GH2017: the honeymoon is over

[Infeston]

29 minutes ago, Auticus said:

I don't think you can have both competitive and casual at the same time.

I'd like for everything in the game to be viable.  I don't like when things are several notches over everything else in efficiency and power.  Because then thats all you'll see.  

I can understand and empathize with the angst.  If you're a tourney gamer then this sucks for you because now you can't tourney gamer properly with that force, and I agree.  You really can't compete against the tourney bustedness now.  But thats a sign that the tourney bustedness needs to also come down a couple notches.

I guarantee that that force is still pretty scary in a narrative campaign context where everyone isn't doing their best to break the game.

I am more of a narrative gamer and I love playing narrative games. The problem for me is that you don't always find people to play narrative games, because they don't seem fair to many people. It's like matched play dictates how all other modes should be played for the mayority of players. 

That was something I feared, when they introduced points to AoS. Because this would give people a reason to point at an official points system  and praise it like a god instead of discussing and balancing  the game and talk to each other face-to-face about what is fair and what is not fair, like we do at the very moment. I liked AoS  more when it was much more open and narrative focussed. 

But I think from a narrative focus the ability of the Stonehorn does even make lesser sense. The Stonehorn is supposed to have a Stone Skeleton. The bones of the Stonehorn literally consist of stone. Even though Myzrael said that you could justify this by claiming multiple units seeking for weak spots I don't think it should be that easy to break through bones which are literally stone. But on ther other hand there also other rules which make no sense from a lore perspective. 

[WoollyMammoth]

On 9/24/2017 at 1:53 PM, Arkiham said:

Have you ever considered that if you're struggling to get people to attend your events with your house rules implemented, that maybe people just dont want to do them in your area? and by making them " official/unofficial but mentioned"  is just forcing something onto people they do not want? so may end up not playing all together if this happens.

dont get me wrong, i want to see people playing and expansion and your events be successful, but you cant force people to willingly participate in something if they dont want to. 

Depends on the rule. If you want to do something like, units in combat cannot shoot or be shot at - then sure - people who don't play shooting lists will show up. The community is going strong enough in a lot of places that, maybe that's okay. But generally, fantasy players are used to knowing not to rock the very fragile boat that they are in, and to stick to the rules as written if they want to host events.

If you change the foundation of the game, you are making it a different game. Therefore playing the game has no value for people who are trying to practice and improve at the game to win tournaments. For this reason you are turning a lot of the player base away by making up house rules. If you want to make up house rules, you should be doing a narrative campaign, not a tournament.

Pre GH2016, you could play the game in all different ways with house rules. As a result the community was fractured and disorganized. Everyone was playing some different kind of house rules (or quitting to play 9th age). Everyone was hoping their rules were going to become the standard. Creating one core set of rules everyone can play brought everyone back together and launched us into a new golden age for the hobby. Nobody wants to ruin that by splitting up the game into multiple house rules again. Even if your house rules are good and fun, its not worth it.

12 hours ago, Infeston said:

And now Stonehorns have to die through massive shots against simple base units?  It doesn't even fit their theme!

its actually changed back to the same rule that it was in WHFB. It fits their theme perfectly, their skeleton prevents them from taking a massive blow that would take a chunk out of them, but like anything else, 1000 cuts will bring it down. I have been waiting for this since launch, finally it is implemented. I think the rule was 100% appropriate, but their points are a little high now.
----
SCGT works with GW to a certain extent. Pretty much all of their 'house rules' are now implemented into the game in one way or another. All of the changes that I have recommended (despite a lot of the community hating the proposition) are now in the game. My only major issue that has not been addressed is friggin Damned Terrain, or specifically, someone abusing two of them to get +2 to hit. Its not a big deal anymore with a lack of options to charge first turn though.

My attitude towards the new GH is very biased based on the fact that it is nowhere near enough for Death players. At this point they seriously need to move into the Age of Nagash and have a few years of new death armies to make up for the total crapfest death has had to deal with in the entire AoS. 

That being said, I'm trying to stay as positive as I can be. I'm trying to get some mojo back by doing Armies on Parade for my death models. I'm still playing at least one game a week but I'm not overly excited about it.  



 

[Siorra]

3 hours ago, WoollyMammoth said:

My attitude towards the new GH is very biased based on the fact that it is nowhere near enough for Death players. At this point they seriously need to move into the Age of Nagash and have a few years of new death armies to make up for the total crapfest death has had to deal with in the entire AoS. 

If the next few releases aren't Death, Nurgle and Aelves then I dread the wrath of keyboard warriors threatening to quit the game. They all need some love and new models, and it's starting to feel very overdue. And if we're still syaing this at the end of next year then it really will be overdue.

[Sheriff]

Spiderfang is next. I can feel it! Doesn't even need new models!

[kozokus]

4 hours ago, WoollyMammoth said:

I think the rule was 100% appropriate, but their points are a little high now.

Pretty much. I don't want to spend almost 500 points in a 12 wound model. Sirius Lee, LoC are far better bargain that FL on TT and at least Bloodthirsters wounds on 2+and are half price.

[Nico]

It seems you would add up the mortal wounds from all the Bloodletters and then halve (there's no damage characteristic for mortal wounds and this is still one Ability that is causing X number of mortal wounds - notwithstanding that X is calculated by rolling a bunch of dice).

[Lousy Beatnik]

Terrain seems to do plenty on my table, and it's one of the things I like about AoS. Simple movement rules encourage it (just as the rulebooks and WD do).

Movement is slowed by measuring vertically, pieces with special rules often worth fighting for, or at least having your mage charge towards.

Tons of cover, with all terrain providing cover if in/on, walls and fences, easy building garrison rules.

Admittedly, none of this is changed by the '17 GH, which I found kind of disappointing! 

honeymoon is kind of over for me. I don't find the endless batallions, artifacts and so on add that much for me. I'd rather they focused on background and new units altogether at least we'd hear less about how little Death gets...

[Sheriff]

My issue with terrain is that its not intuitive or immersive. Standing near some rocks in plain sight should not make you less likely to be hit with a bullet. Likewise if 10% of your gunners can view one of my spider's feet but nothing else, how can the whole unit shoot me in the face? 

I like Necromunda for terrain rules. It makes sense. 

[RuneBrush]

1 hour ago, Sheriff said:

My issue with terrain is that its not intuitive or immersive. Standing near some rocks in plain sight should not make you less likely to be hit with a bullet. Likewise if 10% of your gunners can view one of my spider's feet but nothing else, how can the whole unit shoot me in the face? 

I like Necromunda for terrain rules. It makes sense. 

They can't, if the spider is only visible to 10% of a unit only 10% of that unit can shoot.

Agree on Necromunda terrain rules though, I think ease of play has won out since those were around.

[Sheriff]

5 minutes ago, RuneBrush said:

They can't, if the spider is only visible to 10% of a unit only 10% of that unit can shoot.

I see. I should write this down. 

[OldMilk]

I would like to see some modular rules packs. Following the model that WotC had intended and in part delivered for 5th edition D&D.

Whether they appear in separate books or in a GHB I wouldn't care. What they would do is change, probably by adding a small amount of complexity a certain aspect of the game. Detail the balance ramifications in other aspects of the game, which units or armies will be benefited/  handicapped etc and how to re-balance that in turn. You agree with your opponent to pick and choose the rules modules as desired. They would have to come under open/ narrative  play but with info there to balance for use in matched play. with tourney organisers choosing which modules to use to match the feel they want. 

For Examples a Terrain & Shooting pack (made no attempt to balance this just a suggestion)

1) Modify how terrain affects line of sight

2) Changes to cover rules or more specific terrain rules.

Each balanced by just telling us how much more or less scenery to use in response .

3) Remove shooting into combat and/ or units in combat can only shoot units they are engaged with.

Balanced by a blanket points reduction for every unit which has shooting attacks. 

It would also be a nice way to release more battle plans that could perhaps be a means showcase rules alterations. 

Battleplan

Rules modules applied

etc etc...

Shooting and cover are definitely some of the more abstracted parts of the game that people take issue with so came to mind immediately but off the top of my head modules for bravery and experience/ leveling mechanics for narrative play also come to mind. 

 

[BunkhouseBuster]

6 minutes ago, OldMilk said:

I would like to see some modular rules packs. Following the model that WotC had intended and in part delivered for 5th edition D&D.

Whether they appear in separate books or in a GHB I wouldn't care. What they would do is change, probably by adding a small amount of complexity a certain aspect of the game. Detail the balance ramifications in other aspects of the game, which units or armies will be benefited/  handicapped etc and how to re-balance that in turn. You agree with your opponent to pick and choose the rules modules as desired. They would have to come under open/ narrative  play but with info there to balance for use in matched play. with tourney organisers choosing which modules to use to match the feel they want.

And as abstracted as the game is, it could easily happen.  The Open, Matched, and Narrative Play sections of the GH are pretty much this already, as is Path to Glory and Skirmish.

Heck, I'd even be willing to try out fan-made projects on these sorts of modular add ons.  I barely have time to get games in anymore, and I definitely don't have the money to just keep grabbing different armies all the time anymore.  Anything I can use to increase the replayability of my armies is a good thing!

[Tidings]

3 hours ago, OldMilk said:

3) Remove shooting into combat and/ or units in combat can only shoot units they are engaged with.

Balanced by a blanket points reduction for every unit which has shooting attacks. 

As much as I wish this was originally the design, because it makes more sense, this would break shooting armies beyond repair. The problem is in AoS you can move and then charge. On top of this, most ranges were knocked back 10" when AoS launched. Bows that shot 30" now shoot 20". This means that many times you aren't even able to choose a unit as a target until it's one turn from charging you. Often things go from out of range to in combat with your frontline before you even have a chance to shoot. And finally, there are so many bonus/special movement mechanics in AoS that make getting into combat a one-turn affair that the previous problems are basically guaranteed in any game. 

I don't care if archers are suddenly HALF the points they cost currently, I would still not be able to shoot stuff most of the time, making them inconsistent and unreliable. Shooting would be basically shelved, except for units that have a 30" range and can snipe characters. 

[OldMilk]

Like I say it was an example of a potential change. Not intended to be balanced. To me I think shooting only looks OP when you have one force with mass shooting vs one with non whatsoever and as you say this is now mitigated somewhat by the greater availability maneuverability abilities. But something in this same vein would be useful a tool for a small group offriendly players to help balance their own local meta without victimizing one style of play too much. 

[Ratatatata]

This has spiraled - once again - to a thread that is full of negativity and pointless cries for rule-changes that most players could not are less about. Someone should just lock it and throw away the key.

[heywoah_twitch]

Nah there's some good stuff here. The last thing we want to do is put a giant "tldr only being purely positive is allowed" lock on a thread of quite civil discussion and constructive criticism. Yes, people have gotten passionate at times, but of course! 

GHB17 feedback is necessary, both positive but even more importantly negative (while still being constructive) for GHB18 to further improve the game, and in some cases smooth over some of the rougher changes. 

Of course we disagree on many points big and small, but as an example, Auticus and his narrative and casual fun championing and me with my gripes and competitive balancing minutia can and i think have coexist quite civilly in our efforts to just let people know how we feel, and to get a decent sense of how many agree. 

[Infeston]

48 minutes ago, Ratatatata said:

This has spiraled - once again - to a thread that is full of negativity and pointless cries for rule-changes that most players could not are less about. Someone should just lock it and throw away the key.

I don't find the suggestions in this thread pointless. And just because we are criticizing some of the changes doesn't mean it is negative as long as it is constructive. I also made suggestions what could have been made better and explained why I can't agree with some of the changes. This is entirely different from just complaining "pointless cries". Also I think that a lot of players "do" care about this. 

I would call your comment negative, because you said our critique is just negativity and "pointless cries" and also to lock to this thread and throw away the key. I find your post a lot more negative than our posts. 

And just telling people to shut up doesn't contribute to a good discussion and also doesn't offer any solution.

Why shouldn't we talk about something we don't like or we don't agree with. No one in this thread is calling other people names or is insulting anyone. At least not in my point of view. We argue very rationally. 

Auticus and I also discussed about the Stonehorn changes. He finds them reasonable and I on the other hand don't agree with that.  But we talked about this in a reasonable manner and I don't think anyone gets offended, because we are having different opinions about a certain matter.

[OldMilk]

My response was not negative, just echoing the sentiments of some previous posts in what they would like to see in the future. And more as a counterpoint to the only really negative post I can see above. My desire for some extra modularity in rules is really a testament to the simplicity of the rule set and an extension of the good work they have been doing releasing content for open/ narrative play.  

Admittedly I could have chimed in with something specific and positive from the current release first. But I'm just a new player so I don't have much to weigh in on the specific balance of of all the new content

"Game Changing Again" was their goal. Goal achieved I'd say. Even its just refreshing the meta and a few bells and whistles as opposed to a huge paradigm shift or total rework of some factions some people desired. 

[Arkiham]

10 hours ago, Auticus said:

I don't think anyone can speak for what "most players want or care about".  If most people dont' want or care about rules changes then they'd bypass this thread altogether or simply not respond.  If thats the case what are we afraid of?

a noisy minority dictating the future of the game for the masses who do actually enjoy it how it currently is  simply as their house rules or the way that individual wants to play is being ignored by the small community around them as none of them want to play it that way. 

doing it how you want would add massive confusion amongst the gaming population, where there would be 4 or 5 different versions of all the same basic game, and with the rule changes your are suggesting there would have to be a secondary handbook to change basically everything.. as its a " hosue rule " it as woolly says would be terrible.  

On 26/09/2017 at 6:11 AM, WoollyMammoth said:

Pre GH2016, you could play the game in all different ways with house rules. As a result the community was fractured and disorganized. Everyone was playing some different kind of house rules (or quitting to play 9th age). Everyone was hoping their rules were going to become the standard. Creating one core set of rules everyone can play brought everyone back together and launched us into a new golden age for the hobby. Nobody wants to ruin that by splitting up the game into multiple house rules again. Even if your house rules are good and fun, its not worth it

 

if you remove shooting into combat, points will have to change, your solution.

 

14 hours ago, Auticus said:

Remove being able to move and charge.  Make it one or the other and make it happen in the movement phase.

well, what about the dozens an dozens of rules which grant you extra moves, or ones which allow you to move run and charge,  better go change 30+ warscrolls, battalions, artifacts, command traits, faction abilities....

 

every major change has massive implications, stuffing all these alternative " offical " house rules into a game wont work, you may as well make a new game. the ones mentioned in the book dont really change anything. 

[karch]

1 hour ago, Arkiham said:

 

if you remove shooting into combat, points will have to change, your solution.

Which is part of the reason why I think matched being pretty much default has been detrimental.

If you play narrative like us there's no effect. Our group has always thought shooting into combat is nonsensical and counter intuitive so we have removed with no side effect at all.

[BunkhouseBuster]

1 hour ago, Auticus said:

Except for decades there have been legions of games that have had optional rules or advanced ways to play.  And the gaming population didn't seem to suffer this massive confusion.   Its just the AOS players that would suffer this confusion.  (or really the more likely outcome is that everyone would be fine)

I seem to recall some neat little expansions for 40K back in the day.  They were called Battle Missions, Cities of Death, Planetstrike, and Apocalypse.  I'm pretty sure that other wargames throughout history have had modular, optional expansions like this

To me, this is the direction that Age of Sigmar ought to move.  More content, and more ways to play our games.  I don't have the funds to get multiple armies, so anything I can do to mix up my playstyles is awesome.

[heywoah_twitch]

That is a very important point. Widen your view from 'aos players who are fine with how it is now' to 'gamers who don't play aos, but might'.

Or did and might come back. 

Also I think 'players who are fine with how it is now' are often synonymous with 'players who are fine with whatever'.

[rokapoke]

6 hours ago, Auticus said:

I've been playing the game with no shooting into combat since day one of AOS.  Things have been more than fine without needing some mass points change.

I thought your group was against unofficial house rules?

[Arkiham]

1 hour ago, rokapoke said:

I thought your group was against unofficial house rules?

an they only ever played matched play with the official rules and built the most ultra competitive lists all the time with shooting being broken and in major need of a nerf..

[Spiky Norman]

10 hours ago, Auticus said:

The funny thing to me is the polar differences I encounter with this "radical old idea".  

On this site it gets a lot of heat and anger and calls to censor and lock the thread.

On another site I get that no one will play the game until something like this happens.

It is my understanding that the whole reason TGA was made, was to make a forum, that wasn't like the other ones out there. So yes, there is a difference, and hopefully it will continue to be different, but it will take a stronger moderation than what is exerted in other forums, or else this place will slowly turn into Dakka or worse as well. That would be a damn shame, if that happens, I think.

Also, having read your posts on Dakkadakka and TGA for a long time now, I think it's getting a little tiresome to hear about your extreme and negative local community. Even though you yourself may not share that sentiment towards wargaming in general and AoS in particular, you bring that polarising negativity in by proxy in most AoS threads you post in. Particularly because you often post in threads taking about the game in general as opposed to talking about specific army tactics or paint and such.
This is, as I would like to stress, not an attack on you personally, because you often write thoughtful posts here, but rather a plea to not become a proponent by proxy for your toxic local community. I'm sorry your community seem to be as you describe it, but I doubt anyone here can do anything to change it, that many people over many posts and several forums having pitched ideas on how to go about improving it, haven't already done.

That's just my opinion of course.