Concerns with the development of AOS 2

[svnvaldez]

1 hour ago, Thiagoma said:

I will certainly miss the days where the rules were simpler and people were on a rampage with mixed creative armies.

These were probably my favorite times of AOS, right after the GH1. All you need to play were your warscrolls. No need for spell lores and army abilities.

Sure everyone had battlebrew and I was sayl bombed every game. But I didn’t think the game was any less tacitial and it sure was simpler.

That trend ended a long time ago thou. Like summer 2016 with BS, BCR and Sylvaneth.

To be far to GW thou if a new player picked up the core book they could just play the game with the mixed artifacts and abilities. I think that’s why mixed is found in the core book and not the GH. There is nothing forcing us to use all the new tome stuff.

[Jamopower]

Yeah, playing with just the "free content" would probably reduce a lot of issues there is. This concerning casual gaming with what ever armies. In more competitive setting it is just an unfortunate fact that the range of options you "can play" is limited to certain degree.

 

All my armies are results from how awesome the Grand alliance system was when I started playing this game, so I heartily agree to two earlier posts.

[Gaz Taylor]

34 minutes ago, svnvaldez said:

To be far to GW thou if a new player picked up the core book they could just play the game with the mixed artifacts and abilities. I think that’s why mixed is found in the core book and not the GH. There is nothing forcing us to use all the new tome stuff.

100% this.

I think what a lot of people miss in these discussions is that GW have given us a framework to make the games we want to play. So for somebody dissecting some rules to get the best usage out of it, somebody else is just putting models on the table and playing and somebody else is coming up with some amazing narrative campaign to play with their models.

This forum is slanted towards matched play and it's understandable because it makes arranging games easier and people like playing under those conditions. But even though it's matched play, you can play the game how you want to  

[JackStreicher]

I am really put down by the increasing MW Spam. I am also disappointed about Faction-Specific scenery, too many factions have it already and it lost its state of being sth. Special plus some of the scenery makes no sense at all as to why the heck it can be found on the battlefield (every game)

[Nos]

I really dont understand why some people play AOS. It’s such an expensive and time-consuming hobby and if you aren’t sparked by the hobby aspect, the spectacle on the table, the social aspect or the narrative context around it all there are easier, more elegant and less time and finance intensive mini games available, we’re in a Renaissance of games like that just now quite frankly.

And there’s dozens of excellent turn based tactical computer games which give you all the systems and mechanics interactions of something like AOS, often to a far more refined degree, most of them look great, they’re a one-off purchase that costs less than one AOS unit, you can play sessions as long or as short as you wish and you don’t need anyone else to play them with. They’re also consistently and easily balanced by their creators who really see that as a core aspect of their vision.

GW don’t. They provide amazing models, rich lore and basic thematic rules but they’ve always been transparent about the fact that the real job of making it all work, including the idea of balance and the extent to which that even matters, is on the player’s shoulders.

There are a lot of people who post on here who seem to want to win-nothing wrong with that-but they want to do so with whatever army they want. There is evidence from tournaments that really good players can do well with pretty much anything, is the bottom line. Some armies are easy to win with, some are hard, but a good player with a bad list/army is still likely to beat an average player with a good list/army. Nestled among most of the discussions about power creep and imbalance are assumptions about the game which reveal that people are looking for shortcuts and insta-wins  while ignoring the fundamentals of the game itself.

[Dead Scribe]

But even though it's matched play, you can play the game how you want to

This is true, but if you have no one to play with because houseruling is seen as an abomination, then you have to conform to how your personal community plays.  

I think that people forget that a large chunk of players today want to play the game as the rules are written and not use houserules.

Now this quote's context is not discussing houserules, but rather not using battle tomes.  While again thats technically possible, I don't know of a single person in my meta that would ever consider that.  So I don't know how realistic that statement is for a lot of people to use the rules simply as a framework.

[Luke82]

It’s always gonna depend on the group I guess. Since moving away from the matched play restrictions and coming up with house rules and custom scenarios for narrative battles I’ve been getting loads more games, whereas before AoS was something I got to play when someone had nothing else to play and it was AoS or stay at home.

Some times people just want a nice game of paintball, even though a nuclear exchange would be more effective at crushing their friends / enemies.

[Overread]

1 hour ago, JackStreicher said:

I am really put down by the increasing MW Spam. I am also disappointed about Faction-Specific scenery, too many factions have it already and it lost its state of being sth. Special plus some of the scenery makes no sense at all as to why the heck it can be found on the battlefield (every game)

Don't forget most games we play are supposed to represent major battles. We just use skirmish sized armies because it would be beyond impractical to do otherwise with 35mm models. So most armies would have setup camp. It's something I really hope we can see pulled forward in a few more BL novels (the early Realmgate ones sort of glossed over it because Stormcast could just keep marching for weeks on empty stomachs without any supplies at all it would seem). 

Even armies like the Flesh Eater Courts will likely have rotting carts (sturdy waggons) pulled by undead horses (pulled by loyal stocky draft horses) carrying essential supplies, armours, tents, (rotting bodies for the feast). So most armies will have the transport capabiltiies to bring terrain features with them. The FEC Chair easily comes along that way; meanwhile things like Gnawholes for Skaven fit in that if Skaven are around they've likely gnawed into the area and setup a camp or ambush rather than walked many miles overland. 

[Dead Scribe]

 plus some of the scenery makes no sense at all as to why the heck it can be found on the battlefield (every game)

Because its a game and things like reality and real life and making sense aren't things that really need to be a part of a game.  If thats required, then look into simulations.  AOS has a lot of rules that don't make any sense in reality but are game mechanics for making the game a game.  

[Nos]

20 minutes ago, Overread said:

Don't forget most games we play are supposed to represent major battles. We just use skirmish sized armies because it would be beyond impractical to do otherwise with 35mm models. So most armies would have setup camp. It's something I really hope we can see pulled forward in a few more BL novels (the early Realmgate ones sort of glossed over it because Stormcast could just keep marching for weeks on empty stomachs without any supplies at all it would seem). 

Even armies like the Flesh Eater Courts will likely have rotting carts (sturdy waggons) pulled by undead horses (pulled by loyal stocky draft horses) carrying essential supplies, armours, tents, (rotting bodies for the feast). So most armies will have the transport capabiltiies to bring terrain features with them. The FEC Chair easily comes along that way; meanwhile things like Gnawholes for Skaven fit in that if Skaven are around they've likely gnawed into the area and setup a camp or ambush rather than walked many miles overland. 

I dont think they’re “supposed” to to represent anything on an epic scale. 

Obviously you can abstract it to represent a massive battle if you’re so inclined but I actually think a 1:1 ratio is far closer to the character of the Mortal Realms,

I particularly enjoy seeing narratively Heroic or Legendary models plausibly represented as a few dozen warriors who can nonetheless cut down a literal horde.

I think the rules represent a raiding party of 60 Deepkin far better than they do an army of 6000 of them. The problem with Warhammer was that it didn’t represent an interaction of massive armies in respect to its rules outside of movement, nor did it feel plausible having “regiments” of 16 guys having to wheel as one either.  AOS dosent plausibly represent formations clashing either-that’s why you have Gathering of Might which does away with pile-ins etc- but it feels very appropriate at a model representing 1:1-1:4 scale or so, no abstraction required.

[JackStreicher]

2 hours ago, Dead Scribe said:

 

 

Because its a game and things like reality and real life and making sense aren't things that really need to be a part of a game.  If thats required, then look into simulations.  AOS has a lot of rules that don't make any sense in reality but are game mechanics for making the game a game.  

It is immersion breaking and doesn‘t make sense. Especially the breaking of the player immersion should be avoided. So I should look for a simulation because of a bad game design? 🤣 funny.

Weak argument.

what other rules exactly? I find all of which I read plausible within the AoS Universe, for example the FeC throne doesn‘t even have a lore entry of why the heck it is appearing on every battlefield (I ll  convert mine to be carried by ghosts/horrors)

 

the loonshrine at least is there because that‘s where the Gobbos spill forth.

[Jamopower]

3 hours ago, Nos said:

There is evidence from tournaments that really good players can do well with pretty much anything, is the bottom line. Some armies are easy to win with, some are hard, but a good player with a bad list/army is still likely to beat an average player with a good list/army. Nestled among most of the discussions about power creep and imbalance are assumptions about the game which reveal that people are looking for shortcuts and insta-wins  while ignoring the fundamentals of the game itself.

This is simplifying a lot. Even with the most masterful master there is, I'm sure that there are a lot of forces that have a very lopsided set-ups against even a mediocre player with an army that has all the tools the new books give you. And even then, the number of units you can actually choose from is pretty limited. Nothing wrong with that as such, but the game is far from a situation where the list building wouldn't have a massive influence on the outcome of the game if the players are even close to the same level. Of course a complete beginner might lose with any kind of super army, but that doesn't tell anything on the overall side of things. This is a fundamental aspect of Warhammer and it has ever been so. If you want to compete, you'll have to leave a lot of options out of the consideration. Though the situation at the moment is pretty good in that sense, that there are reasonably many options available. Still I'm pretty sure that no one thinks that, say,  Wanderers, Disposssed or Freeguild are anywhere near as good as any of the new forces that have the new type of battletomes. The warscrolls are  in general worse and they get less than half of the good free stuff that has been added into the game since their rules were made. Even if sometimes you can win a game or two against the newer forces it is still a very different thing if the win percentage is in longer run 33% than if it is 55%. As a comparison, in Magic a deck is already strong if the win rate is 60% against the field.

And as a disclaimer, I'm  mainly interested n thematic scenarios and casual gaming. It's just bit strange, that for some reason the "basic mindset" seems to be that everything that GW has released for the game is the baseline where you might remove something, instead of the baseline being just the warscrolls, where you add the extra stuff like allegiance abilities or the realm rules to spice things up a bit, but still keeping the battlefield level. The games are usually most interesting where at the start of the game, both sides have equally good chances to success. Except if it is a special scenario where the goal is to last as long as it is possible or such. 

[Requizen]

5 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

It is immersion breaking and doesn‘t make sense. Especially the breaking of the player immersion should be avoided. So I should look for a simulation because of a bad game design? 🤣 funny.

Weak argument.

what other rules exactly? I find all of which I read plausible within the AoS Universe, for example the FeC throne doesn‘t even have a lore entry of why the heck it is appearing on every battlefield (I ll  convert mine to be carried by ghosts/horrors)

Let me quote myself on this topic, from earlier in this thread:

On 3/21/2019 at 9:46 AM, Requizen said:

Well for most of the armies it actually fits within the lore. Beasts of Chaos have always hauled Herdstones to battle, even in the old world. The Charnel Throne is pretty indicative of what would happen in medieval combats, the serfs bringing thrones or vistas for their leaders to sit on (and that's how FEC see themselves). Nurgle and Sylvaneth grow trees where they roam, and Idoneth Shipwrecks sweep in with the ethersea. Skaven Gnawholes have been part of AoS lore since the beginning and parts of WHFB, and are known to be all over the place.

I think the only terrain piece that is built on-site is the Bad Moon Loonshrine, but even that's a fallen piece of the Bad Moon that Goblins flock to and carve.

There's nothing wrong with the terrain lorewise. 

[JackStreicher]

3 minutes ago, Requizen said:

Let me quote myself on this topic, from earlier in this thread:

There's nothing wrong with the terrain lorewise. 

Well it’s Still not stated in the lore, but you are free to assume that the FeC carry around a wall, corpses and a complex throne just to reassemble it on the battle field.

btw, if your assumption was correct it would not be a „Charnel Throne“ but a „Charnel Palanquin“. Throne indicates that it is indeed a solid structure not to be carried around.

[Gecktron]

3 minutes ago, JackStreicher said:

Well it’s Still not stated in the lore, but you are free to assume that the FeC carry around a wall, corpses and a complex throne just to reassemble it on the battle field.

btw, if your assumption was correct it would not be a „Charnel Throne“ but a „Charnel Palanquin“. Throne indicates that it is indeed a solid structure not to be carried around.

The lore states that Flesh Eater build new thrones all the time. Its not unreasonable to assume that this throne was erected shortly before the battle (maybe there was another battle or a feast in that place) or it was already there if the battle is set near FEC territory.

[Requizen]

1 minute ago, JackStreicher said:

Well it’s Still not stated in the lore, but you are free to assume that the FeC carry around a wall, corpses and a complex throne just to reassemble it on the battle field.

btw, if your assumption was correct it would not be a „Charnel Throne“ but a „Charnel Palanquin“. Throne indicates that it is indeed a solid structure not to be carried around.

You don't think a bunch of monsters that dig into piles of rotting meat thinking it's fine cooking would carry around a bunch of skeleton bits thinking it's the frame for a grand throne?

I assume the stairs/wall were just implied to be part of the battlefield and the Throne is built atop the most reasonable looking dias. 

[Jamopower]

My main gripe with the terrain pieces is how badly they usually fit to the rest of the table. Nothing wrong having an underground cavern with a throne on a pedestal that the flesh eater courts are defending from invading Skaven, bit more wrong with a green grass field with a throne on a pedestal with the Beastman herdstone set up few hundred meters from it 

[JackStreicher]

4 minutes ago, Requizen said:

I assume the stairs/wall were just implied to be part of the battlefield and the Throne is built atop the most reasonable looking dias. 

Palanquin != Throne

the heaps of corpses tell a different story than it being part of the battlefield.

 

we can agree to disagree. (Though I can‘t find even a mention of the Throne in the lore *reading the book again* 🤓)

 

Nvm I found it! ^^

it‘s build from Dark magic before every battle. This way it fits into the lore! =}

[amysrevenge]

General comments I guess.

Someone upthread mentioned that "they hadn't played a single game since AoS2 dropped" because of how failed it was.

Someone else went on to argue that since they haven't played it, they have no way to know if it was a fail or not.

That's kind of true, but also kind of not true.  If, upon release of the game, a group of players dislikes it on first impression so much that they refuse to play it, that is a type of fail for the release right there.  Even if they are flat-out wrong in their reasons not to play, them choosing not to play makes the release at least a partial fail.

1 minute ago, Jamopower said:

My main gripe with the terrain pieces is how badly they usually fit to the rest of the table. Nothing wrong having an underground cavern with a throne on a pedestal that the flesh eater courts are defending from invading Skaven, bit more wrong with a green grass field with a throne on a pedestal with the Beastman herdstone set up few hundred meters from it 

Haha all of us pick and choose which of the abstractions of a battlefield we are ok with.  I'm OK with the faction terrain set up wherever the faction wishes, but a bit iffy on forests and hills smaller than a house.

[Requizen]

3 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

General comments I guess.

Someone upthread mentioned that "they hadn't played a single game since AoS2 dropped" because of how failed it was.

Someone else went on to argue that since they haven't played it, they have no way to know if it was a fail or not.

That's kind of true, but also kind of not true.  If, upon release of the game, a group of players dislikes it on first impression so much that they refuse to play it, that is a type of fail for the release right there.  Even if they are flat-out wrong in their reasons not to play, them choosing not to play makes the release at least a partial fail.

Eh... kinda, but I still don't think that falls on the developers. Not every game is going to appeal to everyone, and sometimes (as in this situation), assumptions made on first glance about the game can be at least partially wrong. It's very possible to look at something and not like a part of it, only to realize your complaints aren't actually what you think they are.

[Acid_Nine]

Honestly if they made the carrion throne part of a cart with wheels then it would make sense that the Flesh eaters carry it every battle. The magic thing works too, just like the ethersea ship wreck thingie from the Deepkin.

 

The only thing that has me scratching my head is the loonshrine. Do they summon moon shaped rocks everywhere they go?

[Overread]

1 minute ago, Acid_Nine said:

The only thing that has me scratching my head is the loonshrine. Do they summon moon shaped rocks everywhere they go?

No its more that one day you wake up and a bit of the moon has fallen off and landed in old farmer Jack's field. Then a week later you notice a few goblins -then a few more -then gosh darn it you've got yourself a full on infestation!

[Requizen]

Yeah the lore says that chunks fall off the Bad Moon as it passes over the area, which is how the Goblins know to show up. The mushrooms grow shortly after as more Gobbos infest the area.

[Televiper11]

As an open/narrative gamer, I've fallen in love with the new terrain as they makes for fantastic narrative devices. You can also scale up to them, wherein armies "earn" their terrain piece. 

I do find that a lot of the new 2.0 add-on rules make the game cumbersome. Thankfully, you are always welcome to choose which to use and which to discard. That's the magic of AoS to me.

Now if I was playing an official, matched tournament, that's different: I would expect to use all the rules and play a lot of meta lists. 

That's not really my thing though. I like seeing my money on the table and have been happy with casual games so far.

 

[Requizen]

3 minutes ago, Televiper11 said:

As an open/narrative gamer, I've fallen in love with the new terrain as they makes for fantastic narrative devices. You can also scale up to them, wherein armies "earn" their terrain piece. 

I do find that a lot of the new 2.0 add-on rules make the game cumbersome. Thankfully, you are always welcome to choose which to use and which to discard. That's the magic of AoS to me.

Now if I was playing an official, matched tournament, that's different: I would expect to use all the rules and play a lot of meta lists. 

That's not really my thing though. I like seeing my money on the table and have been happy with casual games so far.

 

I think casually, the game is as good as it's ever been, maybe better. They've put a lot of love into Narrative as well, we played a Siege game (the Great Wall Scenario) with Coalition of Death team rules and it just worked beautifully. I enjoy the game quite a bit when just showing up to my FLGS with my more fun lists.