|
Post by suboptimaldan on Jul 4, 2015 21:02:15 GMT
I take the points made about the rules, but rules have never been what I'm most concerned about and the silliness aspect appeals but I can't get over the whole Space Marines in fantasy thing. People on forums were posting that kind of thing as a joke a few years ago and now GW have made it true. They've taken a game i've loved since I was 11 ( that's 27 years ago, I know I don't look it, that's a good moisturisation regime for you) and mutilated it, then added insult to injury by basically saying fuck you to fantasy players, we prefer the 40k guys. And the whole 'lets call a skeleton a DoomDreadBloodKnocker' to extend our IP is just nakedly pathetic.
|
|
pip
Junior Member
Posts: 55
|
Post by pip on Jul 4, 2015 22:56:49 GMT
Please don't give them the cash Sam - I'm sure there'll be people selling the halves of the set they don't want on ebay soon.
|
|
|
Post by lagar312 on Jul 5, 2015 18:12:05 GMT
Bit behind here gents with a weekend in the valley time forgot but it does seem AoS has a few flaws from the perspective of us more competitive types...
Having said that I'm looking forward to trying this out next Saturday and I think with a few house rules around army composition and it could be a fun beer and pretzel game....
|
|
stevo
Junior Member
Posts: 66
|
Post by stevo on Jul 6, 2015 8:39:08 GMT
I agree with G.... With a few obvious house rules it could be fine - measuring from base to base is the first one - and a system for picking the lists (no of wounds maybe) we could make it work.
|
|
|
Post by suboptimaldan on Jul 8, 2015 18:55:14 GMT
I've confused myself. I don't like listhammer and I hate the tournament game with a passion so why don't I like Age of Sigmar? Surely it should appeal to someone like me who likes the fluffy, beer and pretzels (but hopefully not fluffy beer and pretzels - ewww) approach to things. The way it's being presented in gaming media is that the beardy powergamers hate it because they're assholes and the casual types love it for it's laid back approach. I'm trying to narrow it down, and these are the main points.
1. It's not a mass wargame. Skirmish games have never appealed to me, and Games Workshop have decided to do a New Coke and make their own Malifaux/WarMachine/whatever. The only mass fantasy wargame that exists now is KOW. I want the experience of huge units, lines of troops, Agincourt, Waterloo, etc... Maybe I should get into historicals? Is a mass battle fantasy war game really an uneconomic prospect as some are saying? Or did GW have to shift to this, because the other way was reducing prices to get people into it?
2. The emotional side of things. I've been playing WFB with short interruptions (when I realised I needed to get a girlfriend etc) since I was 11 years old. I'm 38 now. I've been through 3rd ed, Herohammer, The Red Period (ewww), Paul Sawyer at White Dwarf, the wonderful flowering of the hobby during 6th ed (the closest I got to being a tournament type), nearly rage quitting at the end of 7th, only to be heartened at 8th ed's refocus on large units and less manouvering (I played games of 7th where no-one got into combat. At all. Went pew pew at each other all game) until netlists and bad army book creep did for 8th as well. So this kinda HURTS. New rather lame fluff, all the old background destroyed carelessly, Space Marines with hammers appearing from nowhere. Even the new Chaos stuff owes more the the 40k aesthetic than to fantasy. I don't like 40k. At all, in any iteration. Space Orks fight Space Skeletons who fight Space Elves. Meh.
There seems to be a false dichotomy floating around. That if you create a detailed set of rules for a game, that somehow that isn't fun. And if you want fun you have to create a game with very few rules and those that there are need to be completely negotiable. The GW armybook system was flawed and led to army creep, which was abused by people Listhammering the hell out of it. But would a balanced, detailed game be such a bad thing?
|
|
pip
Junior Member
Posts: 55
|
Post by pip on Jul 8, 2015 21:35:27 GMT
"False dichotomy" is definitely how I'd put it. A lot of the GW defenders out there (I don't know who's paying these people) essentially have a position that boils down to "sure there's no points system... but if you play against people who bring more powerful armies/models than you, that's your fault for playing against douchebags!"
So now if I want to bring a cool (but powerful) monster because I like its aesthetics or its fluff, I'm being a douche. If I try to build an army that is effective on the battlefield and has some neat tricks, and my opponent doesn't match my efforts, I'm being a douche. And even if I avoid these pitfalls, the way that it's being suggested that I should weed out the people *I* would consider douches is to play everyone and draw up some kind of McCarthy-esque blacklist until I've narrowed my gaming group down to the One True Gamer with whom I can play Age of Sigmar as it was Meant To Be Played. To me that kind of passive-aggressive behaviour sounds pretty douchey.
All other complaints about the background and the new model ranges aside, I don't think it takes a genius to see that the points system was better than that.
Also, the idea that simplicity = fun is way oversimplified. Most of the static attack and saving rolls for Age of Sigmar cap at 3+/4+, which means that apart from the endless banks of special rules that let you reroll 1s, units are startlingly homogeneous. Rules are leaking for the new Sigmarines' weapon options that pretty much let you choose between 3+ to hit, 4+ to wound or 4+ to hit, 3+ to wound. I feel that the point where you need to tell your design department that (1/2)*(2/3) is the same as (2/3)*(1/2) is the point where you should fire your design department.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 8, 2015 22:14:55 GMT
the One True Gamer with whom I can play Age of Sigmar Highlander I think they should rename it thus...
|
|
|
Post by lagar312 on Jul 9, 2015 5:36:14 GMT
Have to say the main thing keeping me interested is the general hubbub that the current rules are just the basic framework of the game and as GW release new books/armies we will start to see exact what GW are attempting to do with AoS and hopefully deal with a few of the issues that have been identified already....
Otherwise I'm sure 8th ed will still be played at the club and GW will lose a lot of their fantasy players to other systems... and let be honest money talks..
Totally agree with Pip that the general discussion on various boards about not being a dick comp is just not feasible... yes you can introduce house rules to mitigate some of the issues of AoS but the lack of points costing/direction on army composition while fun for your average 8 year will not keep the older gamer interested for long...
|
|
|
Post by suboptimaldan on Jul 9, 2015 19:39:11 GMT
|
|
pip
Junior Member
Posts: 55
|
Post by pip on Jul 13, 2015 19:41:52 GMT
New sigmarine hero on the GW website literally has a special rule where he does a twirl and tiny hammers fly off the ends of his cloak to bonk people on the head.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jul 13, 2015 21:05:34 GMT
New sigmarine hero on the GW website literally has a special rule where he does a twirl and tiny hammers fly off the ends of his cloak to bonk people on the head. I want one for the tube
|
|