The New FAQ (23/07/2018)

[whispersofblood]

41 minutes ago, Urauloth said:

 

I don't think anyone is starting a new tabletop game to be taught life lessons about how the world isn't fair. I also don't think it's particularly reasonable to look at introducing new people with anything other than your tournament minmax list as "infantilizing", and locking yourself into that attitude is going to mean missing out on things like narrative gaming entirely. For some people narrative play is the main thrust of AoS. Is there no place for them in your gaming group? Even if you enjoy competition - and I say this as someone who enjoys min/maxing and who's taken part in tournaments in the past - treating your FLGS as nothing but a boot camp for tournaments isn't cultivating a whole or healthy scene.

Again. 2k isn't starting. If your main thrust is narrative then the result is irrelevant the journey is the point that journey starts at choosing a faction and goes through every game you will ever play. Competitiveness is a spectrum but the line is decidedly about doing everything you are willing to do. That includes, learning the rules, buying models, and yeah losing games. If losing a game to a person who is significantly more prepared than you, through, time, effort and money is that demoralising that you have to quit. Well that says more about you then it does anything else. 

[AlphaKennyThing]

Having read through the last 3-4 pages you'd think this is the most cut-throat, unfriendly game imaginable to start playing. An uphill battle of utter tablings until you 'git gud' and can get a decent credit card for your new tourney-level list you need to instantly acquire.

If someone new comes a long to my gaming club and expresses an interest in competitive play, but has about 1,000pts based around a Start Collecting box (which is very common, given they offer a great deal), I don't feel any inclination to spend the next 45 mins bending them over the table and going at them with my belt.

I'll let them know that I've scaled back my list to match theirs (as best as possible) so the game will be an even match, but that real tournament lists are very expensive and hard to play against. I'll then play the entire game explaining how competitive play differs, and the extra bits and pieces to think about, and why I'm doing what I'm doing, and suggest things they can do.

At the end of it, they can make the decision to have a go full tilt and see how they get on, and I'll be happy knowing I've imparted as much knowledge as possible and that at least for the first game they had a fighting chance, even if they never do again.

It's hard to get your head around the nuances in the game if your opponent has tabled you in Turn 2.

[Mephisto]

3 hours ago, whispersofblood said:

Do you want to learn the game or do you want to feel good about your random assortment  of models?

Yes. Aaaaaanyway...

1 hour ago, amysrevenge said:

Templates won't get the "exactly the same distance" result you need.  Templates give you "no closer than the length of the template", not "exactly the length of the template".  Again - you need explicit consent.  This consent is a normal part of the game, and is normally not an issue. 

"I'm summoning my dudes in a semicircle around your monster, I've measured it reasonably well.  Everyone is exactly juuuust outside 9" away, so we know where they are when the charge phase comes.  If a measuring mistake was made that nudges a model closer than 9 inches, that's a mistake, they are at 9 inches.  That cool?"

"I'm setting up my wizard here, I've measured it the best I can and my intent is to be juuuust inside 30" from your wizard, for unbinding purposes.  If we check it later and I'm outside 30, that means something got nudged - we'll correct it then.  That cool?"

"I'm setting this unit up so that these two guys are in close, and the rest are all at the exact same distance juuuust inside 3 inches away, so that once the two guys inside are dead you'll be exactly the same distance away from all the other guys.  That cool?"

In Magic the Gathering, a game with thousands and thousands of dollars on the line in tournament play, we call these "legal shortcuts" and they exist to make the game run smoothly. To be forced to announce every priority pass and transition between steps and phases would make games obnoxious. Both players at a certain level of competition are assumed to already know the rules to the level they're able to take these short cuts. The sort of social agreement of the game. AOS is EVEN MORE of a social game. It relies on player communication. 

What you describe, Amysrevenge, is how me and my group play AOS. We'll actually do the measuring and moving and just look at the other person and go "that's outside 9", do you agree?" This announces our intent and confirms they've acknowledged our intent AND protect against the table being bumped or models being nudged or knocked over. The fact that premeasuring is perfectly legal in AOS makes the opportunities for angle shooting much more of an outlier. If ever a judge were needed in the case of someone lying that they didn't agree, you can just reconstruct the turns and the lie (or mistake) will usually be exposed.

As competitive as my group is,  I've never had someone come back and angle shoot or lie in such a manner, mind you. I think that has to do with the fact that this is just a clean, elegant way of playing and the table size is set and units have fixed movements. And to get to this level you have to hit a certain threshold of expertise and tightness of tactics that becomes self-evident to players also on your level. I've said it before a multitude of times, "there are no secrets in Age of Sigmar." That alone is often insurance enough against a certain type of cheater. 

Bringing this back to the template and 2.9ing people. It's really pedantic. Too pedantic for me to argue that if someone took a 'legal shortcut' (to use my established parlance; not a GW rule mind you) using their template, I'd have to allow. I'd allow it by the same token of how I allow someone bringing down their skyborn slayers and saying "this is 6", right?" after they do the requisite amount of measuring. The intent is clear, and I don't think pinpoint accuracy of measuring is the rewarding part of the game. This game isn't won by the being Best At Measuring Guy.

All of that said, it is a silly and obtuse ruling. GW got it wrong. Consider 1.0 to 2.0. It was clear they wanted to make piling-in more fluid and less time consuming. "You just push your dudes in, and yeah, you can even slide around bases to make it easier." They had an opportunity to solve a simple question and keep nudging things in that way and instead created this bizarro outlier.  I mean sure, the first thing I did when I read this FAQ was send a snarky remark to my BCR player friend about how I'm going to make a template so I can do this with my skeletons. I was of course being satirical. Then I saw people on these forums exactly talking about making templates and my heart sunk. "Wait, people actually intend on doing this? Oooookay, then." **Shrugs in Shyish** I'll play around it if I must. I'd prefer not to do it myself but if that's where the game goes, even dumb rules are rules.

[BaldoBeardo]

[Enoby]

This talk about how harsh it's okay to go on a new player reminds me of a time my boyfriend and I were starting new armies. He played Moonclan and I played Slaanesh, and I managed to get his grots hitting on 6s rerolling 6s to hit. Needless to say, he wasn't having a good time, and he didn't really get to play his army - this didn't teach him much at all, besides that he didn't enjoy playing against my army. If he was a new player, he may well have gone off the idea of starting AoS. 

There's a reason videogames have easy tutorials and tutorial bosses - before you can stand up to the 'real' game, you have to be given the chance to learn. Dark Souls, a game often celebrated for not infantisizing its audience, does this to great effect.

 

Surely, if you wanted a new player to learn their army, letting their units do what they were meant to do for their first few games is a good start. How is a new player meant to know how good wulfen are if they are shot off the board before they do anything everytime they're used? 

[Ravinsild]

Also my “horror story” came from when I very first started in September 2017 with no prior knowledge about anything Warhammer related. 

I found a local Games Workshop store to pick up some Blood Bowl stuff, which I found out was online only anyway and they don’t carry blood bowl stuff in the store. So it is an official GW store. 

As it turns out only my friend and I play Blood Bowl and there is really no Blood Bowl scene so I kind of got into 40k/AoS because it’s what IS played there. 

Needless to say I was just looking for some friendly beginner games just to learn the phases and the rules without even using advanced rules like terrain rules (Arcane, Dire, Mystic and so forth) etc and just my phases down, since you know I had literally never had any table top gaming experience at all save for DnD which is hardly comparable. I just wanted a basic game to run through the rules and phases to get the hang of the rhythm and pacing of the game down. 

So getting my teeth smashed in without a ghost of a chance of winning literally like 10 games in a row of people grinning and shaking my hand and pretending things were totally fair  and we were playing a friendly game “because points” or whatever really gave a bad impression to me of this hobby and the people who play it. 

As it turns out I very much lean more toward the Narrative and casual/for fun side of things. I’m turned off by all 40k competitive lists due to lack of interesting models or unit variety and I don’t much care for AoS competitive tournament lists either. 

I want to use cool models that do cool things but would never see daylight in a tournament. 

I play World Eaters and Space Wolves in 40k and I like Chaos Terminators, Maulerfiends, Bloodthirsters and Possessed which you will never see in a tournament list. 

I also like trying out a little bit of everything which is why when I run Khorne Bloodbound I don’t only run Gore Pilgrims. I’m a big fan of the Skull Take Battalion. I’m eager to test out Brass Stampede again, looking forward to trying out The Goretide and Slaughterborn and I even want to try out the Bloodborn Battalion. I may even run a list without a Bloodsecrator. Shocking I know!

Luckily I’ve found like minded players who just like doing “cool stuff” but I stay away from those tournament guys. 

[Ravinsild]

17 minutes ago, Enoby said:

How is a new player meant to know how good wulfen are if they are shot off the board before they do anything everytime they're used? 

How did you know this is exactly what happened in my games? 

[Ravinsild]

4 hours ago, Overread said:

If the rules allow it then its legal and perfectly fine to do in game. If there is an area where the rules as they are written allows for there to be abuse of the system then its up to GW to fix it. 

Sure and it’s completely rules legal and Ruled as Written to run Pun-Pun. In fact Pun-Pun, as much as he is a hero to min/max power gamers, is also something of a satire about how badly written and wonky the rules of 3rd Edition had gotten to be. 

I mean.... do YOU want to play with a guy who wants to play a literal god-like being that cannot be killed or stopped and can one-shot everything in the game? 

https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Pun-Pun_(3.5e_Optimized_Character_Build)

If your DM says it’s fine because it’s “rules legal” are you SURE this is the group of people you want to play with? He makes you even being there entirely irrelevant. You don’t even need to roll a character. 

Hence where RAI and RAW comes into play and using common sense and sportsmanship for a beneficial and enjoyable experience for all.

Let’s just use some hyperbolic and off-topic analogy for shock value: The Concentration Camps in ****** Germany were LEGAL and so were the executions preformed there but does that mean it was a good idea or a good thing to do? 

I know you can’t compare ****** to poorly written table top rules but it’s to illustrate the greater point that just because you CAN do something, doesn’t mean it’s right, or good or even fun in a cooperative game. As much as AoS IS a competitive player versus player game it’s also a cooperative game in so many ways. Like agreeing on points or no points, agreeing on a battle plan, agreeing on a way to play, agreeing on which rules to use (because realm rules and terrain rules and some of the advanced rules are optional) and so on and so forth. 

[Dead Scribe]

The thing is its up to the game designers to decide what should or should not be allowed in the game, not players arbitrarily deciding things are too powerful and getting to decide that someone else that bought, assembled, and painted a force cannot use it because some player decided its too powerful.

[Ravinsild]

2 minutes ago, Dead Scribe said:

The thing is its up to the game designers to decide what should or should not be allowed in the game, not players arbitrarily deciding things are too powerful and getting to decide that someone else that bought, assembled, and painted a force cannot use it because some player decided its too powerful.

Except that’s exactly what people do... 

“Oh I brought my Lord of Skulls with me today (which is an expensive $$$ and points wise model that looks amazing) but I see you’re just starting out so I’ll just bring some of my basic Marines and some terminators today instead.” 

People opt out of using things out of sportsmanship all the time, in friendly games anyway. 

[Dead Scribe]

Sportsmanship is also a subjective thing.  In my group, bringing an intentionally weaker list is seen as bad sportsmanship and can also be seen as condescending.

I think whats really important is playing with people that share your own goals for the game.  If you dont want to play high end game then thats fine, just make sure your opponent is of the same mindset.

 

[Mephisto]

4 minutes ago, Enoby said:

This talk about how harsh it's okay to go on a new player reminds me of a time my boyfriend and I were starting new armies. He played Moonclan and I played Slaanesh, and I managed to get his grots hitting on 6s rerolling 6s to hit. Needless to say, he wasn't having a good time, and he didn't really get to play his army - this didn't teach him much at all, besides that he didn't enjoy playing against my army. If he was a new player, he may well have gone off the idea of starting AoS. 

There's a reason videogames have easy tutorials and tutorial bosses - before you can stand up to the 'real' game, you have to be given the chance to learn. Dark Souls, a game often celebrated for not infantisizing its audience, does this to great effect.

 

Surely, if you wanted a new player to learn their army, letting their units do what they were meant to do for their first few games is a good start. How is a new player meant to know how good wulfen are if they are shot off the board before they do anything everytime they're used? 

I'm struggling weighing in on this subject because some of the people whom I agree with voice their opinion rather incredulously and unreasonably.  While the other half of the debacle present themselves quite reasonably. Your Dark Souls analogy is a darn good one that sort of reconciles my conflict.

There is a difference between "a challenge" (good) and bull...****** (bad). Bullcrap doesn't give you the opportunity to learn. There's no interaction on your part especially if you don't know the game. A challenge presents problems, actual problems, but gives you the tools to learn and grow. I'd played 40k up until about 5th or 6th Ed and WHFB all throughout my adolescence and into adult life. Then I took a hiatus from wargaming. At some point AOS came out - my friend was playing it and he sort of got me hooked. He even let me use his Stormcast starter set that he'd won being good at tournaments to get into the game. Now, I'm not sure if you know anything about the match up between SCE and BCR in 1.0 but it can be a meat grinder. Our first game he took a pretty varied list of BCR and gave me a rather varied list of SCE. He did this so I could experience every model in a variety of situations. The lists weren't optimal but the aim was a teaching tool. His play was tight and straight forward. He pulled no punches and explained methodology and some rules interactions. He knew my experience with competitive play in other games and didn't insult my intelligence or coddle me but still presented a challenge. I won that game pretty much on happenstance by turtling up with Staunch Defender.

The second game after talking and reflecting and reading rules for a week was his optimized BCR versus MY take on SCE. I learned the lesson then that haunts most new players to this day on what exactly two Thundertusks are capable of when you don't deploy correctly. I was ruined but I learned how to play against TTs. We discussed my decisions made throughout that game and it was still a learning tool, maybe even more valuable a learning tool than the first game where I was just basically getting the hang of moving things again and memorizing warscrolls and rules. The third game I went Skyborn slayers. I got off the alpha strike and I think the Chambers of Sigmar still echo with songs about the wrath my starsoul maces visited upon him that day. In WHFB I was Undead (later Vampire Counts). I ordered a second hand box off the internet and I've been unliving it up on Death ever since. 

I am a competitive player though so I wanted to be taught from that perspective. Were I to welcome just a random at the store into the game, I wouldn't do much different from how I got into it though. "Here's a game where we both take generic, what's everything do lists. The focus is to learn movement and rules in general. Play as many games as it takes to just figure that out (usually three unless you have Wargaming or other Tabletop experience). Play to win because "letting" someone win when you're teaching them does nothing for them but crushing them gives them no opportunity to learn either.  The second step is to crush them... muwahahahahaha! *cough* sorry, had some evil caught in my throat. When someone is defeated, if they've learned the rules and interactions, they have an opportunity to see how deployment and list building are integral. They can pivot from there. Those early games with the person you're playing should have obvious teaching goals though. Talk to each other. 

The monetary and time investment in the hobby is certainly a worthy point. We start the hobby/game at army selection and if you care about winning, I think that informs the decision on what to buy/build. We can still use me as an example. I knew I wanted to play Undead (Death) "oh, what's Flesh Eater Courts? Seems they're one of those underdog armies. They can win but it takes some doing. Nope, not for me." Or "I REALLY Love Morghasts as a model and in the fluff. Nagash spiting some angel assassins for all eternity to be his personal guard? Yes. Please. I'm hamstringing myself by taking them but if I use them as a tactical, fast moving can-openers, I can make them work if the rest of the list is good." Both of these were thoughts I considered and I had help from good and honest people.

[Ravinsild]

5 minutes ago, Mephisto said:

I'm struggling weighing in on this subject because some of the people whom I agree with voice their opinion rather incredulously and unreasonably.  While the other half of the debacle present themselves quite reasonably. Your Dark Souls analogy is a darn good one that sort of reconciles my conflict.

There is a difference between "a challenge" (good) and bull...****** (bad). Bullcrap doesn't give you the opportunity to learn. There's no interaction on your part especially if you don't know the game. A challenge presents problems, actual problems, but gives you the tools to learn and grow. I'd played 40k up until about 5th or 6th Ed and WHFB all throughout my adolescence and into adult life. Then I took a hiatus from wargaming. At some point AOS came out - my friend was playing it and he sort of got me hooked. He even let me use his Stormcast starter set that he'd won being good at tournaments to get into the game. Now, I'm not sure if you know anything about the match up between SCE and BCR in 1.0 but it can be a meat grinder. Our first game he took a pretty varied list of BCR and gave me a rather varied list of SCE. He did this so I could experience every model in a variety of situations. The lists weren't optimal but the aim was a teaching tool. His play was tight and straight forward. He pulled no punches and explained methodology and some rules interactions. He knew my experience with competitive play in other games and didn't insult my intelligence or coddle me but still presented a challenge. I won that game pretty much on happenstance by turtling up with Staunch Defender.

The second game after talking and reflecting and reading rules for a week was his optimized BCR versus MY take on SCE. I learned the lesson then that haunts most new players to this day on what exactly two Thundertusks are capable of when you don't deploy correctly. I was ruined but I learned how to play against TTs. We discussed my decisions made throughout that game and it was still a learning tool, maybe even more valuable a learning tool than the first game where I was just basically getting the hang of moving things again and memorizing warscrolls and rules. The third game I went Skyborn slayers. I got off the alpha strike and I think the Chambers of Sigmar still echo with songs about the wrath my starsoul maces visited upon him that day. In WHFB I was Undead (later Vampire Counts). I ordered a second hand box off the internet and I've been unliving it up on Death ever since. 

I am a competitive player though so I wanted to be taught from that perspective. Were I to welcome just a random at the store into the game, I wouldn't do much different from how I got into it though. "Here's a game where we both take generic, what's everything do lists. The focus is to learn movement and rules in general. Play as many games as it takes to just figure that out (usually three unless you have Wargaming or other Tabletop experience). Play to win because "letting" someone win when you're teaching them does nothing for them but crushing them gives them no opportunity to learn either.  The second step is to crush them... muwahahahahaha! *cough* sorry, had some evil caught in my throat. When someone is defeated, if they've learned the rules and interactions, they have an opportunity to see how deployment and list building are integral. They can pivot from there. Those early games with the person you're playing should have obvious teaching goals though. Talk to each other. 

The monetary and time investment in the hobby is certainly a worthy point. We start the hobby/game at army selection and if you care about winning, I think that informs the decision on what to buy/build. We can still use me as an example. I knew I wanted to play Undead (Death) "oh, what's Flesh Eater Courts? Seems they're one of those underdog armies. They can win but it takes some doing. Nope, not for me." Or "I REALLY Love Morghasts as a model and in the fluff. Nagash spiting some angel assassins for all eternity to be his personal guard? Yes. Please. I'm hamstringing myself by taking them but if I use them as a tactical, fast moving can-openers, I can make them work if the rest of the list is good." Both of these were thoughts I considered and I had help from good and honest people.

Apparently you can run out of likes on this website.... but I liked your post lol. 

[Lord_Skrolk]

Getting lost in this discussion is that Age of Sigmar is NOT like other competitive games like chess, or basketball, or poker, etc where the only reason the game exists is to play the game

It's called a hobby because there are so many ways to enjoy Warhammer besides gameplay. You can love the lore, love the miniatures, love the painting, love the community, etc. And basically saying "the whole point is to git gud and i will use a net list to annihalate new players every game, trust me I'm doing then a favor because one day they will learn to compete like me" is just so drastically missing the point.

For example, I like the idea of the Skaven in lore and other games so I have 2,000 points of mixed Skaven. And I'm coming to the realization that all of the Skaven I've lovingly bought, assembled or refurbished, and painted are close to useless at winning games against netlists. And you know what?

I've still really enjoyed them! Because I can develop narratives around my Skaven, make models I've read about in lore, and developed my painting skills. Met some really nice people along the way. 

If you want to be a power gamer, all the power to you! I can respect that competitiveness, I don't think you're "doing it wrong" or anything. You're allowed to min/max a game with a broken ruleset that is very min/maxable. But just admit it's because you enjoy winning at this specific thing, not that you're "doing new players a favor". New players don't set out with the goal of becoming "that guy" that lurks around GW stores with net lists to annihlate n00bs. 

/rant over

[Richelieu]

This whole pile in lock is silly on so many levels I can't even express my exasperation.  Not least of these is that it is so unlikely to occur due to the nature of how two units get into combat with each other to begin with.  

[Drofnum]

7 minutes ago, Richelieu said:

This whole pile in lock is silly on so many levels I can't even express my exasperation.  Not least of these is that it is so unlikely to occur due to the nature of how two units get into combat with each other to begin with.  

The fact that the FAQ post devolved in to a pile in cheese post is even more ridiculous.

[BaldoBeardo]

[Mephisto]

18 minutes ago, Drofnum said:

The fact that the FAQ post devolved in to a pile in cheese post is even more ridiculous.

It has, indeed, been a wild journey. If you step back it's sort of interesting to see how the AOS fanbase interlocks and interweaves their opinions. It's gone off-topic at times but I think that just speaks to the passion of the people that play this great game and the varied ways they interpret it across a spectrum. 

An entire FAQ came out and, sure, some army specific stuff has been the topic of other threads but that pile-in is this contentious means GW needs to maybe circle back to it.

[Ravinsild]

6 minutes ago, Mephisto said:

It has, indeed, been a wild journey. If you step back it's sort of interesting to see how the AOS fanbase interlocks and interweaves their opinions. It's gone off-topic at times but I think that just speaks to the passion of the people that play this great game and the varied ways they interpret it across a spectrum. 

An entire FAQ came out and, sure, some army specific stuff has been the topic of other threads but that pile-in is this contentious means GW needs to maybe circle back to it.

I guess my stance is: ‘s dumb rule. Not using it. 

I think the people I play with, who aren’t tournament players and just like to move cool models across the table will probably be cool/fine with that. 

It’s just sort of a nonsense rule. Going to pile in my guys to whoever is closest and if two are equally close I’ll pick the one that keeps unit cohesion. 

Call it a house rule. 

[The World Tree]

36 minutes ago, Richelieu said:

This whole pile in lock is silly on so many levels I can't even express my exasperation.  Not least of these is that it is so unlikely to occur due to the nature of how two units get into combat with each other to begin with.  

Yup. It should just be - if there are two models of equal distance, the controlling player may choose which of the two to pile into. 

[amysrevenge]

Alternately, they could make an exception for base-contact. 

If, that is, the intent is that two models can lock someone down in base contact, but not that two models can lock someone out of combat.

[Ravinsild]

5 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

Alternately, they could make an exception for base-contact. 

If, that is, the intent is that two models can lock someone down in base contact, but not that two models can lock someone out of combat.

Probably going to get into some hot water here for putting words in the devs mouth or something however I shall proceed: 

Does not the implication of piling in and it’s purpose appear to be getting more people even deeper into combat rather than keeping out of combat? 

Combat armies love it - everyone else hates it I guess? 

[Sleboda]

1 hour ago, Dead Scribe said:

Sportsmanship is also a subjective thing.  In my group, bringing an intentionally weaker list is seen as bad sportsmanship and can also be seen as condescending.

This is a perspective I would love to see more people understand.  You so often hear about the other side of taking a weak list - that it's done to be a good sport - but you rarely hear about how doing so can be taken as the quote shows.

Thanks for pointing that out.

[Ravinsild]

5 minutes ago, Sleboda said:

This is a perspective I would love to see more people understand.  You so often hear about the other side of taking a weak list - that it's done to be a good sport - but you rarely hear about how doing so can be taken as the quote shows.

Thanks for pointing that out.

It makes perfect sense that it can be done in poor sportsmanship, the old “I can beat you with one arm tied behind my back” bit. 

However I don’t think it’s unsportsman-like to hold back a touch versus someone (like me) who had absolutely 0 table top experience and just wanted a few games to dip my toes into the water and get a feel for the rules and for what my army even does. 

In that case you’re being a black belt in Ju jitsu but you aren’t teaching anything you’re just showing off against the white belt who doesn’t even know what ju jitsu is and it’s their first class. 

[amysrevenge]

5 minutes ago, Ravinsild said:

It makes perfect sense that it can be done in poor sportsmanship, the old “I can beat you with one arm tied behind my back” bit. 

However I don’t think it’s unsportsman-like to hold back a touch versus someone (like me) who had absolutely 0 table top experience and just wanted a few games to dip my toes into the water and get a feel for the rules and for what my army even does. 

In that case you’re being a black belt in Ju jitsu but you aren’t teaching anything you’re just showing off against the white belt who doesn’t even know what ju jitsu is and it’s their first class. 

I hadn't thought about this in decades, but in junior high I was in a karate class, starting out with many friends and contemporaries, along with some adults.  One of the large adults was infamous for never holding back his strength for even a second, with anyone.  We all hated it, and pretty much everyone dropped out of the class, until it was cancelled altogether due to low attendance.  The end.