Topic: Excellent article on Age of Sigmar

[Darknight]

http://www.corehammer.com/self-reflection-in-the-age-of-sigmar-brinton-williams/

[valmir]

Really nice article. But...

I have to say that i profoundly disagree with the penultimate paragraph (gw has allowed players to ruin each others' game, and why that's a good thing).

This is still a game that has, notionally, a winner. And as such, to create a ruleset that permits the two model insta-win is actually an abdication of responsibility. You can't always whitewash "making a shitty game" with the excuse of "empowering players to find their own style".

My opinion on aos is still undecided. I think it may become a really interesting game once it is complete (i.e. the factions are out), but at the moment it seems pretty stupid,  mainly because i think the bridging warscrolls for existing armies are mostly pretty stupid.

The article is pretty idealistic. I can see how what it is saying might be true, but honestly it's too soon to tell. I'm waiting to see how the "real" factions work.

[wissenlander]

Gav Thorpe sighting in the comment section.

[Baron von Klatz]

Haha, I saw that too.

[Dosiere]

So how is tailoring your army based on your opponent different than saying their should be some army building mechanisms?  There has been this weird thing going on where anyone who wants a fair game is labeled a WAAC player, I don't see this article being any different. It's true that the more extreme are indeed WAAC players who can't even fathom playing this game, but most of us do just want to have fun playing Warhammer but don't really see the point in playing games that are almost impossible to make fair. 

Most have said " it's fun since you can take whatever you want, it's not about winning or losing anymore."  Fair enough I guess, if that's the game you want to play.

This article is basically saying something profoundly different -  " now there are no more balancing mechanisms that weren't really balanced anyway, so now it's up to you to place the right models on the table to ensure your opponent has fun,"  which is such a grey area it's laughable.  He's right about the imperfect balance, but he also assumes every single player was intentionally taking advantage of it in the first place.  In the tournament scene what he is saying is true, but honestly most gamers don't play pick up games to mercilessly crush every opponent.   If that's true, what's stopping people from doing even worse here?

You'll notice in many battle reports floating around that players have often tried to put roughly even forces on the table but most games turn into one side dominating the entire game, due to ignorance of how units will perform and the seemingly intentional imbalanced built into the game.

This guy has some good points, but I think GW needs to give this game some direction in a hurry before people give up on it. 

[Dosiere]

I also want to say that part of the problem is that AoS is not meant to recreate WFB battles with different rules.  GW made a mistake encouraging players to try this with the Warscrolls rules they released.  AoS is great in small, scenario driven  skirmish games.  It kind of sucks in big pitched battles, and no amount of player goodwill is going to change that. Watching players play the game out of starter set is profoundly different from watching two players trying to play WFB with AoS rules.  I don't understand why articles aren't focusing on the different game types this new game was meant for rather than continuing to focus on this debate of balance.

[knightofthelance]

The article makes some major assumptions about those who aren't thrilled about this game. Basically if it fit your own bias you love it. I'm kind of apathetic about it. It's good for what it's good at, I'm just not sure that's much. I did find the article rather sanctimonious however.

But, it did lead to this absolute gem:

Was going to comment something similar, but hey, when Gav Thorpe tells you you’re wrong about Warhammer, son, you’re wrong about Warhammer.

Personally I think Gav Thorpe is part of what's wrong with warhammer....

[iatroblast]

Excellent article on Age of Sigmar

[Sajek]

This is a well written article and has some insight i'll give it that but I still detest Age of Sigmar.

[Baron von Klatz]

Nice pic, Iatroblast!

[StealthKnightSteg]

short review by wayland here

http://www.waylandgames.co.uk/blog/72-age-of-sigmar-inside-the-box

[wilsonthenarc]

The article doesn't take the POV of a dude with a wife and kids and job and house who maybe can't play casually every day or every weekend. Some folks go to tourneys to have fun, but MOSTLY cause they are guaranteed to get 5 (or 6) games in over 2 days.  It's efficiently using your available time, and a tournament structure is required for that to be an option. A tournament structure requires an at-least-semi-competitive structure whereby each attendee brings an equal sized force. I think.  How would anyone run an AoS Tourney???

[Ludwig von Blucher]

Personally I think Gav Thorpe is part of what's wrong with warhammer....

In what way?

[mr chumley warner]

So it says the rules are condensed into 4 pages,

arggg

another reason I wont be going any where near this

[iatroblast]

Nice pic, Iatroblast!

300 posts more than 70% spam 

[Baron von Klatz]

Hahaha! I didn't realise that connection. Epicly done good sir!

[Warlord]

The article raises interesting points, but I disagree with some of the assumptions.

I think GW were successful because they made a competitive game. Removing that will mean people will find another game to play.

The problem has always been balance. But that is because
1 - they don't playtest.
2 - they don't have an actual points system - they just try and guess.
Now they don't need to do either of those things, because they are clearly removing the competitive element.

They will be removing the brand loyalty though IMO.

[shavixmir]

http://www.corehammer.com/self-reflection-in-the-age-of-sigmar-brinton-williams/

I've played one game and I've watched one game.
Initially I thought it was going to be horrendous. Now, I'm really not sure.

Take a step back, is what I say.
Take the lord of change (or the model which can disappear and auto-win the game). So broken it's laughable.
Who's going to use it?
Say you have a tournament... And you use it and win your first prize. Are you really going to feel like a winner?

See?
Now, I really don't know if the concept can work. But, something deep in me (the human resource management part of me... As HR's was initially introduced; ie placing responsibility as far down the work ladder as possible) does like the idea of placing the responsibility of game balance with the players.

Why do the thinking for us?
And in this, I have to admit it's a balsy choice.

So, instead of whining like a little brat (which I'm actually quite good at), I've decided to reserve judgement, play it a bit and see how it pans out. Who knows? Maybe giving players room can lead to something genuinly epic?

Edit: what I should add is that I am by no means a GW fanboy. Half the models I use are not GW and I've never cared for any of their fluff.

[shavixmir]

Another thing I find quite amusing is everybody trying to agree a game balance, instead of letting go and seeing what happens.
So far as I can tell, you can’t have one player using 20 scrolls and the other using only 7. You have to take turns placing a scroll, so if your opponent plays a last one, you can only place one more.

People bitching about the auto-win scrolls. Why?
If you use an auto-win scroll, so can I. So, then we’ve got exactly 50% chance of winning. Whoever gets the first turn, wins. Perfect game balance. Isn’t it?
Perhaps perfect game balance isn’t really what everyone wants, then?

The reason you won’t use them is exactly because I could use them too.
Now, don’t get me wrong, I don’t think this nuclear threat thing is the best way of balancing humanity… but we’ve not had a nuclear WW3 yet…

Maybe the game designers are Taoists.

[Krokz]

I don't agree with the article because it doesn't see the competitive element of AoS. Which is has more than Fantasy.

Maybe the game designers are Taoists.

More like Trolls.

At least how I see these 8th Warscrolls. Trolling the community.

[Fidelis von Sigmaringen]

So far as I can tell, you can’t have one player using 20 scrolls and the other using only 7. You have to take turns placing a scroll, so if your opponent plays a last one, you can only place one more.

Actually, the rules specify that the "opposing player can continue to set up units."

[StealthKnightSteg]

So far as I can tell, you can’t have one player using 20 scrolls and the other using only 7. You have to take turns placing a scroll, so if your opponent plays a last one, you can only place one more.

Actually, the rules specify that the "opposing player can continue to set up units."

Indeed and within this there is the social aspect and the responsibility by the player(s) to keep the game fun for both.
If you keep dropping down units the game will become less and less fun for your opponent.
Only do this to keep a certain balance in the game. What this balance really is can only be found by testing it out.

[Xathrodox86]

Personally I think Gav Thorpe is part of what's wrong with warhammer....

In what way?

"Let no good deed go unpunished! Let no evil deed go unrewarded!"

Actual quote from Codex: Chaos Space Marines penned by Gav Thorpe.

[Mathi Alfblut]

Yet another article wanting to driver a wedge between the imaginary block of Casual players and Competitive gamers.

I am as Casual as you come! I focus on background and stories and making armies that match the specific background. But I would be nothing short of a traitor towards my characters and regiments if I did not try to win the battle but sacrificed them for a whim.

There would be better games if people took their "toy soldiers" more seriously, not less!

[iatroblast]

...
Indeed and within this there is the social aspect and the responsibility by the player(s) to keep the game fun for both.
If you keep dropping down units the game will become less and less fun for your opponent.
Only do this to keep a certain balance in the game. What this balance really is can only be found by testing it out.

Until new factions come out, i can only suspect from the starter box that we could expect more balanced units in AoS than Fantasy. Probably variety on strategies will not be a big part of the game (like: it's ok i don't have great stats i play with huge units). By that i mean, that i suspect we won't see the huge gaps in statistics we are familiar with between different type of infantries, i.e. chaos chosen vs zombies. So maybe a unit will have better armor, another better strength, and as such will be more balanced