AoS Played AOS (rant) warning: If you like AOS don't read

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Chocolate does need cocoa to be called chocolate.
Wargames don't need balance to be wargames.

All good wargames need to have balance. All the best games (or sports) have a balancing system in place. In fact, I can think of very few that completely abandon it.

You believe an opinion is as untouchable as a fact, whereas I make a distinction.

That is completely incorrect and you are misrepresenting my viewpoint. I very clearly stated that in terms of this discussion there really are no hard facts. It is all pretty subjective and opinion based (on all sides.. yours and mine included).

Was fun and civil though, which I appreciated. Thanks!

Cheers to that! We'll agree to disagree.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

When you judge a game you should do so on its own merits.

I would say that you should judge it against its closest counterparts and competition (i.e. other war games in this case).

 

[Mr Phat]

I would say that you should judge it against its closest counterparts and competition (i.e. other war games in this case).

True and untrue.

True because: it puts a lower bar on overall quality on the market.

Untrue because: The mainstream gets to decide what game is the best one, and every single other one has to fall in line to be "as good". Hence = Age of Sigmar had to adapt to 40K which apparently is the better choice among most GW-Wargamers.

 

[Pinktaco]

I find this thread hilarious.

We are not the consumers GW want. I mean sure if you want to buy the dolls you are, but they do not give a single fvck about you nor your need for "balance".

It's been clear to me for a long time where GW is headed - A narrative based game.Think Space Hulk just bigger. Trust me the future will be filled to the brim with campaigns. You may - if you want to - play your own thing and make up your own stuff.

Why do GW do this? Because 1) people don't want to read and 2) it's easy for people. It doesn't matter the rules are free because they'll earn money on a constant flow of new units, terrain and most importantely new campaigns.

It actually reminds me of the old Hero Quest board game (I'm guessing D&D is similar, but I've never played that). You could follow the scenarios included or create your own scenarios. You could fill every single tile with orcs if that's what you wanted.

You can follow the campaigns of AoS or you can create your own.

It's completley open and if you want to create your own balance go ahead! Just don't expect GW to do so.

Also concerning the car analogy I'd see it this way:

GW used to sell sports car meant for street racing (competitive play). It was expensive and had a small customer base.
GW switched to quality familiy cars because it's a bigger market.

You can still race with your family car, but that wasn't the intention. You shouldn't complain if your Audi A6 cannot keep up with a Nissan GT-R because that wasn't the intention to begin with.

AoS isn't the replacement the way we want it to be - it's not a reboot either. It's a completely new game bearing a recognized name. Get over it.

Personally, for me, AoS might be "fun", but it's not Warhammer Fantasy. What does that mean? Well if the goal is to have fun I can do so in many many other ways. I started WHFB because I liked the game for what it was. My time is precious and I have many other things to do so I'll just do those things. It's unfortunate that WHFB will never be what it used to be, but I have other things to spend my time and money on so I'll just do that.

 

[The Red Devil]

In other words, McDonalds put out a new chicken sandwich and you are telling them they are wrong for not making sure it includes a beef patty.

If you want to make an example, then at least make one that is equal to the case we are discussing

If McDonalds launched a new chicken hamburger, and at the same time removed all the other hamburgers. Telling me that this is my only choice moving forward, then yes I would tell them they are wrong.

While the two games are opposites, due to the circumstances where one replace the former, they will get compared and rightfully so. Some people like the changes and enjoy the new game, other do not and stay with the last version or move on to other games.

In the end, the chance for GW checking any threads on this forum and reading what their customer base think about AoS (both good and bad) is pretty slim. But if no voice is made, we are certain that they never will.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Also concerning the car analogy I'd see it this way:

GW used to sell sports car meant for street racing (competitive play). It was expensive and had a small customer base.
GW switched to quality familiy cars because it's a bigger market.

You can still race with your family car, but that wasn't the intention. You shouldn't complain if your Audi A6 cannot keep up with a Nissan GT-R because that wasn't the intention to begin with.

Beautiful!! You really hit the nail on the head.

I don't want the AoS Minivan... I miss my Warhammer Fantasy Ferrari.

If McDonalds launched a new chicken hamburger, and at the same time removed all the other hamburgers. Telling me that this is my only choice moving forward, then yes I would tell them they are wrong.

Brilliant... this is the analogy we've been looking for.



In reference to the idea that you shouldn't judge a game by something it wasn't designed to be: of course you can (and should) if you feel that the original idea/intention/design is inferior or flawed. Even the perfect execution of shoddy concept/idea is still births shoddy game at the end of the day.

 

[ASSASSIN_NR_1]

Chocolate does need cocoa to be called chocolate.

What sorcery is this! (had to "say" it)


Now it have been stated that AOS does not need a balance system, and the lack of it brings the freedom to take whatever you wish, Sure, but I have to disagree. Take Warhammer fantasy for example (hadn't seen that coming ) the balance system is there to help make a balanced game for competitive play, but if you wanted to play just to have fun, you could just take the point system away and play it like that. The point system just gives more options which in a way also means more freedom.

It might be that AOS is driven by scenarios, and that might very well be, but so was WHFB, with storm of magic, triumph and treachery and the end times. You could make your own scenarios just like it has been suggested with AOS.

If AOS and WHFB should not be compared, what should it be compared to?

I just see AOS as a hugely inferior game to WHFB, as GW (from my perspective) has, in the process of making a more free and simple game, taken away the depth and end up making it less free.

All opinions are good, but I cannot agree with all of them, neither should I, you, or anyone else.

As I have said in another thread: "Good and bad is really not something that exists, other that in our heads." Which means that none of us are correct besides what we ourselves believe.

 

[LawGnome]

I still find it hard to believe that people think that a two player game is better with no balancing mechanism.

When people talk about balance, they aren't doing it in because tournaments must have balance. Balance isn't about tournaments or heavy competition. It is about two people getting together to say that they want to play a game where either player has roughly the same chance of winning at the start of the game. One person may be a better player, or one person may be unlucky, but at the start of the game, they both had about the same chance of winning.

If you want to set up a lobsided scenario that is challenging, go for it. If you want to play a story scenario, please do so. The inclusion of a balancing mechanism like points per model, or even something like "this warscroll is worth 2 points if it has 10 models in it, and 4 points if it has 20 models in it" does not prevent you from having fun or playing a scenario, or having fun however you want.

Two people playing the game should be able to know from the start that their winning or losing of the game was due to how they played, not because the game was tilted against them from the start. Think about it this way: Starcraft is a fun game. I can pick any of the three races and have roughly the same chance of winning against an equally skilled player regardless of what they choose to play with. If there is no balance, and the Zerg has unlimited free zerglings (because they are supposed to swarm, so it looks good from a fluff perspective), then I am not going to have fun if I play Protoss or Terran, because there is little chance that I can ever win. You may try it out once or twice due to the challenge, but there is no incentive to play them more than that. This is the same trouble people have with AoS.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Now it have been stated that AOS does not need a balance system, and the lack of it brings the freedom to take whatever you wish, Sure, but I have to disagree. Take Warhammer fantasy for example (hadn't seen that coming ) the balance system is there to help make a balanced game for competitive play, but if you wanted to play just to have fun, you could just take the point system away and play it like that. The point system just gives more options which in a way also means more freedom.

I still find it hard to believe that people think that a two player game is better with no balancing mechanism.

Precisely... I completely agree with both of you! Having a solid points system in place can only ever add to a game. You're always able to use it in conjunction with a scenario or abandon it all together if you wish. AoS' "freedom" advantage over Warhammer Fantasy is just an illusion.

 

[Sleboda]

We've been playing with an illusion for decades. Points systems are largely a joke. All it takes is a simple thing like fire balls or a magic item that does X usually, but X+1 against certain foes to shatter the illusion.

 

[Mr Phat]

at least it was an illusion we agreed on to accept as true.

 

[Pinktaco]

Ooookay and I'm out. Have fun boyz

 

[Mr Phat]

Ooookay and I'm out. Have fun boyz

*Door Slams*
*Heavy hinge slams after it*

Leaving so soon?

 

[Pinktaco]

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

We've been playing with an illusion for decades. Points systems are largely a joke. All it takes is a simple thing like fire balls or a magic item that does X usually, but X+1 against certain foes to shatter the illusion.

Points systems are hardly illusions. They are by no means perfect, but they have worked quite well for decades. Of course there have been many broken things throughout the years, but overall they have served an important role. The points system under 8th was especially good. In any case, they are vastly superior to "just field anything you want" mentality of AoS.

 

[ASSASSIN_NR_1]

All it takes is a simple thing like fire balls or a magic item that does X usually, but X+1 against certain foes to shatter the illusion.

Not necessarily, those items are often a bit more expensive because of the added effect or they might just be a good counter to something, and most are pretty corner cased.

 

[NIGHTBRINGER]

Not necessarily, those items are often a bit more expensive because of the added effect or they might just be a good counter to something, and most are pretty corner cased.

In addition those items are typically fluff driven so they provide more of a narrative/story/scenario experience. Also, no one is forced to take those items if they wish not to.

 

[snikrit]

Incoming text wall semi (lie) rant

It is little secret by now that Games Workshop is starting to feel the financial results of their own poor decisions. Unfortunately, given that WHFB was overtaken by 40k ages ago, and that their current policies (which honestly are pricing out older players and preventing new blood from becoming interested) of pushing new models and overall prices is how they think they can keep sustaining themselves, the predominant war-gaming company has lost interest in being just that, a gaming company. It's in their press these days, and AoS should be called what it is. A cheap ploy to try to direct 40K interest into a rather shallow (lore wise and gameplay wise) model line. While personally I do not think that is how they should or could have saved WHFB if it truly did need saving (and the growing competition only reinforces that opinion, I have heard good things about Kings of War as a replacement game for example)

I highly doubt there was much consideration into making an actual game out of AoS, and I feel it is safe to say it shows. The fluff based battles already existed, surely the lizardmen here remember Lustria if nothing else. Hell one of my favourite armies is in that book (RED CRESTED SKINKS FOR LIFE!). I just don't think you can really call AoS a game when a fundamental rule is: put your whole collection down. There is no merit in that system. Sure there is sudden death, but it is hardly sufficient. GW has been trying to push models without consideration for their game systems for quite some time now, this is just another move in that direction that is too damn transparent to anyone who has actually played tabletop games more than a few times.

On a side note, I know I lost my 40k interest when more depth was removed edition after edition, and I do not see anything resembling a good game coming back to the fantasy line given the blatant fantasy skinned 40k models the AoS line has produced.

I guess ultimately it seems to me less like WHFB was replaced, and more like it was axed entirely, and they had a writer or two spend a weekend figuring out how to push fantasy models still while allowing them to incorporate the elements of 40k (Space Marines) to increase appeal to new collectors and 40K players.

Edit: Not having a local group to play house rules with gives it very little appeal to someone such as myself, when I relied on playing with a structure with balance in mind with people I may not know terribly well.

 

[Sleboda]

Nice opinions. Baseless, obviously, but nice that you have expressed them.

 

[snikrit]

Nice opinions. Baseless, obviously, but nice that you have expressed them.

Yeeouch. I will have to pull up sales figures and press statements when I have some more time.

Regardless, I do not think a game that necessitates fixing via house rules to create balance is a good way to relaunch/restart a product you already had, particularly one with thirty years behind it.