen a lot of the latter, and I'd love to see the former.

I remember reading something here one day where a GW staffer said there would be options released for 'event/tournament' style play. I'm reading a balancing mechanism into this comment as you absolutely can't have tournament style play without one.

And honestly until they release a balancing mechanism I have zero future interest in playing more of this game.

[Auticus]

The book coming this saturday has scenarios and the scenarios are supposed to be the balancing mechanism.

[40kGamer]

The book coming this saturday has scenarios and the scenarios are supposed to be the balancing mechanism.

That sounds a bit underwhelming... I don't really see how this would work but I'll give it a read.

[Auticus]

That sounds a bit underwhelming... I don't really see how this would work but I'll give it a read.

I'm in the same boat as you.

[Lexington]

Maybe our group is just more laid back and doesn't put as much importance on toy soldiers.
Age of Sigmar is also clearly fun because everyone who doesn't find it fun is a bunch of loser jerks.

[40kGamer]

The overall vibe from both sides of the issue feels like this...

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSB6Zu6OQODSBMaUQeJsUvK2NzoaOEru hzkXLrKiXRVDNqMNdCn

:p

[Erik Setzer]

Erik...you're one of the ones we make fun of...

It's okay, the lesser-minded people tend to try to mock the more intelligent people in any community. I just feel sorry for you.

- - - Updated - - -


The book coming this saturday has scenarios and the scenarios are supposed to be the balancing mechanism.

But that doesn't really work, because those scenarios almost certainly tell you what models to take... so "balanced" games will only happen when you take the exact number of models you're supposed to for a specific scenario? That's... boring, at best. And leaves out a lot of armies.

I get the feeling it's intended to be more "balanced" when more of the AoS armies come along. But even then, I'm not sure. People say the starter box feels balanced with those forces, but the game rules say the Sigmarines would get "Sudden Death" bonus against the Khorne Bloodtsunami, which doesn't make sense if they're balanced in terms of power. When your own starter box showcases how messed up your own "balancing" mechanic is, that's kind of a problem.

[Mr Mystery]

Well, whilst we're on the subject, 9.5".

Can anyone beat that, or shall we just call it a day?

[Dont-Be-Haten]

Age of Sigmar is also clearly fun because everyone who doesn't find it fun is a bunch of loser jerks.

I mean if that's how you feel...

That's not what I said, I said the majority of complaining is coming from a competitive minority, and the average player just doesn't care.



It's okay, the lesser-minded people tend to try to mock the more intelligent people in any community. I just feel sorry for you.

Oh come on man. Everyone know's you're all doom and gloom. It's like who's thread is Erik going to hijack today? Or how much more butt hurt can one man be? I've seen your uncountable thread jacks, posts about lamenting on being a gamer and the hatred for everything tabletop made by some British company. It gets old. I know you're just using this place as an outlet due to all your IRL problems, but c'mon man. I've given you the benefit of the doubt before, but really I just shut down now when I start reading your posts. When one of my IRL friends who's not seen your posts or rants before starts complaining about all your negativity, I just laugh and say, "Oh that's Erik being Erik."

[Mr Mystery]

Photographic evidence can be provided, though I reserve the right to be suspicious of those requesting said evidence.

[40kGamer]

Well, whilst we're on the subject, 9.5".

Can anyone beat that, or shall we just call it a day?

Shouldn't you really be posting in metric you mathematical heretic!

[Auticus]

It's okay, the lesser-minded people tend to try to mock the more intelligent people in any community. I just feel sorry for you.

- - - Updated - - -



But that doesn't really work, because those scenarios almost certainly tell you what models to take... so "balanced" games will only happen when you take the exact number of models you're supposed to for a specific scenario? That's... boring, at best. And leaves out a lot of armies.

I get the feeling it's intended to be more "balanced" when more of the AoS armies come along. But even then, I'm not sure. People say the starter box feels balanced with those forces, but the game rules say the Sigmarines would get "Sudden Death" bonus against the Khorne Bloodtsunami, which doesn't make sense if they're balanced in terms of power. When your own starter box showcases how messed up your own "balancing" mechanic is, that's kind of a problem.

I can't judge yet because I have not seen the scenarios. My gut instinct is that it won't work you're right. But until I see it for myself I will hold my tongue.

[Mr Mystery]

Shouldn't you really be posting in metric you mathematical heretic!

It's called Imperial for a reason, colonial simpleton :p

[Charon]

That's not what I said, I said the majority of complaining is coming from a competitive minority, and the average player just doesn't care.

The competitive crowd does not care at all. These people already have their balancing mechanisms and comps. Not different from any Tournament... ever.
Every system had to be houseruled (comp, FAQ, rewording of rules,..) till date, this is nothing new. So why do you think that these people who used to houserule everything to create somewhat balanced games suddenly stop it and complain about the lack of balance? Isn't that a bit far fetched?
In fact it is the average player complaining. The guys that have a hard time judging units and rules and just stick to the rules.

We will see what time will bring, but I can't see AOS generating way more profit that WHFB. The only way it could work for them is keeping it small and phasing out all old products over time so you are stuck with 4 - 6 units per race which will cost quite a lot of money but removes the hassle to maintain a broad set of units and races.

And just because you and three others jump at everyone daring to say "I don't like it" that doesn't make you a majority and it doesn't make you "right".

[Alaric]

The overall vibe from both sides of the issue feels like this...

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSB6Zu6OQODSBMaUQeJsUvK2NzoaOEru hzkXLrKiXRVDNqMNdCn

:p

awesome. and vury true


It's okay, the lesser-minded people tend to try to mock the more intelligent people in any community. I just feel sorry for you.

- - - Updated - - -

ohhhhh erik. whatever you do, dont give anyone a reason to like you. On the upside, I find your responses funny for showing that you lack any sort of real social skills.



Doubt the balancing scenarios will do the job well enuff.

[40kGamer]

It's called Imperial for a reason, colonial simpleton :p

http://cdn.overclock.net/7/78/787062c8_128795347299025306.jpeg

[Erik Setzer]

Oh come on man. Everyone know's you're all doom and gloom. It's like who's thread is Erik going to hijack today? Or how much more butt hurt can one man be? I've seen your uncountable thread jacks, posts about lamenting on being a gamer and the hatred for everything tabletop made by some British company. It gets old. I know you're just using this place as an outlet due to all your IRL problems, but c'mon man. I've given you the benefit of the doubt before, but really I just shut down now when I start reading your posts. When one of my IRL friends who's not seen your posts or rants before starts complaining about all your negativity, I just laugh and say, "Oh that's Erik being Erik."

BZZZZTTTTT......

Yeah, I'm "negative" here, because of people like you. I could say some good things about AoS, but the reality is that it has some serious flaws, and it's fair game to point those out. But the moment someone does, you and other people like you jump all over them. You claim such people are a "small minority" and yet that's clearly not true. You make outrageous claims, you act offensive, and then you want me to be sunshine, rainbows, and lollipops? No.

"Erik being Erik" is, as those who actually know me will say, "a nice chap who doesn't really care about other people disliking honesty and isn't afraid to say how he feels, which might seem harsh to people who want to be offended, but if they're not looking to be offended, they'll find he's a friendly fellow who's fun to game against and even chat about the games with." I mean, heck, I was just invited to join a local Facebook group for 30K players a couple days ago, a guy sent me a message and said, "Hey, we have this group, you should join it." Plenty of fun talk about 30K, and I'm actually the least skeptical sounding guy about plastic HH. A guy came to me after a tournament (where we played each other one round... he won, if that matters?), and told me how he enjoys playing against me, because it's a fun experience. I just shared GOG's announcement about old GW computer games on Facebook. When things are right, I might practically gush about them.

But yeah, I will say when something's wrong. I don't care if you don't like it. Your own nasty attitude doesn't mean squat. And I don't care what you think about me, because the people who actually know me like me. Maybe you need the Internet for approval, and that probably says a lot about your need to act like a jerk toward anyone who isn't praising your favorite game as the best thing EVER.

I would much rather just be able to point out my issues with the game in a rational discussion, but you have no interest in rational discussion, just doing your best impression of a troll or a Donald Trump level [insert appropriate term that would likely be filtered].

[Dont-Be-Haten]

The competitive crowd does not care at all. These people already have their balancing mechanisms and comps. Not different from any Tournament... ever.

Have you not seen the book burnings or the model burning or the other /ragequit /GWquit YouTube Videos or Blogs? Or the massive amounts of Competitive Fantasy Armies flooding the internet flea-markets? While not all are, it mostly is competitive army builds going up for sale, not collections. So I have to disagree with you a bit there.

On a side note: I LoL'd Mystery.

[Al Shut]

But that doesn't really work, because those scenarios almost certainly tell you what models to take... so "balanced" games will only happen when you take the exact number of models you're supposed to for a specific scenario? That's... boring, at best. And leaves out a lot of armies.

Yeah, no.

One of those battleplans can be seen on Lady Atias twitter and there are no mentions fractions or unit restrictions or even as much as suggestions.

[Erik Setzer]

ohhhhh erik. whatever you do, dont give anyone a reason to like you. On the upside, I find your responses funny for showing that you lack any sort of real social skills.

Actually, I have a lot more social skills than I give myself credit for. But I do poorly with people being stupid, boring, or dishonest. When you hit all three marks, as some people like "Dont-be-Haten" has, you're just really going to annoy me. I'm amazed people accept stupidity, boredom, and dishonesty as things that should be tolerated. If a group requires someone to be stupid or dishonest in order to socialize with them, such a group isn't worth socializing with.

The dishonesty, if nothing else, of the people screaming about how AoS is THE BEST GAME EVER and totally balanced and no one's got a problem with it, is really offensive to me. Am I not allowed to be insulted by dishonesty? How am I the person lacking social skills when someone responds to a tidal wave of people having issues with a game by claiming those people don't exist? Can you imagine doing that in an actual conversation? Staring at a group of people and saying that because their opinion differs from yours, they don't exist?

As for people liking me... Got plenty of those. Not that it matters. If your self-worth is dictated by others' opinion of you, that's going to lead to a lot of bad decisions. That's where all these body issues and other social problems come from.

- - - Updated - - -


Yeah, no.

One of those battleplans can be seen on Lady Atias twitter and there are no mentions fractions or unit restrictions or even as much as suggestions.

Okay, so they're not meant to balance, just provide alternate ideas for battle other than "go toward the other guy and kill him." Doesn't solve the balance issue, but it does at least add some variety to the games. Hope they'll release those online.

[40kGamer]

Doubt the balancing scenarios will do the job well enuff.


It still seems weird to me that they've started this game out with what is essentially an old school historical mindset.

[Auticus]

It still seems weird to me that they've started this game out with what is essentially an old school historical mindset.

It seems to me to be something Jervis would do ... and he still works there. So this is not surprising to me. There is an article he did in 2002 citadel journal you can google up where he talks about his disdain for points systems.

[Charon]

Have you not seen the book burnings or the model burning or the other /ragequit /GWquit YouTube Videos or Blogs? Or the massive amounts of Competitive Fantasy Armies flooding the internet flea-markets? While not all are, it mostly is competitive army builds going up for sale, not collections. So I have to disagree with you a bit there.

On a side note: I LoL'd Mystery.

It is a bit hard to voice your opinion. If you invested decades in a game you like, the game gets 99% changed with only the models remaining and you say "This is stupid, I quit". It is called "ragequitting".
One guy overreacting in a very strange way makes up for "all the model burning".

Competitive armies go up on ebay every single edition swap or power level adjustment. This is nothing new and a big part of the competitive cycle.
This money is used to buy the new hotness.

So what is allowed to say? Any form of critizism is beeing jumped on with an absoulte stupid "If you don't like every singe aspect of the game just leave! Nobody needs you as a customer!"

Friendly reminder: Fantasy died because of too few customers. You need to get every person possible into this new game to prevent it from dying as well.
So how about talking about what has to change to draw in sceptical people (or even ones that are pissed that their favorite game is beeing replaced) instead of attacking anyone how dares to speak out against allmighty GW?

[40kGamer]

It seems to me to be something Jervis would do ... and he still works there. So this is not surprising to me. There is an article he did in 2002 citadel journal you can google up where he talks about his disdain for points systems.

It still seems weird. Did Jervis have some kind of religious awakening regarding points? All of the games he was credited with in the past had points. Epic Armageddon was published in 2003 and in the Game notes someone (I would think him since he's credited as the designer) went through the 3 ways to play with tournament and pick up games being the most popular way, followed by scenarios and campaigns... The author (once again I would assume it was him) then launched into a long explanation as to why points and restrictions are necessary for tournament/pick up play to make it as balanced as possible for the participants. Contrasted to the 2002 article it's like someone was having an identity crisis.

[Dont-Be-Haten]

War dollies are so serious.

In any case my points are valid. I didn't cover everything just the key points and felt what needed to be addressed again got it. For the people still crying I'm sorry, I wish I knew how to help you, but I can't. It's great being able to play however you want. I play my toy soldiers one way you the other. I think the game is perfectly fine as is. And really hope it stays the course, and if it changes that's fine I'll just go with the flow. :)

[odinsgrandson]

Yeah, no.

One of those battleplans can be seen on Lady Atias twitter and there are no mentions factions or unit restrictions or even as much as suggestions.

So, as I understand it then, we had a hope that this game would be balanced with the new book- and it totally isn't.

Shall we hang all our hopes on the next release that "might" have a balancing mechanism in it?


It still seems weird. Did Jervis have some kind of religious awakening regarding points? All of the games he was credited with in the past had points...

Not to mention, Blood Bowl was and is the best balanced game that GW has ever been responsible for (in my experience).

Now, that wasn't all Jervis, but it was his baby.

[Path Walker]

The game is as balanced as GW are ever going to make it. There will be no points, no restrictions, it's up to the players, thats the plan and that's what they want the game to be now.

They've used points in the past because some people liked them, and they wanted to allow for people to play competitive if they wanted to. However, things gotout of hand, the game became all about competition to the extent where competitive players thought that was how the game was supposed to be played.

They're willing to risk it with Fantasy because people weren't playing it anyway, so its low risk, if it fails they've not lost anything as it wasn't making money. If it succeeds, they shift the culture of the game into something more akin to how wargames were played for years and years before warhammer was ever conceived.

[Erik Setzer]

It still seems weird. Did Jervis have some kind of religious awakening regarding points? All of the games he was credited with in the past had points. Epic Armageddon was published in 2003 and in the Game notes someone (I would think him since he's credited as the designer) went through the 3 ways to play with tournament and pick up games being the most popular way, followed by scenarios and campaigns... The author (once again I would assume it was him) then launched into a long explanation as to why points and restrictions are necessary for tournament/pick up play to make it as balanced as possible for the participants. Contrasted to the 2002 article it's like someone was having an identity crisis.


Well, right there in the article, he ends up showing that his views either changed, or... something. He did indeed do the first Grand Tournaments (which is what really helped the tournament scene explode) and likely was part of setting up the Rogue Trader Tournament program, and as he noted, their battle reports showing how to play used equal points. They hardly ever did a batrep that didn't use points, and it was usually something like the super-mega-battle that I think was somewhere in the 180s where they threw all their good guys on one side and bad guys on the other for a massive gave of Warhammer, using multiple players per side and some creative rules on coordinating the battle. Even then, they tried to make sure the two sides were balanced.

Everything he did promoted the use of points. Every game except Inquisitor (which flopped) had points. Scenarios almost always had some way to pick even armies. Even after writing that, he continued to push out stuff that promoted the use of points to balance matches. The kind of story scenarios he talks about are things you do with your friends, not pick-up matches, because you can have a good chat about what to do with the game.

His column doesn't really make sense. Especially as scenarios and points can worth together.

[Lexington]

It still seems weird. Did Jervis have some kind of religious awakening regarding points?
I'm fairly sure the decision to drop points had little, if anything to do with game design, and everything to do with a sales mechanic. When GW says "we're a models company, not a game company," this is the sort of thing they mean - the rules will be written to support and maximize the sale of models. From that business perspective, having a completely arbitrary, self-imposed "points limit" on certain models (say, large, expensive monsters that cost a lot to produce) seems pretty crazy. Why on Earth would you tell a customer that they can only have a limited number of big, expensive models? Along the same line, why would you allow for a siutation where groups of customers create artificial limits on the number of models they can field? It means everyone will be held back to the level of the group's lowest spender. So, no points limits, no assumption of balanced forces - it's "up to the players" to balance the game. Practically every game design decision made in AoS can be traced to this kind of thinking.

[40kGamer]

War dollies are so serious.

In any case my points are valid. I didn't cover everything just the key points and felt what needed to be addressed again got it. For the people still crying I'm sorry, I wish I knew how to help you, but I can't. It's great being able to play however you want. I play my toy soldiers one way you the other. I think the game is perfectly fine as is. And really hope it stays the course, and if it changes that's fine I'll just go with the flow. :)


We have to separate things out a little. Playing with our toy soldiers isn't a serious affair, however, designing the game is. Otherwise any idiot could scratch some rules out on the back of a napkin and we'd all get googly eyed to play their brilliant system. I don't think the majority of us have issues with playing/players, but rather the lackadaisical approach GW has taken to game design for the last several years.

- - - Updated - - -


I'm fairly sure the decision to drop points had little, if anything to do with game design, and everything to do with a sales mechanic.

Probably goes back to Mr. Priestley's comment about merging the design studio into Corporate being a bad thing.