Discussing the quality of rules in AoS

[Greybeard86]

1 hour ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I'm sure we did in some thread. Although I stand by the point that by and large, nearly all Gravelords units have a role. Black Knights and Wight Kings are the outliers in that tome, and in this case I would put it down to a mistake rather than designing for mechanically focussed people.

May or may not be. Ultimately, the point stands. This is a design consideration (rewarding system mastery), so we should expect some units being weaker than others. To what extent, it will depend, and it is hard to discern pure mistakes from heavy handed design choices.

I wanted to make it clear. Thank Grungi a GW designer had the guts to come out and say it, I was starting to feel gaslighted here

[PJetski]

"Rewarding system mastery" is a fine design goal for a board game like Silver Tower where you get every model you need to play the game in the box. 

It's not a good design goal when designing armies for a tabletop game like Warhammer with huge time/money investments in switching to a new army, or even just a new list within the same army.

If that is how they design the game they need to stop doing that because it really sucks for everyone except the powergamers who dont care about how much time/money they spend on the hobby and just jump from one army to the next while chasing the metagame. These big-spender "whales" certainly exist, and they do spend a lot of money, but it's not likely that their impact is so significant that the entire business model is designed to cater to them at the expense of all other types of customers.

[Greybeard86]

19 minutes ago, PJetski said:

"Rewarding system mastery" is a fine design goal for a board game like Silver Tower where you get every model you need to play the game in the box. 

It's not a good design goal when designing armies for a tabletop game like Warhammer with huge time/money investments in switching to a new army, or even just a new list within the same army.

If that is how they design the game they need to stop doing that because it really sucks for everyone except the powergamers who dont care about how much time/money they spend on the hobby and just jump from one army to the next while chasing the metagame. These big-spender "whales" certainly exist, and they do spend a lot of money, but it's not likely that their impact is so significant that the entire business model is designed to cater to them at the expense of all other types of customers.

Yep.

Probably they just think of it as catering to different publics, not as something that "sucks". Some people will buy Kragnos even though it sucks as a competitive piece. You are free to buy "loser" units from the books, even though as everyone says it is not difficult to spot the "worse" units. In a sense, GW is not making it too hard to discern. So maybe some people don't feel as "cheated" by the system. I guess it is different went they nerf things, as that then takes agency from you.

Personally, I bought skywardens to paint even though they don't seem to have much use in game because they are the unit I'd like to paint the most (I think of them as dwarf cavalry).

Ultimately, I think that it is a sucky system because it ends up creeping in casual play imbalances, making it less enjoyable. It does take some planning to get a balanced game, and not everyone might have the knowledge or the inclination to do that. But one might see that as precisely "rewarding system mastery".

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

Thanks @Neil Arthur Hotep.  Think it was the 03312021 episode with NeedyCat.  Balance discussion starts at 59 minute mark for those looking for it.

But while it definitely talks about how imbalance is a necessary part of the game (wholly agree) and that it rewards skill (agree again), it refers to it far more as an emergent/natural part of the game design process NOT as an intentional act of going in and sabotaging units to force it.  The designer explicitly references that war games need slight imbalances and that things can’t be obviously broken.

So again, if the question is whether there is imbalance I wholly agree.  If the question is whether this is good for the game AND business I also agree.  But if the question is whether the imbalance arises naturally through a design process constrained by other factors or if the imbalance is caused by GW intentionally sabotaging model X that they just spent a lot of money in producing to satisfy Timmy, Johnny or Spike I am sorry but all the above talk did was confirm that it is the former.

In other parts of the discussion they again highlighted that the models come first.   But  they also highlighted that they work with “place holder mechanics” and “scaffolds”.  That they also accept “ignorables”.  The designer specifically called out that fine balance is the last “ignorable” addressed in the process and how any change can throw everything else off.

All this, when combined with meeting deadlines provides a simple explanation for Slaangors, Black Nights, etc. as a natural outcome of the process as opposed to other explanations which require GW to ignore simple IRR calculations in favor of far less certain and complex analysis on top of asking them to ignore the large opportunity costs of using valuable production time for a product that they “know” won’t sell as well.

 

EDIT: personal highlight was discussion of pink noise and how that enhances the emergent narrative.  Love having the right word for that experience.

Edited June 4, 2021 by Beer & Pretzels Gamer

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

It's definitely worth noting that whether or not the designers set out to make certain units weak for whatever reason, in the case of something like Slaangor there is definitely a failure of design somewhere. Either they are getting the warscroll balance wrong accidentally, or they are getting it wrong on purpose and missing the mark with the kind if imbalance that mechanically minded players actually find interesting.

Because competitive players definitely don't find it rewarding to go "Oh, so I'm never taking Slaangor". Finding obviously bad (or good!) units is not interesting, discovering hidden gems is, if anything.

On Black Knights: I think they just fell victim to the Ungor-Gor-Bestigor problem. Gravelords have three types of cavalry: Dire Wolves, Black Knights and Blood Knights. Dire Wolves are good, cheap light cav. Blood Knights are tough, hard hitting, elite heavy cav. Black Knights are just the awkward middle ground you don't really want to take.

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

4 minutes ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

On Black Knights: I think they just fell victim to the Ungor-Gor-Bestigor problem. Gravelords have three types of cavalry: Dire Wolves, Black Knights and Blood Knights. Dire Wolves are good, cheap light cav. Blood Knights are tough, hard hitting, elite heavy cav. Black Knights are just the awkward middle ground you don't really want to take.

I’m just digging through tome but I’d even argue four types of Cav having used Vargheists cousins Cryot Flayers very successfully in that role for FEC.  But yes “the Gor Problem” is real.  Curious if the BR:Be’lakor patch there really fixes anything?

[Vaporlocke]

2 hours ago, Beer & Pretzels Gamer said:

  But yes “the Gor Problem” is real.  Curious if the BR:Be’lakor patch there really fixes anything?

It doesn't. Our Ambush (you know, the original one we've had from back in WHFB) is worse than the version they've handed out to other armies, even in the subfaction that specializes in it, so right off the bat you rarely use it.  With the upcoming reduction in board size it will get nerfed even harder. 

So basically they took a unit that doesn't have a role and buffed an ability that doesn't get used to get them into combat more reliably where they still won't do any damage to speak of. We have Ungor for that for cheaper. 

The fix to the Gor problem is going to require a complete book rewrite, preferably by someone who actually plays the army of at least has seen it in person once. I'd like to see them become the anti-horde unit and Bestigors changed to anti-elite, it gives each a reason to be added without the overlap. 

[Elmir]

On 6/4/2021 at 8:15 PM, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

It's definitely worth noting that whether or not the designers set out to make certain units weak for whatever reason, in the case of something like Slaangor there is definitely a failure of design somewhere. Either they are getting the warscroll balance wrong accidentally, or they are getting it wrong on purpose and missing the mark with the kind if imbalance that mechanically minded players actually find interesting.

Because competitive players definitely don't find it rewarding to go "Oh, so I'm never taking Slaangor". Finding obviously bad (or good!) units is not interesting, discovering hidden gems is, if anything.

On Black Knights: I think they just fell victim to the Ungor-Gor-Bestigor problem. Gravelords have three types of cavalry: Dire Wolves, Black Knights and Blood Knights. Dire Wolves are good, cheap light cav. Blood Knights are tough, hard hitting, elite heavy cav. Black Knights are just the awkward middle ground you don't really want to take.

Well... Black knights already had a few eyebrown raising decisions  in the upgrade. 

Everything with the old shield rule, just had a flat +1 to their save. They seemed to completely forget about that with black knights. If they had that, the warscroll could find itself in the middle ground between those two, with a little points tweak.  

But as things stand right now, this warscroll would have to insanely cheap to even consider it. 

[Zappgrot]

On 6/3/2021 at 10:19 AM, Feii said:

the thing is the spread of good and bad elements in this game even within one army has no right to be the same as somewhere in mtg. I fully understand that if you have over 20 000 cards and the limited environment you will have a lot of bad cards but then you look at let's say on release IDK and how can you achieve 1 good warscroll 1 mediocre warscroll and another 10ish trash tier scrolls and call it the way of life. 


It is not the way of life it is what it looks like if you writers are incompetent.  In mtg you have intentionally pushed or trash cards but there is no room for such a huge spread in AoS if you have competent designers. 

No you have to understand that it is an basic building block of reality. Things can not be valued equal.   No matter how competent a writer game designer you are as soon as you introduce any difference you introduce a difference in value.   Since it's unavoidable . It's better for the company to do it by design. So they can manage it better. Now Gw fails at that on a daily basis i gues. But as a whole the whole some warscrolls are good and others are bad. Is unavoidable . 

[Zappgrot]

On 6/4/2021 at 5:06 PM, PJetski said:

"Rewarding system mastery" is a fine design goal for a board game like Silver Tower where you get every model you need to play the game in the box. 

It's not a good design goal when designing armies for a tabletop game like Warhammer with huge time/money investments in switching to a new army, or even just a new list within the same army.

If that is how they design the game they need to stop doing that because it really sucks for everyone except the powergamers who dont care about how much time/money they spend on the hobby and just jump from one army to the next while chasing the metagame. These big-spender "whales" certainly exist, and they do spend a lot of money, but it's not likely that their impact is so significant that the entire business model is designed to cater to them at the expense of all other types of customers.

So then what you want your tactical game to be mostly based on luck?  Just paint the numbers 1/20 on the bases of a unit and  then pair them off,  lowest number loses.1 wins over 20.  Keep going till only one side is left. 

[Neil Arthur Hotep]

13 hours ago, Elmir said:

Well... Black knights already had a few eyebrown raising decisions  in the upgrade. 

Everything with the old shield rule, just had a flat +1 to their save. They seemed to completely forget about that with black knights. If they had that, the warscroll could find itself in the middle ground between those two, with a little points tweak.  

But as things stand right now, this warscroll would have to insanely cheap to even consider it. 

I agree. Five Black Knights fight just about exactly as well as 10 Direwolves, if you include the mortals on charge. I'll play them at 100 points, but realistically they have to be 90 or lower to be good.

[RuneBrush]

On 6/4/2021 at 5:59 PM, Beer & Pretzels Gamer said:

Thanks @Neil Arthur Hotep.  Think it was the 03312021 episode with NeedyCat.  Balance discussion starts at 59 minute mark for those looking for it.

But while it definitely talks about how imbalance is a necessary part of the game (wholly agree) and that it rewards skill (agree again), it refers to it far more as an emergent/natural part of the game design process NOT as an intentional act of going in and sabotaging units to force it.  The designer explicitly references that war games need slight imbalances and that things can’t be obviously broken.

As an interesting aside, I remember talking to James at one of the GW Open Days.  One of the things that the specialist games team deliberately do, is to make certain forces a lot less powerful and others more powerful.  Blood Bowl is probably the most extreme example, where the halfling team is super hard to get a win out of.

[Feii]

9 hours ago, Zappgrot said:

No you have to understand that it is an basic building block of reality. Things can not be valued equal.   No matter how competent a writer game designer you are as soon as you introduce any difference you introduce a difference in value.   Since it's unavoidable . It's better for the company to do it by design. So they can manage it better. Now Gw fails at that on a daily basis i gues. But as a whole the whole some warscrolls are good and others are bad. Is unavoidable . 

[Beer & Pretzels Gamer]

4 hours ago, RuneBrush said:

Blood Bowl is probably the most extreme example, where the halfling team is super hard to get a win out of.

I like the Blood Bowl tiering system.  When it looked like a local tournament was dropping AoS I was looking into the game as that as a different option.  Given I’d have a limited time to learn and get ready it was very useful. Think it would be helpful in any system but works better in a “closed system” than an “open one” (recognize  Blood Bowl not truly closed but far less open than AoS).  

One very interesting aspect of Zoom League, with weekly games and often the ability to tweak lists between every game though is how easy it is to move up and down the difficulty spectrum both across armies and within an army.  This requires workable war scrolls but takes advantage of the natural variation in war scroll utility as well as the possibility of identifying new niches.

As AoS was saved only got so far in my Blood Bowl excursion (was settling between Nurgle and the Ork options) but this seemed at the heart of it.  All units seemed viable and fit into a niche or two.  But the pretty straightforward “risk mitigation” options certain units have calibrate the balance of skill/luck in the game pretty well.

[PJetski]

16 hours ago, Zappgrot said:

So then what you want your tactical game to be mostly based on luck?  Just paint the numbers 1/20 on the bases of a unit and  then pair them off,  lowest number loses.1 wins over 20.  Keep going till only one side is left. 

I'm not sure how or why you constructed such an absurd strawman from my post. 

[Zappgrot]

2 hours ago, PJetski said:

I'm not sure how or why you constructed such an absurd strawman from my post. 

It's easy.  When you dont't want them to design a game that rewards system mastery. Then what you are left whit is luck.  But I think  you want them to stop designing the game whit a evolving meta and in balance. Cause that is the kind of design that makes ppl buy new armies. But it's also the kind of design that keeps the game moving.   If they did not do that . They would not only sell less .But the game would also become less interesting.  And to be honest the meta aspect of the game only mattes if you are invested in winning the game. If you are invested in doing other stuff whit it and don't mind the balance so much then it really doesn't matter. 

[PJetski]

1 hour ago, Zappgrot said:

It's easy.  When you dont't want them to design a game that rewards system mastery. Then what you are left whit is luck.  But I think  you want them to stop designing the game whit a evolving meta and in balance. Cause that is the kind of design that makes ppl buy new armies. But it's also the kind of design that keeps the game moving.   If they did not do that . They would not only sell less .But the game would also become less interesting.  And to be honest the meta aspect of the game only mattes if you are invested in winning the game. If you are invested in doing other stuff whit it and don't mind the balance so much then it really doesn't matter. 

Maybe you should go back and actually read my post because I never said or even implied anything that you are claiming that I said.

I don't want bad armies in the game. If they are designing bad armies on purpose then they need to stop. There are plenty of ways to incorporate "system mastery" without sacrificing armies on the altar of bad game design. 

There is plenty of room between that argument and "I only want dice rolls and no skill".

[Greybeard86]

16 hours ago, PJetski said:

I don't want bad armies in the game. If they are designing bad armies on purpose then they need to stop. There are plenty of ways to incorporate "system mastery" without sacrificing armies on the altar of bad game design.

I'd argue that system mastery bit applies to WS within armies, across army is the result of staggered releases and some armies purposefully being designed more for display and flavor than for the game (SoB).

[Mcthew]

So since yesterday's reveals, depression has sunk in. As with many rules changes, there are winners and losers, but there seems to be more losers with the new CAs.

Taking that away, the new CAs are really some of the most poorest rules writing yet in the history of AoS, in my opinion. There's not a lot to get excited for, and really for me, I wanted to be.

Will I get Dominion? I've put in an interest for it at our local hobby store, but it's now looking unlikely I'll pre-order. I just don't like how the rules for AoS 3.0 are shaping up. All the weaknesses feel more exposed, and more have been inflicted. Some new rules felt unnecessary, and the hyperbole of the being the best ever, is a shocker. Do GW even know their own customer base? Do they even play the game? It makes you feel like they don't.

For me, this might be the end of buying GW products. Not a knee-****** reaction, but a reality: I play AoS because my eldest son does. It's something we like doing together on a weekend morning or afternoon. It's something that we can discuss on walks, in the car, wherever, really. AoS 4.0 is unlikely to come out for another 4 years, and by then he'll have likely moved on to other distractions as I did at his age. AoS 3.0 was going to be the last edition I would buy and invest in. It makes no sense to me now to buy Dominion for the models as they will be AoS 3.0 models for AoS 3.0 rules. Likewise for the battletomes and General's Handbooks etc etc.

What will that save me a year? Well, I've worked out that this year it would probably save me upwards of £400 minimum to not invest in AoS 3.0. And about £600 for each year thereafter. So my bank manager will be pleased if AoS 3.0 is as bad as the Warhammer Community reveals. But how many other AoS players will leave for other games?

Maybe it's a good thing though. GW dominance has created a sense of arrogance. AoS 3.0 might just show players there are better products out there to invest in. And an epic fail might be just what GW needs.

[zilberfrid]

10 minutes ago, Mcthew said:

So since yesterday's reveals, depression has sunk in. As with many rules changes, there are winners and losers, but there seems to be more losers with the new CAs.

Taking that away, the new CAs are really some of the most poorest rules writing yet in the history of AoS, in my opinion. There's not a lot to get excited for, and really for me, I wanted to be.

Will I get Dominion? I've put in an interest for it at our local hobby store, but it's now looking unlikely I'll pre-order. I just don't like how the rules for AoS 3.0 are shaping up. All the weaknesses feel more exposed, and more have been inflicted. Some new rules felt unnecessary, and the hyperbole of the being the best ever, is a shocker. Do GW even know their own customer base? Do they even play the game? It makes you feel like they don't.

For me, this might be the end of buying GW products. Not a knee-****** reaction, but a reality: I play AoS because my eldest son does. It's something we like doing together on a weekend morning or afternoon. It's something that we can discuss on walks, in the car, wherever, really. AoS 4.0 is unlikely to come out for another 4 years, and by then he'll have likely moved on to other distractions as I did at his age. AoS 3.0 was going to be the last edition I would buy and invest in. It makes no sense to me now to buy Dominion for the models as they will be AoS 3.0 models for AoS 3.0 rules. Likewise for the battletomes and General's Handbooks etc etc.

What will that save me a year? Well, I've worked out that this year it would probably save me upwards of £400 minimum to not invest in AoS 3.0. And about £600 for each year thereafter. So my bank manager will be pleased if AoS 3.0 is as bad as the Warhammer Community reveals. But how many other AoS players will leave for other games?

Maybe it's a good thing though. GW dominance has created a sense of arrogance. AoS 3.0 might just show players there are better products out there to invest in. And an epic fail might be just what GW needs.

Take a step back.

Look into some other games, paint boardgames or scratchbuild terrain that will be useful in every setting.

No game is worth having depression set in, it's supposed to be a hobby.

I'm going to take my own advice here, and stray away from everything but "Painting and Modeling".

[tripchimeras]

7 hours ago, Mcthew said:

So since yesterday's reveals, depression has sunk in. As with many rules changes, there are winners and losers, but there seems to be more losers with the new CAs.

Taking that away, the new CAs are really some of the most poorest rules writing yet in the history of AoS, in my opinion. There's not a lot to get excited for, and really for me, I wanted to be.

Will I get Dominion? I've put in an interest for it at our local hobby store, but it's now looking unlikely I'll pre-order. I just don't like how the rules for AoS 3.0 are shaping up. All the weaknesses feel more exposed, and more have been inflicted. Some new rules felt unnecessary, and the hyperbole of the being the best ever, is a shocker. Do GW even know their own customer base? Do they even play the game? It makes you feel like they don't.

For me, this might be the end of buying GW products. Not a knee-****** reaction, but a reality: I play AoS because my eldest son does. It's something we like doing together on a weekend morning or afternoon. It's something that we can discuss on walks, in the car, wherever, really. AoS 4.0 is unlikely to come out for another 4 years, and by then he'll have likely moved on to other distractions as I did at his age. AoS 3.0 was going to be the last edition I would buy and invest in. It makes no sense to me now to buy Dominion for the models as they will be AoS 3.0 models for AoS 3.0 rules. Likewise for the battletomes and General's Handbooks etc etc.

What will that save me a year? Well, I've worked out that this year it would probably save me upwards of £400 minimum to not invest in AoS 3.0. And about £600 for each year thereafter. So my bank manager will be pleased if AoS 3.0 is as bad as the Warhammer Community reveals. But how many other AoS players will leave for other games?

Maybe it's a good thing though. GW dominance has created a sense of arrogance. AoS 3.0 might just show players there are better products out there to invest in. And an epic fail might be just what GW needs.

Look GW are not great rules writers.  Importantly they never have been great rules writers.  This is not some new thing.  AoS1.0 out of the gate was quite literally unplayable in any organized sense.  Warhammer 8th edition had to be so heavily comped on the tourney scene that the competitive game barely even resembled the base game.  Lets not even get started on 40k.  

Yet here we all are complaining about AoS 3.0 on a forum, taking time out of our days to talk about this game that causes us endless frustration. Why?  Because GW games have a draw that goes well past their middling rules.  The lore, the models, the army building, the community and massive player base.  AoS is not a balanced game, but that's part of the fun.  List building is so open and diverse and has plenty of loopholes and OP builds, in one sense that's bad, in  another it lends itself to endless thought and discussions.  What hidden tricks can I find?  Lets us all as a community laugh and cry about the latest idiodic situation GW has gotten themselves in (How can anyone not just sit down and just LAUGH when Kragnos' point cost was revealed?).  

There are plenty of well balanced smartly designed games out there that are and always have been "better" then GW games.  Yet GW is king for a reason.  And at least for me they are good reasons.  The game is way more then its rules and always has been.  The rules just need to be JUST good enough to keep all of the other aspects worth while.  And GW always ends up getting there ****** together just enough to keep the rules playable.  I see no reason this edition will be different.  Especially since we don't even know the full rules yet.  Not to mention all of the faqs and point changes that will effect how every unit interacts with them.  Like don't get me wrong I hate the aparent lack of fixes to the broken shooting meta (if anything it looks like its stronger), but I have no doubt the game will be about as it always has been.  A mess, but a worthwhile mess.

Thats just me though.  There are plenty of other options if balance is really the most important thing to you.  KoW, 9th age, a whole host of skirmish games too long to mention.  All are better balanced games, but none of them have ever grabbed my passion the way GW games do.  At the end of the day all of the little things GW does better then everyone else end up compensating for the 1 huge thing they don't do well (rules).

Edited June 9, 2021 by tripchimeras

[Golub87]

42 minutes ago, tripchimeras said:

 AoS is not a balanced game, but that's part of the fun.  List building is so open and diverse and has plenty of loopholes and OP builds, in one sense that's bad, in  another it lends itself to endless thought and discussions.  What hidden tricks can I find?  Lets us all as a community laugh and cry about the latest idiodic situation GW has gotten themselves in (How can anyone not just sit down and just LAUGH when Kragnos' point cost was revealed?).  
 

Honestly, this just reads like Stockholm Syndrome.

This is a hugely expensive hobby that creates personal connection to one's purchases. You pour money and effort into your army.
This creates a huge number of very vocal members of community that will feel personally attacked any time any criticism is leveraged at the game itself. Hence the almost desperate defense of the game and constant attempts to dismiss or silence those who criticize the game.

AoS is very very poorly thought out and designed game. It is not fun. It is not clever. It does not reward system mastery. It might be good at creating the feeling that you mastered the system when you put pink horrors in the list.

AoS has good models. Great even. Pretty much the only reason why I am still here. Lore is a serious miss. Just heaps of bad prose. Rules are some of the worst I have ever seen in a wargame.

AoS has an identity crisis - no clue if it wants to be a warband skirmish game or full battle wargame.

Completely incomprehensible decision to make all these base sizes. There are other skirmish games with much tighter base size rules that are much better as a result.

It is tedious - too many models and abilities and fiddling.

Base rules are incredibly bland and unfun. Writers are clearly aware of this so they overcompensate by overloading the warscrolls with tons of abilities and bombastic effects - which is only great for the rules reveal but not when you see Kroak for the Nth time across the table. The game is just a boring execution of well known combos. The actual gameplay is barren because the core rules are poorly thought out mess.

Due to this, playing AoS feels like watching same Michael Bay movie over and over again. Nuclear explosions do not replace good filmmaking.

The lack of subtlety and restraint in the way armies are differentiated really reveals the lack of confidence the writers have in their base system. I have played wargames where minor differences in stats make for a completely different experiences with different armies. GW overcompensates in their army differentiation resulting in widely unbalanced armies and units.

Yeah, recognizing good units from bad can be seen as a reward for system mastery, but it is kind of a moot point when the difference is this pronounced and when it can be easily net-listed. If anything, the game rewards tedious precise measuring and very accurate bubble setups so that your combo can be executed with maximum efficiency.

Terrain is a gimmick, which is ridiculous for a wargame.

There is clearly no design direction and the design process itself seems quite... insular. Odd silence and lack of any kind of engagement with community. Strange fixation on certain things (who wants to bet that in 3.0 we will get a two-pager about how Open Play is the bestest game mode ever in the whole wide world?)

Looking back, I can easily visualize a lot of the games I played with other wargames, from the terrain placement, maneuvers to the results. When I look back on AoS games, it is just an endless string of games on the same flat terrain (I am sure there was terrain there, just it did not play any part in the game) with the same gimmicky armies, trying to pull off same fiddly combos, just blending together.

When I think about packing my army and heading out to the club and then putting those models on the table... Anxiety sets in. It is like a chore. Playing this feels like a punishment.

When I think about my upcoming Saturday Team Yankee game... I feel good. I am looking forward to it. I am going to lose horribly, as always, because it is a hard game to play that actually rewards mastery, but I will have fun.

Yeah, in writing this post I realized that I am done. Maybe if I stop playing, maybe I will appreciate painting models more.

 

[tripchimeras]

26 minutes ago, Golub87 said:

Honestly, this just reads like Stockholm Syndrome.


 

I love to complain about AoS.  I think criticism it is very important.  But everytime someone writes talking about how this x new edition is the worst ever, the new rules are terribly written, and they quit, I feel the need to try to comment on at least for me why, despite GW not writing the best rules its worth it.  Like it sounds like you legitimately should stop playing if you have no fun playing the game, and I honestly find it surprising you spend time on AoS specific forums discussing the game and investing so much effort into it if its been such a fruitless experience to you.  I think there is no doubt that the game has major issues and is not balanced.  I do think that it has some major bright spots in the rules though, and it is good enough for tactics to still dictate a lot of outcomes.  

AoS is not a skirmish game, like in any way shape or form.  It sounds like that is what you want it to be, which is odd because GW is first and foremost a big battle game company (one of the only ones), while skirmish games are a dime a dozen.  There are a bunch of amazing skirmish games out there.  Comparing AoS to any skirmish game is futile though because its just not comparable.  

As far as your complaints, they are all pretty valid.  Terrain is a joke.  Because the base rules are so simple army books need to compensate while also needing careful regulation as there is little in the base rules to control for things like shooting spam.  GW has done a pretty bad job at this, I'd say before Tzeentch it was in an OK, but not great, spot in this regard.  But since then whatever moderation the rules team had seems to have collapsed (though this feels like it often happens at the tail end of Warhammer editions). 

 

However, I think there are some really great building blocks as well.  I think some (but admittedly not most) of the army books have been very well designed, enough that it gives me hope GW is at least capable of designing a good book. I think some of the base rules are actually quite nice (controversially I think priority at its core is great, and just needed some balancing which to its credit 3rd looks to be attempting).  I think the way the game has handled movement thus far, while imperfect, has a lot of potential (pretty skeptical about the new coherency rules fixing those issues at all, but there are some supplemental rules that could make it work that very well could be in the rulebook). 

So there are plenty of things I think suck about the game, and I think GW has very few excuses for why their rules team is so small, unedited, inconsistent, and, as you say, insular.  But despite that there are still plenty of things I like.  And I think there are enough good things in the game that I think tactics DO often dictate outcome despite the flaws.  And while occasionally my fate feels pre-determined by matchup, considering I only play a ~B tier army in  a pretty imbalanced game, more often then I would expect, I can look back to actual in game decisions that led to my defeats or victories.  And honestly given all of the pluses GW games afford, that is 100% enough for me to love and enjoy this hobby. 

Do I want more?  YES, 100%.  And I am going to complain and whine about all of the dumb-ass decisions GW makes on a daily bases, until they do something about it or my voice gets too horse.  But, as far as the continued enjoyment of the hobby the game, as is, is enough.  That's not Stockholm Syndrome.  That's just honest self reflection and understanding of the most important things I want out of my hobby.  I won't defend GW's ruleswriting, but I will articulate, that for me the game is still worthwhile.  And as someone who has ragequit the hobby before myself (after Fantasy was discontinued I swore GW off), I can tell you that I searched for years for another game that scratched my hobby itch the way Warhammer does, and I have yet to find it.  Ultimately I came back about 6 months into 2nd edition, and found a game that was significantly changed, where GW actually had listened to a lot of the fan criticism.  So I don't think its fruitless to think that sometimes they do actually listen.

Edited June 9, 2021 by tripchimeras

[Golub87]

What can I say about spending time here? We have new rules coming up and there was this hope that this time it will be different?

I would not call this ragequit so much as realization how toxic overall situation around AoS and GW is.

I also don't care if it is a skirmish game or a battle wargame, as long as it picks one and stops being the worst of both worlds.

[Televiper11]

Warcry is fun skirmish game. So is Frostgrave.