|
Look at all these idiots, enjoying themselves and having a good time with something I don't approve of. What a bunch of losers! I'd better show up to tell them how dumb and wrong they are for liking this thing which I don't, that'll sure show 'em.
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 13:48 |
|
|
Texmo posted:Look at all these idiots, enjoying themselves and having a good time with something I don't approve of. What a bunch of losers! Same, but the game in question is posting on the internet about why a bad game is bad
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 22:29
|
|
|
It might be better if the op addressed some of the egregious problems with AoS, especially poo poo that makes house ruling mandatory like model measuring. 'We know this is a terrible game, we play it and have fun anyway' probably needs to be a given itt for this to go anywhere. As a bona fide hater I'm still curious to read an AoS thread of people who actually play it, more insufferable effortposts about why Obviously Bad Game is Bad not so much. There are plenty of threads in games/mmo HMO for people who know their poison is poo poo but keep playing and have a laugh about it, it'd be nice if the sigmor thread was allowed to reach that stage. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
How is insulting a piece of plastic based on the rich lore available embarrassing? The entire point of GW games is to build a complete hobby, from painting and modeling , to a fun and competitive game and even player engagement in lore (making your own space marine chapter, for example). Admittedly, I haven't looked at or touched GW's stuff for a decade maybe, so it's possible their mission statement has changed, but rules that try to engage the players in the lore of the game seem perfectly in line with GW's goals when I jumped ship. I'm not here specifically to poo poo on Age of Sigmar. This is the first I've heard of it. I just saw this thread in the "popular threads" sidebar on the front page. It's just not sounding like GW has changed enough with their rules to really make checking out their overpriced toys worth my time. I'll stick to occasionally playing one of their PC games and trying to convince people to try Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying Second Edition, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 22:40
|
|
|
I don't think anyone (Moola's accidental mispost aside) has implied AoS players are dumb. There are real flaws in Age of Sigmar and people should be able to point them out in the thread about Age of Sigmar. To summarize, here are the negative things people have posted. I have put a frowny face next to things which I think people might consider insults/trolls:
Seems pretty good to me. e: Woah a lot of people wanted to reply to that same post while I was making this list 
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 22:41
|
|
Questioning if this thread is real
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:Same, but the game in question is posting on the internet about why a bad game is bad There are already two threads to shitpost/saltpost about AoS in, this one is obviously not the place for people who don't like the game and have no intention of playing it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 22:46
|
|
|
Texmo posted:There are already two threads to shitpost/saltpost about AoS in, this one is obviously not the place for people who don't like the game and have no intention of playing it. No, it doesn't really seem obvious that the AoS thread is not the place to talk about the flaws with AoS. That's definitely not how most game threads work! It's probably reasonable to expect people not to just use it for constant mockery of the bad game, but there's only been a couple of posts like that so far (i.e. about the same number as there are posts whining about criticism).
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:No, it doesn't really seem obvious that the AoS thread is not the place to talk about the flaws with AoS. That's definitely not how most game threads work! Gotta nip that poo poo in the bud and shoo them back out to the other threads. Nothing wrong discussing the (many) flaws in the game, but it's pretty obvious when death thread regulars show up and point at flaws, the intent isn't for discussion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 23:08
|
|
|
Texmo posted:There are already two threads to shitpost/saltpost about AoS in, this one is obviously not the place for people who don't like the game and have no intention of playing it. so you just want a hugbox then? I am genuinely curious as to what has changed in AoS recently for so many people to have changed their minds. I've looked at the rules and fiction and it still seems god awful dreck
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 23:13
|
|
|
Texmo posted:Gotta nip that poo poo in the bud and shoo them back out to the other threads. Nothing wrong discussing the (many) flaws in the game, but it's pretty obvious when death thread regulars show up and point at flaws, the intent isn't for discussion. IMO you can discuss the flaws with the game even if you are suspected of showing insufficient loyalty to the Age of Sigmar e: Man, "Gotta nip that poo poo in the bud and shoo them back out to the other threads.". That is a seriously loving weird thing to say Jeb Bush 2012 fucked around with this message at 23:30 on Nov 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 23:20
|
|
|
Serious question: did GW ever make the actual rules for AoS free? Even at the start, my understanding is that they had exclusive formations (Battalions?), scenarios, and such in the non-free books. Now that there are points and stuff, it seems like it's even harder to build an army with the free rules. Am I just missing something? GW's website is really hard to navigate, so maybe there is a place with all these rules that I just can't find? Having gotten back into miniatures after about a decade with Dark Age (a game with 100% free rules; the books are just for collectors and fluff-nuts), GW's definition of "free rules" is really bizarre to me...
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
Jeb Bush 2012 posted:IMO you can discuss the flaws with the game even if you are suspected of showing insufficient loyalty to the Age of Sigmar yeah sure, but when there are already two threads for people who want to talk about how much AoS sucks, maybe a thread for people who actually play/are interested in playing the game isn't the place for posts like this one: Moola posted:I am genuinely curious as to what has changed in AoS recently for so many people to have changed their minds. I've looked at the rules and fiction and it still seems god awful dreck Serious answer that you likely already know: General's Handbook, which took a bunch of community suggestions, the main addition being Points. You obviously don't like the game, and clearly aren't very likely to change your opinion, so why spend your time posting about it? Avenging Dentist posted:Serious question: did GW ever make the actual rules for AoS free? Even at the start, my understanding is that they had exclusive formations (Battalions?), scenarios, and such in the non-free books. Now that there are points and stuff, it seems like it's even harder to build an army with the free rules. Am I just missing something? GW's website is really hard to navigate, so maybe there is a place with all these rules that I just can't find? at one point, the four page core rules were free, along with the stupid joke rules, but it seems like GW have, unsurprisingly, decided that they like making money from selling people rules, so most of them are now in books, though some units have their rules available on their store page entries. Texmo fucked around with this message at 23:39 on Nov 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 23:35
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:I don't think anyone (Moola's accidental mispost aside) has implied AoS players are dumb. There are real flaws in Age of Sigmar and people should be able to point them out in the thread about Age of Sigmar. To summarize, here are the negative things people have posted. I have put a frowny face next to things which I think people might consider insults/trolls: I wasn't trolling! ... I actually thought this might have been like a death thread dare I'd missed. e: also to be fair, the other threads aren't about how AoS sucks, one of them is to mourn and discuss Warhammer Fantasy stuff, the other is a general GW sucks thread. A while ago I posted a couple long boring analyses of why AoS boiling every spell and damage mechanic into "does xd6 mortal wounds" kinda sucks and compounds the homogenising effect of everything having the same chance to hit everything else and people weren't interested in discussing AoS in the death thread. I don't mind people wanting a place to talk about actually playing it, but hopefully this can also be a place for on-topic critiques too because that stuff turns my crank. Communist Thoughts fucked around with this message at 23:48 on Nov 20, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 23:43
|
|
|
the idea that you can only post about a thing if you like it and think it is good... is bizarre
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 23:46
|
|
|
nopantsjack posted:I wasn't trolling! ... I actually thought this might have been like a death thread dare I'd missed. Yeah, I didn't mean to say you were, just that some people might take it that way.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
Moola posted:so you just want a hugbox then? I don't think the thread should be a hugbox. Here are things that made me change my mind. - General's Handbook fixed a bunch of broken rules and added structure that made it hard to play with other people before. The game should have had this from the start, but the addition of it is what made me take another look. - I am way into the models. Even if this thread was just discussion of armies and releases, I would be into that. - Once I started playing, I enjoyed some rules I thought were bad before. I like the easier rolling to hit and wound, as it makes the game faster. I like the alternating combat in melee as there is a blood bowl like element of risk management. I like the interactions between units, with positioning being useful and important. A game like Wamachine has a bunch of this stuff to a much tighter degree. But I don't like playing Warmachine. It is way too execution based, too tightly balanced, and I suck at it. I like the higher variance afforded by GW games. I found that games of AoS were not thoughtless, although it can be played without thought. - I like the narrative scenarios. (Variations on the game like Kill the Beast where you have an army on one side against monsters on the other side.) - I like the lore. I've always loved planescape and corum and this has a similar vibe. I was never that much into the old world, so for me there's no sense of loss there. I'll think more about it. Maybe I can describe better what I enjoy or put together some battle reports.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
Texmo posted:at one point, the four page core rules were free, along with the stupid joke rules, but it seems like GW have, unsurprisingly, decided that they like making money from selling people rules, so most of them are now in books, though some units have their rules available on their store page entries. This is the thing that really gets me: they made the game its most accessible at its absolute worst point (just after killing WHFB, no points values, joke rules), and then when they tried to fix some of these issues, they made it harder for people to take a peek and see if they liked it better.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2016 23:57
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:This is the thing that really gets me: they made the game its most accessible at its absolute worst point (just after killing WHFB, no points values, joke rules), and then when they tried to fix some of these issues, they made it harder for people to take a peek and see if they liked it better. They didn't -entirely- make it harder; It was actually this stupid little impulse-buy priced set which made me take a look https://www.games-workshop.com/en-NZ/Storm-of-Sigmar-ENG After managing to teach a couple of friends to play it while drunk, whom I never would have been able to get to play any of the games with Proper Rules(tm) due to their complexity, I realized that playing a dumb game with simple rules can still be entertaining.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 00:03
|
|
|
Moola posted:I am genuinely curious as to what has changed in AoS recently for so many people to have changed their minds. I've looked at the rules and fiction and it still seems god awful dreck  ' as the Most Important Rule. and it helps(?) that despite how it seemed last year, AoS is not going anywhere, the initial BETRAYAL factor wore off and widespread adoption of KoW/9th age/whatever instead was pretty much a pipe dream (depending where you're at). so if you want to use your fantasy mans on a regular basis it seems sigmar is the way to go.  It might still be a lovely game but not in the ways that were putting people off playing at all. way to set that bar high I know. the fiction might be inexcusable but once you get away from sigmarines and dwarf strippers most of what everyone liked about the old armies is still there. unless you played empire or lizardmen lol. Some of the new twists on old armies (flesheater courts, sylvaneth, dark elves as an order force) are even pretty cool. just not the poo poo they decided to build the IP around.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 00:08
|
|
|
how did they reconcile the dark elves being an order faction in a way that's interesting? they pretty much said "heh yeah turns out the race that thrived off of slavery and bloodshed were actually right to follow their genocidal warlord into the wildnerness and he would've been the king of all elves if he spent 10 seconds in the fire" and afaik the elves that are their eternal enemies, the light to their dark, the people who suffered for thousands of years at the hands of their raids said "eh okay " and let the dark elves take overdid i miss something?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 00:14
|
|
|
Interesting posts thanks guys the vibe i'm getting is AoS is kinda the exploding kittens / munchkin of miniature games which I can understand I guess
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 00:20
|
|
|
Business Gorillas posted:how did they reconcile the dark elves being an order faction in a way that's interesting?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
did tokyo drift chariots ever get fixed?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 00:25
|
|
|
Moola posted:the vibe i'm getting is AoS is kinda the exploding kittens / munchkin of miniature games which I can understand I guess Yeah, Munchkin seems like a good analogue. Honestly, I'd feel a lot more forgiving of AoS if it cost around what Munchkin costs (or if it were a free/cheap set of rules to use when you just wanna chill out with your little figurines), but the pricing on the models sets my expectations pretty high.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 00:34
|
|
|
If you're transporting something fiddly with bits that might break apart (Sylvaneth) then you should be grabbing magnetic trays for transport. It's a tip I got for Malifaux but it's good advice for any model that might have stuff get snagged and snap on foam.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:This is the thing that really gets me: they made the game its most accessible at its absolute worst point (just after killing WHFB, no points values, joke rules), and then when they tried to fix some of these issues, they made it harder for people to take a peek and see if they liked it better. They didn't actually at all. The game rules are still free in the website and every unit has their stats on their store page.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
Macdeo Lurjtux posted:They didn't actually at all. The game rules are still free in the website and every unit has their stats on their store page. In that case, would you mind showing me where they host the rules from the General's Compendium? (That is the book that adds points, right?) We're talking about the post-release improvements GW has made (most importantly, adding points values and army composition rules) costing money, despite their initial push with the "free rules" thing. I've gone through every subsection on their site I can think of and there's nary a point value to be found for AoS. Having the bad version of your game be free isn't likely to change anyone's mind.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:In that case, would you mind showing me where they host the rules from the General's Compendium? (That is the book that adds points, right?) We're talking about the post-release improvements GW has made (most importantly, adding points values and army composition rules) costing money, despite their initial push with the "free rules" thing. I've gone through every subsection on their site I can think of and there's nary a point value to be found for AoS. This feels like a forced argument. The books with points in 40k aren't free, but there are plenty of tools to get access to points and rules for that game. Same for AoS. If you download Battlescribe you can get the AoS module which has all of the points and unit structure for list building. Scroll Builder is a free website that has all of the points: http://www.scrollbuilder.com/ There are also points lists for all of Forge World's models online, including the complete Chaos Dwarf army: https://www.forgeworld.co.uk/resources/fw_site/fw_pdfs/aos_warscrolls/warhammer-aos-legion-of-azgorh.pdf I'll put these resources in the OP.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 04:00
|
|
|
In the event anyone itt actually plays this dumb game, can I get some input on the current status of ogres or if they have more than just the raiders faction? While moving I found my old ogres and I'm kinda bummed I only ever got a chance to play them once against an rear end in a top hat who just played several hundred ratmen to drown me in dice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
GreenMarine posted:This feels like a forced argument. The books with points in 40k aren't free, but there are plenty of tools to get access to points and rules for that game. Same for AoS. Sure, but many of GW's competitors provide completely-free rules. Dark Age, Malifaux, Infinity, X-Wing/Armada, and Warmahordes all do. (Note that I don't play all of these, so apologies if any of these have non-free elements to their rules, but from what I can tell, they're 100% free.) Having gotten back into wargames after about a decade away, it was nice seeing that there are a bunch of games with free rules out there to try out. Perhaps I'm just "spoiled" by these other companies, but I think it would have been nice for GW to actually commit to 100% free rules; especially for the point-values and army composition rules, it would probably have gotten people to give it a shot, since they have nothing to lose. If nothing else, it would have let people who are critical of AoS see just how much they did to improve things post-release. Avenging Dentist fucked around with this message at 04:20 on Nov 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 04:15
|
|
|
There's no issue with streamlining rules and getting rid of comparative stat tables. The issue is that AoS did it in a really nonsensical way. Why does a unit need to make BOTH a "to hit" and a "to wound" roll when both of those stats are governed by the attacking unit? The cynical answer is of course because GW has always had "to hit" and "to wound" rolls and Kings of War did it so "to hit" is determined by the attacker and "to wound" by the defender and GW simply couldn't have the exact same mechanic as Mantic even when it is a really good mechanic. So instead my rat slaves are equally likely to wound a goblin as they are a demon. GW actually could implement this rule in a not stupid way if they utilized Universal Special Rules better. Your rat slave could have a "strength" of 5+ which means it's base "to wound" roll is 5+, but something like a demon could be considered "tough" or "large sized" and either of those could add a +1 to the roll. A goblin might be "weak" or "small" and those could be a -1. So it would still be different than Kings of War but would actually take into account the specific circumstances of each combat. But this is GW and it took me more than 30 seconds to think of that so of course not. Instead, every time the word "shield" is mentioned we get a new set of rules. To me, that's the real issue with AoS, not joke rules or measuring from the model/base. The actual core mechanics of the game are stupid as hell. And not nearly as streamlined as people claim. Avenging Dentist posted:Well let's be fair, I'm the one who said the "f" word first because I was talking about a mechanic that's almost completely disconnected from the actual gameplay (i.e. doing an embarrassing thing to get an in-game bonus). Splitting hairs, but it was described as fun in the OP and in some of the first responses. Someone literally said it was just as fun to measure from the model as it was to measure from the base. Just no.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
Bombogenesis posted:In the event anyone itt actually plays this dumb game, can I get some input on the current status of ogres or if they have more than just the raiders faction? While moving I found my old ogres and I'm kinda bummed I only ever got a chance to play them once against an rear end in a top hat who just played several hundred ratmen to drown me in dice. Currently the only faction with a book are the raiders. There are warscrolls for all of the old world ogre units under the "Gutbusters" faction and I would expect a book for them at some point in the future.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 04:17
|
|
|
Avenging Dentist posted:Sure, but many of GW's competitors provide completely-free rules. Dark Age, Malifaux, Infinity, X-Wing/Armada, and Warmahordes all do. (Note that I don't play all of these, so apologies if any of these have non-free elements to their rules, but from what I can tell, they're 100% free.) Having gotten back into wargames after about a decade away, it was nice seeing that there are a bunch of games with free rules out there to try out. Dunno about Dark Age or Infinity, but the others all have free core rules, and free rules for any stuff you own (i.e. the models come with their own rules). They vary in how free the rules are for stuff you don't own, though, which is pretty important to know if you want to plan what to buy. (Warmahordes: no, but the full rules for one faction is like $6, or like $40 for all of them together, X-Wing: Technically no, since the X-Wing wiki is afaik unofficial, but it's also completely comprehensive and fantasy flight has made no attempt to take it down, Malifaux: no, and it's actually pretty hard to find stats for stuff on the internet in my experience)
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 04:21
|
|
|
Hmm, interesting. Dark Age is 100% completely free for core rules and all units. They'll even swap old editions of the main rulebook with a new copy for free if you meet them at a convention. I guess I really am spoiled!
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 04:26
|
|
|
christ I forgot to wound was governed by the attacker That really is an irredeemably poo poo way to do things, surely people house rule this?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 04:44
|
|
|
They've essentially made an attacker-hits defender-saves process, almost similar to x-wing/infinity/etc, but didn't go far enough by eliminating the to-wound roll. Giving melee weapons a 1|2|3" range instead of requiring base-to-base is much better, though 'measure from the model' is dumb as hell and an obvious 'how do we deal with models being on square and round bases?' kludge.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
Even if you argue that some buffs affect to hit and others to wound, it's still stupid because it could just be a single attack roll which would actually be streamlined. Instead you have twice as many rules for something that is nonsensical and statistically negligible.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 04:54
|
|
|
I have a fair number of people trying to make AoS work here, but it's such a mess rules-wise that everyone that wants to play has their own set of house rules which makes the whole process pointless. The the common houserules seem to be:
Those few things go a long way towards making AoS make sense, but you still end up with a lot of issues like Goblins wounding Dragons as easily as Elves. It's a shitshow trying to get everyone on the same page before you start a game which directly contravenes the whole point of simplifying the rules. The attaching heroes thing really shows just how poor the base rules are when you consider armies that are still hero dependent.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 05:19
|
|
|
Texmo posted:They've essentially made an attacker-hits defender-saves process, almost similar to x-wing/infinity/etc, but didn't go far enough by eliminating the to-wound roll. The real problem here is that the models aren't designed with playing the game in mind.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 05:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 13:48 |
|
|
Atlas Hugged posted:The real problem here is that the models aren't designed with playing the game in mind. You know, I used to think GW was the worst offender here, but I just recently put together two Young Nephilim for Malifaux, and they are not even close to being designed as "miniatures which are going to be picked up and moved around a bunch" at all. 1mm wide joins to a resin scenic base is Not Good, and I feel like they'll break as soon as I try to to transport them anywhere. I've also had a good time trying to put Infinity's dynamically posed miniatures in base-to-base with a Wall, because they wouldn't count as in cover if they stood a few mm away from it facing the right direction. GW's ham-fist 'heroic' proportions make a lot more sense in the context of 'gaming figure that isn't going to snap halfway through a game because their arms are super thin or their base joins are tiny'. They're far from perfect at this (the new bloodthirster comes to mind), but most of the time they're also pretty good at actually being gaming figures. Texmo fucked around with this message at 05:49 on Nov 21, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2016 05:47
|
|