GH2017: the honeymoon is over

[Rubencm81]

Communities becoming extreme using lists is part of the human nature when playing any wargame.

 

We all want to win. First game, you lose against a hard list, and you enjoy. Second and third, you enjoy again. At the forth , you start searching combos on the internet to counter that list, because it is not funny losing always.

 

Yes, you can stop playing with that person. But when your community or your time is limited or your colleagues play tournament lists, you can only join or leave .

[Lousy Beatnik]

I seem to remember getting in trouble with good ol' Warseer (and I mean it, it was once good) for asking if we could just have one sticky thread for updates on someone's game group when the same point was being brought up in every single thread...

Spiky Norman's reminder that the group was intentionally different is interesting. I'm sure people could cry about echo chambers, but for me a place to talk about a hobby I enjoy should sound a little echo-y and chamber-y.

Back to the honeymoon, I'm not bothered either way. I'd be happy with way less fanfare for the next one, and just focus on campaign books and miniatures.

[SuperHappyTime]

6 hours ago, Spiky Norman said:

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.

You were there on Warseer, you remember the drama. Hell you were one of the only Pro-AoS people there.

From what my shoddy memory remembers, TGA was literally created so people who enjoyed playing AoS could come talk about AoS without having to compete with the negative criticism. The game deserved legitimate criticism back then (two years ago). It wasn't good was a complete departure from the old game, there were rules that were oddly worded or cheap and drew a reaction that was not serious, and didn't contain a official balancing mechanism for the game, so it  relied too heavily on your opponent not being a That Guy. Most people gave their criticism, and left (usually to either play WFB 8th Ed, The 9th Age, KoW, or find a new game). A few people went full SJW/Gamergate. They wouldn't move on, and every serious thread about AoS usually devolved into the Pro/Anti debate.

So Ben made TGA, literally for the reason I said above. Looking back this might be the strangest moment ever considering the context. While the internet is dark and full of Trolls, usually trying to egg the opposition side into moral outrage, the negative people stayed off TGA (or showed up and were properly deleted/banned). They're back because the game got better though.

History lesson over. Time to get back to what I keep telling all of you idiots: Get down off the Cross, we need the wood.

Negative Nancys: Your opinions have been noted, but they are just opinions. Do the legwork and back them up with facts (like showing tournament results that Gunlines are Winning Every Tournament). Or educate yourself on certain positions (GW is a corporation, a group of people that have come together to try and make money. They are allowed to change the Competitive Meta on a Yearly Basis to make said money).

Positive Pattys: Y'all need a serious Peptalk. Why are you letting the Nancys get to you? Better yet, why aren't you countering in argument? Unlike the Grim Old Days of two years ago, AoS (and GW) have made positive changes and need to be encouraged to continue. Stop having PTSD from the initial release and defend your game.

Okay, getting off my soapbox again.

[BunkhouseBuster]

14 hours ago, heywoah_twitch said:

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

I'm fine with "whatever" in the case of Age of Sigmar (and many other aspects of life), since it's not worth fretting about in the grand scheme of things.  At least, so long as the game doesn't get a massive overhaul.  I just don't have the time to learn a new game anymore.  If it's not AoS or quick board games, I literally cannot spare the time to try them out anymore.

I'm not fine with "whatever" for most other wargames due to levels of cheese, shenanigans, hostile personalities, or offensive body odor.  Usually the hostile personalities and body odor are what bother me the most, and I avoid those players specifically.  Luckily, they don't play AoS in my area

5 hours ago, Rubencm81 said:

We all want to win.

Nope, not all of us do.  I may play to the objective of the game to achieve victory in the in-game scenario, but I am more than willing to throw the game and help the other person out at any point.  I'm here just for the experience of playing the game itself.  I like seeing different armies facing each other on a table with cool scenery.  I like the strategic component of trying to figure out what would work better for my army in a give situation.  I like to paint my army in custom colors that others can enjoy.  I really enjoy coming up with my own stories and Narratives as to how my army fits into the Mortal Realms.  I have won more games of AoS than I have lost, including the games I've thrown, and I sometimes feel bad about that, because to social aspect of miniature wargaming is the most significant; if my opponent isn't having fun, then I am doing something wrong.  (So far, so good )

I see where you are coming from, but try to avoid broad, oversized generalizations like that. 

[Lousy Beatnik]

As someone who loathed AoS at release, made fun of it but now more recently came to enjoy it, but now prefer the game closer to how it was at release (Grim Old Days...) and not two and a half years later... 

Where the hell do I fit in? 

[BunkhouseBuster]

1 minute ago, Lousy Beatnik said:

As someone who loathed AoS at release, made fun of it but now more recently came to enjoy it, but now prefer the game closer to how it was at release (Grim Old Days...) and not two and a half years later... 

Where the hell do I fit in? 

I'm not sure, but let me know when you figure it out.  I belong there right next to you!

[Ollie Grimwood]

Im fine with the way AoS is because I like AoS.  There's lots of wargames out there AoS is the one I've chooses because I like it. 

[GammaMage]

So been playing Age of Sigmar for a year now, and GHB2017 has made my Darkling Covens army feel like an actual army. I mentioned this on the Darkling Coven thread, but most people don't read that so: GHB2017 has fixed almost all of the problems with the army. We now have command abilities, have access to traits and artifacts that actually help the casters who are our hero units, can mitigate battleshock, and our battle trait lets our little battlelines keep their 20+ model unit bonuses even if they get pinged with magic or ranged attacks. I feel like I can take on some of the 'better' armies and have a decent chance of winning. Not super-competitive tournament winning lists, but most people here don't do that sort of thing.

So, IMO GHB2017 has been the best thing ever for Age of Sigmar. It's not just me either - the local Ironjaws player is having a lot of fun, and the guy with Seraphon is gleefully teleporting his carnosaur across the battlefield. This honeymoon is not ending anytime soon.

[Screamer]

I think GH2017 is pretty good, actually. Not as big change as GH2016 (omitting balance in AoS from the start was really sloppy by GW), but I like the fact they actually change points and alter the balance. It keeps my mojo up!

Most significant changes are not in the points though, but in the battleplans and items/traits. I think they dropped the nerf-bat pretty acurate on destructo-move and battlebrew.

And increase the incentive to take units over heroes and non-monster heroes over monster.

All in all still positive! GW missed some things, but hopefully they can fix it next year! 

[Captain Marius]

Ive finally been encouraged to crack on with rebasing my old wfb ogres and empire into shiny new gutbuster and freeguild forces - combined with the city design stuff they released im more inspired than ive been for ages!

[Screwface]

On 28/09/2017 at 12:35 PM, Auticus said:

They are.  That doesn't mean that I don't create campaigns that use them.  That means that when I create campaigns that use them I get a handful of people jumping up and down in rage every time.

Is your group really the way you constantly portray them, or are you exaggerating for effect? I mean, I don't know any of them personally of course, but your posts make them seem like the most horrendous bunch of people to be around. 

[WoollyMammoth]

@Arkiham
Personally I think that shooting should be more limited. This would create more options for tactics during a game. Instead they added more points to shooting units, and nerfed others. I don't think both should be the case - if they added the rule now it would basically make most of the shooting units useless, which would be a mistake. There are also a lot of special rules and circumstances which would get weird if they simply made it so shooting units cannot shoot if charged. I think they should make a simple compromise, like -1 to hit with shooting attacks if there are enemy models within 1". 

 @SuperHappyTime
Negativity in the form of constructive criticism is beneficial. Much of the GH2017 was updated as a result of this. It's important for people to list their criticisms and get feedback, toss ideas around and debate topics. Important criticisms make their way to the developers and the FAQ writers. The point of this post was to say, hey the GH did a lot of important things, but it just didn't do enough. 

----

I'm going to continue to be negative, and as a Death player I have earned the right to be. The new allegiance stuff only adds new rules to their underdeveloped armies that only need one thing: more models. They keep patting themselves on the back and making jokes - saying that they are finally giving attention to death; in reality the GH:2017 was more of another set of death nerfs than anything else. They did a good job with the balance and the new battleplans but it moves death about 5% closer to par. If they don't want to release any new models they could at least turn it into one synergistic army instead of leaving it as a group of fractured non-armies. FEC has a few lists and is the only thing that can be considered a real army, but it still has a lot of kinks in it. I'm already over the new GH because as a Death player, its just another disappointment in a long line.

[Killax]

Every gamer also has it's own goals, hobby values and local norms. I think that GH2017 never really changes anything of that but also on purpose as the game still has to continue to grow and we too see (and get confirmation by its creators) that there is still a lot to be done with Age of Sigmar. However to me this is a good thing. Having played Warhammer Fantasy the most from 5th to 7th edition I saw a finished game. Barely having changes between those editions felt okay but ultimately also eventually "boring" to the point where I indeed started playing other miniature games. 

@WoollyMammoth I am a firm believer that any opinion can be expressed. However I also believe that just negative reactions don't archieve anything either. I feel that indeed as a Death player a lot of attention seems to be lacking but also feel this is true for non-Stormcast Order. The thing we see here is that Age of Sigmar now is 3 years in. That's not a long period of time to have fleshed out "everything". Death's time should come and likely will but we also see that Age of Sigmar also has to continue to make some room for 40.000 and other games such as Shadespire so I'm not bothered too much with it. If you lost games due to lacking specific pieces the blame is also not on you. I am certain that designers can make up many more Warscrolls but models need to be produced too so despite us logically wanting it, Games Workshop doesn't solely focus on Age of Sigmar.

GW will continue to produce models but not always for the faction you or I want it for. I am personally very happy with the social and jovial approach because there is one simple thing Age of Sigmar learned me and that's that fun is the most important thing. Winning games can be fun, winning so many games that nobody likes playing against you isn't  

The social and jovial approach could even be considered "gamers etiquette" so I see where @Ben is comming from with his comments. When we talk online it's easy to say "MAN THIS IS ******" but if you would thake that same approach in real life gaming I really doubt your adding anything to the playing experience. E.g. even if your opponent doesn't have a really well painted army, there is no added value in pointing it out to him or her, some have to work with the skills they have available. This too applies for armies. Some have fewer choices, this indeed makes them less tactically varried and often means that they have some sort of minor handicap in gaming, but winning or losing doesn't really matter, it's the time you spend playing that should be enjoyable, because that's the time your litterly spending. The win or loss is decided in only a fraction of minutes. Gamers etiquette works because it keeps the time spend enjoyable. Being positive creates good times, being negative creates nothing. 

Cheers,

[WoollyMammoth]

@Killax 
Its only been 26 months of AoS. I often point out death has been neglected for 3 years because it was Nov 2014 when Nagash came out. On the 3 year anniversary of the end times death releases, the new Shadespire skeletons come out, making it officially 3 years between death models. 

Order has the most attention of any grand alliance. They have 4 entire new armies in the last two years, to deaths 0. They have 9 allegiances, to deaths 3. Of all the old WHFB armies, really only High/Dark elves took a hit with broken up armies, so that is 2 to deaths 6. Even if you feel your particular faction is being ignored, you have the largest grand alliance to bring allies or play a generic order list and add all kinds of awesome new models. 

It's not an issue with winning games, you can still win games with death lists. But its not about winning games, its about having the models, allies, battalions and rules that everyone else is up to par on.

[Arkiham]

12 hours ago, WoollyMammoth said:

@Killax 
Its only been 26 months of AoS. I often point out death has been neglected for 3 years because it was Nov 2014 when Nagash came out. On the 3 year anniversary of the end times death releases, the new Shadespire skeletons come out, making it officially 3 years between death models. 

Order has the most attention of any grand alliance. They have 4 entire new armies in the last two years, to deaths 0. They have 9 allegiances, to deaths 3. Of all the old WHFB armies, really only High/Dark elves took a hit with broken up armies, so that is 2 to deaths 6. Even if you feel your particular faction is being ignored, you have the largest grand alliance to bring allies or play a generic order list and add all kinds of awesome new models. 

It's not an issue with winning games, you can still win games with death lists. But its not about winning games, its about having the models, allies, battalions and rules that everyone else is up to par on.

have you ever considered that the releases may be structured in a certain way for a reason rather than who can complain the most? perhaps story? Aos is a new game, its not 9th edition its a new game.

when WHFB and 40k launched they released models based on story and the progression of that story, aos is being done the same. randomly released a death army simply as a few noisy people demand it makes no sense and will kill the story. 

they done a global campaign last year and they said that the story will be influenced by this, and they did. order won, built cities began to repopulate the realms, shoving out a death army annihilating the populates of these cities will kill any momentum gained, allow chaos to retake the realms and end the story before it even starts... 

plenty of stuff hasnt had any new releases for years, stop making death out to be the only victim as its not, and stuff will get done when games workshop feels its right for it to be done.  

[Keldaur]

Pretty sure that even if he thinks about it, he would still feel neglected. And rightfully imo. It's not like you can't throw a bone (pun intended) to death players from time to time.

In my opinion, death has the same problem as elfs, they created a major Issue by dividing it in a lot of factions from the get go and forget that a lot of the player's fun comes with customization and army options. It is not the same to choose khorne or stormcast, and then look to nighthaunt or phoenix order and not get a feeling of left out, or only being able to have a small part of the fun others are having with their books and models.

[Captain Marius]

44 minutes ago, Keldaur said:

Pretty sure that even if he thinks about it, he would still feel neglected. And rightfully imo. It's not like you can't throw a bone (pun intended) to death players from time to time.

In my opinion, death has the same problem as elfs, they created a major clusterfuck by dividing it in a lot of factions from the get go and forget that a lot of the player's fun comes with customization and army options. It is not the same to choose khorne or stormcast, and then look to nighthaunt or phoenix order and not get a feeling of left out, or only being able to have a small part of the fun others are having with their books and models.

This does beg the age old question, why not pick another army for a bit. If a player actively wants to buy new models then the only thing stopping them is their own restrictions. 

I don't agree with the very concept of a "Death player", certainly not in the context of being an exclusive member of one of 4 equal groups. We're all just AoS players, we're not entitled to anything purely because of whichever factions we've chosen. 

Im enjoying AoS more than ever before, by flitting from faction to faction, adding new models and rebasing old ones, regardless of faction, thanks to the freedom GW has provided by breaking the old factions down. I really recommend this approach as its pretty much cured me of that same old tendency to bemoan the lack of releases for my old favoured factions.

[Thebiggesthat]

16 minutes ago, Captain Marius said:

This does beg the age old question, why not pick another army for a bit. If a player actively wants to buy new models then the only thing stopping them is their own restrictions. 

Not really the case for everyone, especially those on a limited budget. Buying new models to supplement an army is easier than buying a new faction. 

[Captain Marius]

Just now, Thebiggesthat said:

Not really the case for everyone, especially those on a limited budget. Buying new models to supplement an army is easier than buying a new faction. 

If on a limited budget (i know that feeling!) I would recommend picking a range like Order or Chaos with the most models to choose from. Again i believe the only restrictions here are self imposed.

[Keldaur]

Well, because their personal preferences make them feel as only death player? or even if they still continue by collecting other armies they want to come back their main "faction". We don't need to discuss why people put their allegiance into one faction, when we know people just do it.

I mean, if you only valued miniatures i would understand your argument, but it is the combination of miniatures, lore and rules what will define your army preferences, not the newest released model for you to collect. 

And obviously they are self-imposed, but they are not unreasonable. If sylvaneth or khorne didn't exist i would not play this game. Yes i choose not to play it, but the reason is because i don't dig the other factions as much to get into.the game.

Edit - and yeah, being on a budget is not neccesarily self-imposed.

[Thebiggesthat]

You are missing the point. On a limited budget, players don't want to have to start again. It's not self imposed at all! For removal of doubt, I'll use figures. A player has 30 quid a month to spend. He would like to pick up a character or unit a month to add to the army he uses. He could use that money for another army, But you are looking at half a year to get anything approaching normal usable points (2000 is a fair benchmark)

[Thebiggesthat]

1 hour ago, Keldaur said:

Pretty sure that even if he thinks about it, he would still feel neglected. And rightfully imo. It's not like you can't throw a bone (pun intended) to death players from time to time.

In my opinion, death has the same problem as elfs, they created a major Issue by dividing it in a lot of factions from the get go and forget that a lot of the player's fun comes with customization and army options. It is not the same to choose khorne or stormcast, and then look to nighthaunt or phoenix order and not get a feeling of left out, or only being able to have a small part of the fun others are having with their books and models.

Nail firmly smashed on the head here.

If you look at the way the Khorne, and Tzeench were done, you could have split those books up 2 or three times. But it lessens the experience to not have that pool of different stuff to pick from. GW realised this when they tried to split up SCE into two books. 

The reason to divide up the compendium stuff was simple. Divide and conquer. But valid Death stuff? No ideal why it was done.

Still, back to General's Handbook!

I would have loved some different battleplans, and not what we have (rehashed GHB1 in some cases). Was hoping for a genuine pool of 12 to choose from. 

[Killax]

The thing with a new game however remains that GW could have chosen to drop all non-AoS specific content and start from scratch, yet they didn't and Im actually happy how much they tried to implement and bend into Age of Sigmar aswell.

As before I do get the note, I too think that the wait is long in terms of models for Death. Now Death most certainly recieved releases in the past 3 years however, multiple books, multiple great set-deals but indeed nothing of it is specifically new. Thinking GW hates Death however makes little to no sence. This is what Death since Age of Sigmar recieved:
- Grand Allegiance Death book
- Flesh-Eater Courts book
- Start Collecting Flesh-Eaters box
- Start Collecting Malignants box
- Start Collecting Skeleton Horde box
- Flesh-Eater Courts Nightfeast hunters Skirmish box
- Deathrattle Barrow Lords Skirmish box
- Nighthaunt Tormented Spirits Skirmish box

A fact remains though and that's something will always be least in terms of releases and such, in this case it's Death. At the same time we also see that Games Workshop indeed has a release planned for Shadespire's "Death" factions and not too long ago we recieved a small spoiler that more is to come. If GW really hated or not cared for Death at all they could have skipped on these combo Deals, they could have skipped on Grand Allegiance Death altogether for Age of Sigmar (and shoved them under Destruction) or like Tomb Kings could have retracted the whole line...

Patientce is a virtue. I could make a point on what many factions are lacking but the prime reason why it wouldn't really lead to anything is because we don't know what GW is working on right now behind the screens and honestly don't need to know this either. I personally think that AoS since GH2017 is in a better place as it was with GH2016. Things are not prefect but there is no reason to think GW specifically aims to create the perfect game with AoS. Their aim remains to have a jovial and social game with great miniatures and despite the Death line being somewhat older (not even old mind you) they mostly still are fantastic models.

In any case if you can't wait for it and feel like GW is doing you a disservice feel free to explore into other games aswell. PP's Warmachine Cryx (Undead) is curbstomping as we speak... 

[BunkhouseBuster]

51 minutes ago, Thebiggesthat said:

You are missing the point. On a limited budget, players don't want to have to start again. It's not self imposed at all! For removal of doubt, I'll use figures. A player has 30 quid a month to spend. He would like to pick up a character or unit a month to add to the army he uses. He could use that money for another army, But you are looking at half a year to get anything approaching normal usable points (2000 is a fair benchmark)

Quoted For Truth!  Staying within a budget it very tricky, especially when you have kids and pets and car maintenance that come up.  I missed out on the Coalescence 2016 due to car problems, and my step-daughter just broke a finger in her hand.  My hobby time and budget go out the window when stuff like that come up, so I pretty much stick to my main army anymore.  I have smatterings of other armies to paint up if I even get tired of my Ironjawz.  Anymore when I look at possibly getting into a new army, I look at the points-to-dollar ratio to get a rough idea of how much the army will cost long term.

36 minutes ago, Auticus said:

If you go through my lower floor in my house, it is full of about twelve different armies in display cases.  All of which at one time were top dog of the tournament meta at a given time.

One day I got tired of having to buy a new army every year and paint it, and discovered that my burn out was partially due to not wanting to play armies I had no emotional attachment to.

That was me with Warmahordes.  I either had to pick an army I liked and lose >90% of my games, or pick an army I didn't like and then have a *chance* at winning.  And then when the edition changed, the armies I was playing/interested in playing all got flipped around in power level.  Nope!  Not doing that again!  Give me fun and goofy and simple any day!  Waaagh!

 

[Spiky Norman]

I think most players would like to see an update to the many different (sub)factions that haven't been fleshed out yet, but GWs release schedule should not "earn" anyone the right to be exempt from the rules of the forum or behave any differently/be less constructive than what is expected of everyone else here.