Topic: Warhammer Age of Sigmar - we killed warhammer

[Darknight]

Uh oh. You're not that guy are you? Are you going to be the stickler for enforced silliness?

Okay, here we go..

Is it, or is it not, a rule in the game? If you want the benefit, you have to do certain things. Now, that is a generally presumed thing - you want to get 10 attacks, you need to have 5 models on the table with 2 attacks each. That is a rule, just as much as "pretend to ride an imaginary horse to get a reroll".

Remember Blood Bowl? And you had to move your turn marker and if you didn't the other player could say "Illegal Procedure!" and you lost a re-roll? And how that was one of the rules so many people just disregarded "because it was annoying" or whatever.

I think, to be honest, I *would* be the guy who says "C'mon - you can't just say 'I get the re-roll' without doing what it says. That is part of the rules". And CERTAINLY if someone was calling me a douche for doing it, or threatening to hit people, and just generally being dour, I would "insist" on it.

If someone was just "absolutely not" then I'd probably just say "Okay - I guess we came here to play completely different games. I came to play the game as written, with agreements between us over and above that".

I'd play the game to have fun - and while talking to an imaginary horse isn't the ONLY way to have fun, nor does one need to talk to the horse to have fun, someone refusing to do it when that is the game ISN'T fun.

That's the game. You don't like? Don't play it. Play 8th ed. Play Kings of War. Play whatever you want. But, yeah - I would presume there needs to be some good-faith effort to play the game as written.

[Warlord]

DK,

I thought you learnt from the rumours thread, that you should just let the people here express their frustration at what they perceive as something bad.
Also understand that these people are talking hyperbole, rather than actually going to assault people. Look at the title of the thread - its not 'rumours' its clearly a negative thread for people to lament. Just let them and stop being insensitive. It only makes you look like a jerk.

[Dosiere]

I'm pretty sure that was the idea, Syn Ace. Those requirements are merely humor added for humor's sake (might be a callback to 90's GW as well). The model should be able to use them regardless of moustache size and what not.

The problem is that by putting them in the actual rules there is always going to be that douche who expects you to do it.  I can think of two or three at my club, although with possible good intentions, would pressure you into his kind of crap.  They'll go on about not being in the spirit of the game, taking it too seriously, not wanting to have (their kind of) fun, etc..  If I ever do play AoS, I'm bringing my 8th Ed rule book/smacking tool just in case.

Seriously?

I get that you are joking (I hope) but . . . someone asks that you actually play the game as written, and you physically assault them?

And THEY are "that douche"?

Yes.  If someone were to take the rules for AoS seriously enough as to demand I pretend like I am tripping on acid and talking to an imaginary being I am riding... yes, absolutely yes.  I would think twice about physically assaulting someone, but it definitely makes them a douche.  I have absolutely nothing against them doing it IF THEY WANT TO of course, but I certainly wouldn't demand or expect it of people who say they don't.  Having fun is a subjective thing, and just because I'm not acting out an obvious joke in the rules doesn't mean I'm not having fun playing a tabletop game.

I understand you are the kind of gamer who enjoys it, wants to do it, would have more fun playing the game, etc... That's awesome, and I respect that.  Me?  I'm an introvert who would have less fun by doing the same thing, therefore I would not.  I'll still be having fun, and to be honest I would probably have more fun playing someone like you who is willing to do silly things like this, but it's not OK with me to actually expect everyone to do the same if they're not as willing. 

The reality is the people who do like stuff like this already did it anyway.  I played a guy who did the challenge thing in 40K, every time, where he would get "in character" to issue a challenge.  It was funny and he was shockingly good at coming up with silly insults for my characters.  They shouldn't have actually put something like in the rules though, it has created a potential problem where one did not need to exist in a game of Warhammer, ever.

[Warlord]

Guys, enough arguing about arguing with AoS players.

[Syn Ace]

Uh oh. You're not that guy are you? Are you going to be the stickler for enforced silliness?

Okay, here we go..

Is it, or is it not, a rule in the game? If you want the benefit, you have to do certain things. Now, that is a generally presumed thing - you want to get 10 attacks, you need to have 5 models on the table with 2 attacks each. That is a rule, just as much as "pretend to ride an imaginary horse to get a reroll".

Remember Blood Bowl? And you had to move your turn marker and if you didn't the other player could say "Illegal Procedure!" and you lost a re-roll? And how that was one of the rules so many people just disregarded "because it was annoying" or whatever.

I think, to be honest, I *would* be the guy who says "C'mon - you can't just say 'I get the re-roll' without doing what it says. That is part of the rules". And CERTAINLY if someone was calling me a douche for doing it, or threatening to hit people, and just generally being dour, I would "insist" on it.

If someone was just "absolutely not" then I'd probably just say "Okay - I guess we came here to play completely different games. I came to play the game as written, with agreements between us over and above that".

I'd play the game to have fun - and while talking to an imaginary horse isn't the ONLY way to have fun, nor does one need to talk to the horse to have fun, someone refusing to do it when that is the game ISN'T fun.

That's the game. You don't like? Don't play it. Play 8th ed. Play Kings of War. Play whatever you want. But, yeah - I would presume there needs to be some good-faith effort to play the game as written.

Yeah, Blood Bowl not moving your marker and getting called for illegal procedure and GW making you act like a silly **** are two different things. As an adult, unless I'm playing a party game and there is drinking involved, I don't want to be forced to act like a 12 year old or one of those annoying guys you run into at a game con.

You're probably right that this isn't the game for me, unless I stick to playing against other people who don't want to be forced to act like an idiot when playing.

[Darknight]

Also understand that these people are talking hyperbole,

Read what I posted - I clearly say that.

It only makes you look like a jerk.

Really? I'm a jerk because I express the notion I would like people to play the rules as written? Rather than, essentially, getting a benefit without doing what the rules require?

Or am I just a jerk, in your view, because I refuse to jump on the "AoS is awful" bandwagon? If people want to lament (really, "lament"?) then fine - but other people have to be allowed to express a contrary opinion without being insulted.

Read what I wrote - it's not so much someone not doing the silly things. It's the attitude that anyone who asks you do (when those are the rules) is a douche or jerk. It's the idea that someone who comes to the table expecting the game to be played as written (or at least some kind of effort made) rather than some dour "I ain't doing that" without so much as a "Hey, can we have an agreement we don't need to do the silly stuff?" (which I'd likely laugh and say "Sure" to) is somehow in the wrong.

I get it; Age of Sigmar isn't everyone's cup of tea. And people dislike the silly rules and so forth. But, you know what? They ARE the rules - and while they can absolutely be changed or discarded, playing the game as written isn't something outre and ridiculous.

Let me state this one more time - playing the game as written doesn't make you the bad guy.

[knightofthelance]

It's fine to encourage sillyness, but not to push it. Some people just don't like that sort of thing. If they don't want to do it it's best to drop it.

Personally I'm rather introverted. We did the silly stuff when we played with the kids today. My brother and I did not bother yesterday. I'd be willing to around the right group of my friends. But I'd never do it in a room full of strangers. If you wanted to that's fine. But if me not doing it somehow makes the game less fun for you that's to bad. and if you pushed it you'd go on my list of people not to play games with.

[Syn Ace]

Same here.

[Dosiere]

Understand I am not talking about being grumpy while playing a game.  In fact I WOULD absolutely talk about it before the game to say essentially " hey let's have fun but I'm not comfortable with the LARP aspect of xxxx..".  I find it odd you would have a problem with someone not wanting to do these obvious jokes in the rules.  I might be more willing if I was with a friend in my garage playing a game, but certainly not in a huge room filled with strangers. 

And I never said it was ridiculous to do them, just to expect or demand someone else to do them.

[Darknight]

I agree with both SynAge and Knight of the Lance - really; read what I said.

I find it odd you would have a problem with someone not wanting to do these obvious jokes in the rules.

I never said that at all - I said exactly the opposite.

I understand you are the kind of gamer who enjoys it, wants to do it, would have more fun playing the game, etc... That's awesome, and I respect that.  Me?  I'm an introvert who would have less fun by doing the same thing, therefore I would not.  I'll still be having fun, and to be honest I would probably have more fun playing someone like you who is willing to do silly things like this, but it's not OK with me to actually expect everyone to do the same if they're not as willing.

But it's not about "having fun" - they are the rules. Now, certainly, they can be changed and discarded; but that is a conversation that happens. "Hey, mate - I really think the silly rules are, well, silly; can we just ignore them? Presume they always work?"

(As an aside, there are some that simply would not work for - I was just reading Greasus Goldtooth's rules, and you have to actually bribe your opponent (with pizza or something, I guess?) for his "make a unit not do anything" rule to function. So, having that work automatically wouldn't work - it would need to be a Bravery test or something. But that could be worked out).

And if someone said that, I would be "Sure!" because I understand. And I'm sure other people would be too.

But for someone just to say "That's not fun, so I'm not doing it" isn't fair - it's a change in the rules without agreement from the other player. It's not a douche action for someone to ask the rules to be played as written - especially if someone has chosen that model specifically! It's not like every unit needs a silly dance to move etc.

Again, this comes down to what I have been saying elsewhere - AoS is a game where people have to talk to each other, and come to agreements on what to field, what to play etc. And, also, whether or not to have the silly rules in place.

The point ISN'T saying "You absolutely MUST play these rules!" but rather "No, you don't get to unilaterally change the rules without consulting your opponent first".

Set aside the issue of talking to a horse; saying "I won't do this because it makes the game less fun" could be applied to anything. I won't remove my models because it makes the game less fun. I won't apply rending modifiers because it makes the game less fun. The rule about the imaginary horse is no less "real" than those. It is merely subjectively sillier.

There is a presumption of fair play when one is gaming - it is a presumption that players accept the rules and come to a mutual agreement over any changes. It's not about not talking to a horse - it's about the underlying unilateral dismissal of your opponent as someone you don't need to talk to.

Now, you've said you would speak with your opponent beforehand and say "let's not use those rules, okay?" But that wasn't the impression I got (before I wrote this post, which kept getting pushed back as more replies were made). As I have said (now) several times - I would be very open to someone saying "Let's change it up at bit" and wouldn't bat an eyelid at it. But I would want to be asked.

[Kernschatten]

There is a difference between:

a) Getting into character and chanting "Oi! Oi! Oi! 'Ere we go!" or shouting "For the Emperor!"
b) Rules that require you to ride an imaginary horse.
c) Impossible rules that require rolling a 13 on 2d6 or a model talking back to you.

I can appreciate a).
I am annoyed by b).
And I cannot make sense of c) no matter how much I drink. 

[Dosiere]

Guys, enough arguing about arguing with AoS players.

Im sorry I missed this before my last post.  Shut up heard.

[Warlord]

It only makes you look like a jerk.

Really? I'm a jerk because I express the notion I would like people to play the rules as written? Rather than, essentially, getting a benefit without doing what the rules require?

Or am I just a jerk, in your view, because I refuse to jump on the "AoS is awful" bandwagon? If people want to lament (really, "lament"?) then fine - but other people have to be allowed to express a contrary opinion without being insulted.

Did I call you a jerk?

Read what I posted

I said you being insensitive makes you look like a jerk.

I don't think you are a jerk. If you bothered to quote any of what I actually said other than the 2 points you took offense to, the point was that you are being insensitive. Just like you were in the rumours thread at times. Tone it down a notch - which you have now done with a few of the other posts here.

Guys, enough arguing about arguing with AoS players.

Im sorry I missed this before my last post.  Shut up heard.

All good.
This thread is all over the place anyway at the moment.

[iatroblast]

This reminds me of the un-collections in Magic the Gathering, where they had "silly" cards. It was fun, but they always were non-canon, so i think such a restriction is nice, probably cause you don't want such things to define many games, as it is getting a little awkward after sometime. This is now an old story, as until today, they haven't released such a collection (which may say a few things about how seriously take their product)

Back to us: Warhammer Fantasy does not exist. Instead, GW launches a brand new game, with a story loosely connected to Fantasy (if  at all)

Fluff-wise I don't understand this new concept. Everybody died, but Sigmar ressurected some mortals, turned them into bodybuilders and continues war? So we  don't have actual humans anymore? what is going on?

And based on the current fluff, how is it possible to play a game between an army which doesn't exist and a new "existing" "army"(?). Isn't it like "i don't even care anymore"?

[Franz Volker]

I really doubt the silly rules are meant to be interpreted ad litteram. Where they say knights get rerolls to whatever if you flail a grail about, I'm pretty sure everyone's gonna take it as just the knights getting rerolls to whatever, every time. I still think it's done in poor taste, though.

About the new product itself, I honestly can't understand how people on this forum can like this stuff. Note I say specifically people on this forum and not people in general, because I can accept the models don't necessarily look bad, but if you're here, I assume you're here because you like The Empire aesthetic. If the new aesthetic appeals to you, you'd already be somewhere else, doing something other than Empire, because the new stuff is hardly unique.

Even if it's good, it should logically be bad for someone on this forum because the new product destroyed something you already liked and, like I said, if you already liked something more, you'd be there and not here.

I think that's why Chumley has a point when asking people to boycott AoS, not because it's bad but because the company thought it had to wreck something subjectively good for the people here, to make it. Of course, no one has a right to demand stuff of anyone, but I think what he says is reasonable and it's why I doubt I'll buy any of the new stuff.

[The Peacemaker]

See this is what I don't get:
People are so desperate to cling to GW that they can't read the writing on the page.

Just look at the ridiculous writing. Its so obvious the people at GW don't even care anymore.

Some people say its trying to temp 40k players to play fantasy but A friend of my mine who left fantasy a year ago took a look at age of sigmar and his thought was "wow, its like they are trying to get the remaining fantasy players to just play 40k."

"give someone a mustache ride and you get re-roll your dice".

the rules are literally "roll 3+, roll 4+, your opponent rolls a save". ....that is also literally how I've described the reason I left 40k 5 years ago.

About the new product itself, I honestly can't understand how people on this forum can like this stuff. Note I say specifically people on this forum and not people in general, because I can accept the models don't necessarily look bad, but if you're here, I assume you're here because you like The Empire aesthetic. If the new aesthetic appeals to you, you'd already be somewhere else, doing something other than Empire, because the new stuff is hardly unique.

its because they like blood angels space marines. ...I know, I used to play 40k and blood angels was the most popular space marine army. Don't know why because I dont' care for the angels motif.

[Baron von Klatz]

Concerning Iatroblast, here friend. This link should shed some light on the current story.

http://imgur.com/a/wKBMo#0

As for the old world armies, the main point is that GW didn't want anyone's army made obsolete and so provided some very well made pdf warscrolls for them, hopefully the future of AoS will recieve such care. (To be fair though, the game doesn't officially start until the 11th).

The fluff for these armies existing varies but mostly is the cause of past heroes being reincarnated by the power of Sigmar (or one of the incarnates like Nagash) and lead the new people inhabiting the nine realms into war after training them in the tactics of the old world.

[Mathi Alfblut]

Lets take a look at my kids.

My younger daugther would have zero problem with those rules. She packs ADHD and is very much acting out. But she would do it anyway rules or not.
My oldest daugther would freeze. Seriously freeze. She has Asperger and have a hard time talking with strangers. It takes a lot of time to get under the skin of her and she is easily putt of. If you would start to coax her into following such a rule she could very well just walk away and start crying, or just start to cry while standing there. 

I see lot of potential for people to be pushy and acting like bullies just in order to make others acting like fools. But they may not even understand they are hurting the opponent, they just feel they are right and that rules should be followed to the letter.

Having both ADHD and AS myself and knowing a lot of things can go wrong especially if you force people with such disabilites to interact in a way they feel uncomfortable with. Often, a game can infact act as a mediator for them to interact with people since it follow a given structure. It is a bit like fencing. After a period of interaction through the game they may be able to start interacting and socializing with the others. But to have to start each game doing a negogiation about what and how can be too much. Heck, it can be taxing just to talk about how many points you should play.

I would have been scared stift having had to do that the first few times if I went to a store or was a newbie at a club. I would probably have nodded and agreed to everything being the noob.

[Ambrose]

I think there in lies the problem.  They are written into the rules.  There is no place where they say 'April fools!' or Use these in friendly games, etc.  They are in the rules.  This is a very childish and divisive thing to put into a game.  Even with the rules being fun (fun is the key word I have heard people say after trying the new rules), once the novelty of these things goes away, we are stuck with the rules, and people can be funny with how things are meant to be taken, and how rules are written (I think you may find some threads on these forums where rules as written and as intended come into question.  If you look really, really hard).

What I don't like about them, is they are childish.  Good fun the first time you read it, but can we seriously consider them part of the rules until next release? As it is written, I guess so.

I also can see that any female Empire players who cannot grow a mustache are right out of the gates out of luck if they want to field Kurt (please, no mom jokes.).

Ambrose

[iatroblast]

Concerning Iatroblast, here friend. This link should shed some light on the current story.

http://imgur.com/a/wKBMo#0

As for the old world armies, the main point is that GW didn't want anyone's army made obsolete and so provided some very well made pdf warscrolls for them, hopefully the future of AoS will recieve such care. (To be fair though, the game doesn't officially start until the 11th).

The fluff for these armies existing varies but mostly is the cause of past heroes being reincarnated by the power of Sigmar (or one of the incarnates like Nagash) and lead the new people inhabiting the nine realms into war after training them in the tactics of the old world.

 

As i see it, though it's a wishful thinking for the old world armies to receive updates in every new edition, they contrast so much to the new story of the game, that i don't think we'll see other warscrolls after these ones we have now (i'm not THE expert to state this though, i'm just making a hypothesis). Not to mention we'll end up being the weird guys with the historic armies (which don't blend at all) riding imaginary horses. Kids will love us, i know, but still...
"Now, countless milennia later.." i can still field Reiksguard Knights, Valten and Marius Leitdorf (all of them thousands years old) with the latter actually dead before the End Times.  ok
can we call it quits and start 40K? or basketball?

[Syphon]

can we call it quits and start 40K? or basketball?

GW presents: basketball. When you enter the play, if you are blacker than any other player, you get a free penalty shot before the game starts. If you are also more ghetto than any other player, you get two free penalty shots.

Since everybody who plays this is a pasty white dude, nobody will ever get any free penalty shots and thus all the paper this was printed on is a very sad waste of trees and you should feel bad.

[Gunman006]

I quite like it.   it means another new GW system.  I'm currently in campaigns for WFB, 40k, Mordheim, Bloodbowl, Gorkamorka, WFRP, and now AoS.

I'll play both versions of "Warhammer" - 8th and AoS, it means I can play two games with most of my model collection.   But I still think I might start a new AoS army, once we've seen what most of the new stuff will look like, though I already like the Stormcast Eternals.  I think the right paint job, other than shiny, shiny gold will help.  (Although had a go with the new gold paints in the store today, and will definitely be getting those)

Even though I felt like being hit in the stomach and walking around with nausea, or it is because I'm held hostage by the Nigerian mafia in my own house I will do the same and just use both despite the silly rules. Use AoS with kids or if we don't have more than 2 hours and want to just do a small game of warhammer, and then just continue with 8th edition or some ETC/Comped version of 8th for normal games.

In the meantime I have used my money on Avatars of Wars website instead, not that I was much, only £150 but still it felt good to buy good quality models from another supplier that looks promising (and it doesn't require cerveza to play lol). Looking forward to their English release of the rules, in any case I'm learning Spanish and now have another good reason to learn it

[Midaski]

I have another question which nobody seems to have asked yet.

Are they going to repackage the existing figures and include a warscroll in the box.

For example will Greatswords come in a box "Age of Sigmar - Forces of Order - Greatswords"

Will it mention 'Empire' or say 'Humans'

The answer may go a long way to confirming what is going to happen to WFB.

[Jomppexx]

I have another question which nobody seems to have asked yet.

Are they going to repackage the existing figures and include a warscroll in the box.

For example will Greatswords come in a box "Age of Sigmar - Forces of Order - Greatswords"

Will it mention 'Empire' or say 'Humans'

The answer may go a long way to confirming what is going to happen to WFB.

Huh, don't really have a clue.
Future boxes with new units will come with their warscrolls and I'm betting their box will look different.

[Oxycutor]

Not heard any rumours around that.  Flagellants and warrior priests feature alongside Stormcasts in the intro video on GW's What's New Today from Saturday, and their new race is Free People in the Warscrolls.  But then so do Bretonnians.  Maybe there is some remnants of survivors in the Age of Sigmar that might get repackaged.  Maybe not.  Until we learn more about the fluff we don't know the likelihood of which kits will get redone.  I would bet all new minis get Warscrolls

Sent from my thingamajig via wadyamacallit