Jump to content

AoS 3 New Rules Discussion


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, RuneBrush said:

+++ MOD HAT +++

Feel there's a bit of excess negativity floating around here.  Just a reminder that we want constructive discussions here please, bashing GW for the sake of it isn't constructive.

I don't see much bashing GW for it's own sake. I see some GW bashing for reasons that are valid, well-explained, and which are clearly shared by a great many based on which posts are getting the strongest reactions.

But if excess negativity alone is moddable then I suspect TGA might have a hard time being the home for constructive discussions involving GW going forward :/

  • Like 8
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Golub87 said:

In all of my wargaming hobbies, people can play against me with empty bases as far as I am concerned.

That's a very generous attitude, truly, but at that point is your opponent really in the hobby at all, or is he/she "just" a gamer in the level of a Monopoly player?

I mean, the core of this wonderful experience of ours is the collecting, painting, and playing with models that look like the things they represent in the rules.

If the only part a person is into is the pure tabletop tactics, that's fine, but it's hard to argue they are participating in a hobby. And even if they are, the are assuredly massively diminishing the experience for their opponents andn any onlookers.

As to the financial piece, as harsh as this may sound, nearly all hobbies have equipment, fees, etc. that present financial barriers. You can't show up to an organized hockey tournament with a stick off a tree and tennis shoes instead of skates. You can't drive in a Formula 1 race with a bicycle. You can't have a game of chess, even, with 16 ball bearings as your pieces.

You need the correct equipment. I certainly don't want to exclude people, but there is something to the reality that most activities like these do require you spend at least the minimal amount of money to make them functional and in keeping with what others have committed to doing.

Edited by Sleboda
  • Like 3
  • Confused 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/3/2021 at 9:40 AM, Fred1245 said:

The only possible motivation behind behind it is a Karen-esque powerplay to enforce your will on others to the detriment of definitely tournament play but also the hobby as a whole.

Well, clearly, objectively, that's not the case at all. I think GW's explanation says it quite nicely and immediately disproves your assertion. Playing with models known to represent one thing and asking your opponent to disregard all their experience with those things, is, frankly, an unfair imposition on them.

To put it sightly differently, consider the other player. Isn't it right to think that by using confusing models you might be putting them in a bad spot?

Edited by Sleboda
  • Like 2
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sleboda said:

That's a very generous attitude, truly, but at that point is your opponent really in the hobby at all, or is he/she "just" a gamer in the level of a Monopoly player?

I mean, the core of this wonderful experience of ours is the collecting, painting, and playing with models that look like the things they represent in the rules.

If the only part a person is into is the pure tabletop tactics, that's fine, but it's hard to argue they are participating in a hobby. And even if they are, the are assuredly massively diminishing the experience for their opponents andn any onlookers.

As to the financial piece, as harsh as this may sound, nearly all hobbies have equipment, fees, etc. that present financial barriers. You can't show up to an organized hockey tournament with a stick off a tree and tennis shoes instead of skates. You can't drive in a Formula 1 race with a bicycle. You can't have a game of chess, even, with 16 ball bearings as your pieces.

You need the correct equipment. I certainly don't want to exclude people, but there is something to the reality that most activities like these do require you spend at least the minimal amount of money to make them functional and in keeping with what others have committed to doing.

Yes those famously common monopoly players whose primary entertainment time is taken playing naught but monopoly.

 

You could, in fact, have a game of chess with easy proxies.

 

But I see you backed the heck off on trying to claim armies must be painted their subfaction huh?

1 hour ago, Sleboda said:

Well, clearly, objectively, that's not the case at all. I think GW's explanation says it que nicely and immediately disproves your assertion. Presenting known to represent one thing and asking your opponent to disregard all their experience with those things, is, frankly, an unfair imposition on them.

To put it sightly differently, consider the other player. Isn't it right to think that by using confusing models you might be putting them in a bad spot?

 

"The great GW overlords have told me conversions and hobbying anything but the strict box art is bad, and they are great and good, so this must be true"

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Zappgrot said:

 While i agree whit the point I hate playing against empty bases.  I would let them just use my stuff.  Sharing is caring

In my Frostgrave group, I built and painted the armies of all but one of the players. And the monsters. And the terrain.

I build and paint stuff anyway, and if I have a purpose, that's a bonus.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Sleboda said:

That's a very generous attitude, truly, but at that point is your opponent really in the hobby at all, or is he/she "just" a gamer in the level of a Monopoly player?

I mean, the core of this wonderful experience of ours is the collecting, painting, and playing with models that look like the things they represent in the rules.

If the only part a person is into is the pure tabletop tactics, that's fine, but it's hard to argue they are participating in a hobby. And even if they are, the are assuredly massively diminishing the experience for their opponents andn any onlookers.

As to the financial piece, as harsh as this may sound, nearly all hobbies have equipment, fees, etc. that present financial barriers. You can't show up to an organized hockey tournament with a stick off a tree and tennis shoes instead of skates. You can't drive in a Formula 1 race with a bicycle. You can't have a game of chess, even, with 16 ball bearings as your pieces.

You need the correct equipment. I certainly don't want to exclude people, but there is something to the reality that most activities like these do require you spend at least the minimal amount of money to make them functional and in keeping with what others have committed to doing.

That's all very well, but some of us spent the minimum requirement needed for entry years ago. We've been committed to the company and the hobby for decades, back when they fostered creativity and encouraged conversions and kit bashing to enhance the game and the lore.

Look at it this way - if I want to play tennis at a club, I can turn up in my cheap supermarket shorts and shirt. I can wear my old shoes and use my dads racket. Yes, I bought new balls because my old ones were worn out and new ones were required. Then I paid my entry fee and now I'm playing. At no point did an umpire go "You have cheap and old gear so please leave. Buy the latest most expensive clothing or don't come back."

Edited by SentinelGuy
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Sleboda said:

Well, clearly, objectively, that's not the case at all. I think GW's explanation says it que nicely and immediately disproves your assertion. Presenting known to represent one thing and asking your opponent to disregard all their experience with those things, is, frankly, an unfair imposition on them.

To put it sightly differently, consider the other player. Isn't it right to think that by using confusing models you might be putting them in a bad spot?

If GW never dumped kits, or changed points, or changed abilities, or lore, that would be a point.

Luckily, they do (well, luckily for everything past the first) to keep the game going forward. But that means that something you painted one way might not work anymore. Or models that are now worthless.

I made Warscroll cards with a picture of my models for the opponent to use, since I converted quite an eclectic bunch to Pistoleers (though they all had pistols and are on horseback). I don't think that's neccesary though.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, NauticalSoup said:

I don't see much bashing GW for it's own sake. I see some GW bashing for reasons that are valid, well-explained, and which are clearly shared by a great many based on which posts are getting the strongest reactions.

But if excess negativity alone is moddable then I suspect TGA might have a hard time being the home for constructive discussions involving GW going forward :/

+++ Mod Reply +++

Excessive negativity is one of the core rules of TGA - it was there right at the beginning when the forum was built and each and every one of us agreed to abide by the rules when we joined up.

It's often misconstrued that this rule means no criticism or negative comments, but this isn't what the rule is about and not how we aim to moderate.  The vast majority of hobbyists want to come to a forum and read about a hobby they enjoy and are passionate about.  They don't want to come to a forum to find pages worth of people moaning because something's happened that they don't like.  Nobody wants to have every comment replied to with "well that's because GW are rubbish at X".  If you're finding every aspect of the hobby to be negative then it's probably worth taking a bit of a break, we're meant to enjoy doing our hobby after all.

As a final point, in the past we've had a few darker periods, yet we've upheld the excessive negativity rule and TGA is all the better for it.  We're actually in a fairly good point with AoS now - yes there are things that could be improved, but I'd say there are less of them than things that work OK.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, Sleboda said:

Annoyed because they once again made it a permission thing. If you rightly claim that you want the look of the models to matter and ask your opponents to play by that recommended guidance, you have to take the risk of the opponents besmirching you to others. 

Come on GW, take a firm stance, or at the very least give those players who agree with your official stance some stronger supporting language to use in defending their position as the correct one.

On the whole, though, I loved that entry.

Proxies, including using color schemes clearly tied to one set of rules as something other than those rules, are one of the Great Hobby Evils.

GW wants to tightly control the hobby with the exclusive goal of making more profit (not even maximizing sales), while swatting away the competition (for that sweet sweet market power). You have expressed in the past your support for stockholder dividend maximization, but I fail to see how that is the "Greatest Good" for the Hobby at all.

Proxies are not a "Great Hobby Evil", at least in the opinion of the masses of people who use them for various reasons, and asking GW for ammunition to try and shut down those using them is just weird to me. As if GW had any legimitimate way to decide how we play with their toys. Akin to buying a car and getting a dress code to drive from the manufacturer.

You dislike proxies and want GW to print something so that you can attempt to circumvent social conventions and stick it to the face of the poor lad using proxies. Sorry, hard not to get triggered by this.

PS - And this is from someone who mostly paints GW miniatures, new and old. But I want this to be because I choose to do so, not because it is forced upon me to play the dominant system.

Edited by Greybeard86
  • Like 8
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But GW accepts any Converted miniature if it's a GW model.

Quote

Miniature conversion refers to the practice of altering the appearance of a miniature or model so as to deviate from the standard version purchased in a boxed set.

So, instead of saying that we are using a painted "proxy", we just need to say that we are playign with a conversion:

-Dude, you can't use Hammers of Sigmar to represent Anvils of Heldenhammer!!

-Wtf dude, they are not Hammers of Sigmar, look, 0.0003% of red on the golden parts, it's clearly a conversion that I made to represent a group of Anvils of Heldenhammer and this golden and blue scheme is to represent... (insert any reason that nobody cares about).

Edited by Beliman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Beliman said:

But GW accepts any Converted miniature if it's a GW model.

So, instead of saying that we are using a painted "proxy", we just need to say that we are playign with a conversion:

-Dude, you can't use Hammers of Sigmar to represent Anvils of Heldenhammer!!

-Wtf dude, they are not Hammers of Sigmar, look, 0.0003% of red on the golden parts, it's clearly a conversion that I made to represent a group of Anvils of Heldenhammer and this golden and blue scheme is to represent... (insert any reason that nobody cares about).

So why have the rule at all?

Let's be frank, GW wants to have all miniatures be a free ad for their products. If you start mixing in "proxy" stuff, often converted using other manufacturer's bits and so on, then people might wonder out of the GW shop. For example, maybe they like giants from other brands better than GW's, and would like to "proxy" them. Or they heavily want to use other bits from scibor,victoria minis, or even 3d printed stuff. GW does not want any of that because it detracts from their business. Even though converting is ad the core of the hobby. The color schemes things is just collateral damage, I believe.

I stopped getting white dwarf over stuff like this, it has become less interesting to me as it diverted from "Stillmania" to "Modern marketing 101".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Greybeard86 said:

Let's be frank, GW wants to have all miniatures be a free ad for their products. If you start mixing in "proxy" stuff, often converted using other manufacturer's bits and so on, then people might wonder out of the GW shop. For example, maybe they like giants from other brands better than GW's, and would like to "proxy" them. Or they heavily want to use other bits from scibor,victoria minis, or even 3d printed stuff. GW does not want any of that because it detracts from their business. Even though converting is ad the core of the hobby. The color schemes things is just collateral damage, I believe.

The rules on warhamemr fest only say that the bits that you use for a converted model must be from other GW products (or your own sculpt, doesn't matter if it's 3D or handmade).
So, you paint as you like your own GW models, and say that's a conversion and not a proxy.

GW will be happy (you buy their products and play their game), you're models are fine (because you don't need to buy x6 SCE to play the whole battletom) and ppl that don't care probably will not ask why you use Hammers of Sigmar to represent Anvils of Heldenhammer.

Everybody wins. Just remember, never say that you are playing with proxy, it's just a conversionl!!

Edited by Beliman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the idea behind is a very simple one, GW wants you to take the army because of the background and not because of the rules

so you don't care about how good or bad that specific sub faction is because you play it anyway or different reasons

there was also once hints in the FAQ that if GW made one sub faction stronger, you should not be "that guy" and play it (hard time for those who played it before the change because of the fluff, and sometimes resulting in people put the old army on the shelf to avoid the hate in the stores)

this is the reason why we see ot again, people might have started an Anvil army because it was strong and painted it that way, to avoid now that everyone starts to play something else that is now strong, they put the "don't be that guy and play to win" in the FAQ

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Kodos der Henker said:

the idea behind is a very simple one, GW wants you to take the army because of the background and not because of the rules

so you don't care about how good or bad that specific sub faction is because you play it anyway or different reasons

there was also once hints in the FAQ that if GW made one sub faction stronger, you should not be "that guy" and play it (hard time for those who played it before the change because of the fluff, and sometimes resulting in people put the old army on the shelf to avoid the hate in the stores)

this is the reason why we see ot again, people might have started an Anvil army because it was strong and painted it that way, to avoid now that everyone starts to play something else that is now strong, they put the "don't be that guy and play to win" in the FAQ

A new chamber is opened regularely, leading to new subfactions that didn't exist before, with a playstyle that might fit the person that already painted their stuff a certain way better.

Nothing to do with "that guy".

As for lore, that also isn't a constant. See Anvilgard. Or better yet, see all the minor factions that now are Cities.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, zilberfrid said:

A new chamber is opened regularely, leading to new subfactions that didn't exist before, with a playstyle that might fit the person that already painted their stuff a certain way better.

Nothing to do with "that guy".

As for lore, that also isn't a constant. See Anvilgard. Or better yet, see all the minor factions that now are Cities.

I do not think he is implying you'd be that guy. Rather, that this is how GW envisions it (or wants you to think about it).

The problems with sticking to an army (which I would actually prefer) are, among others:

  • They are freakishingly espensive. An army will set you back 600-800$ easy, not including hobby supplies.
    • I say expensive wrt to other brands, where an army will cost you 200$, even if it as the same or more models.
  • The meta rotates too fast. Even if you are not cutthroat tourney oriented, armies can have vast gulfs in power, and that changes over months.
  • GW might legend you (holding the grudge forever for chorfs).

So proxying and generally speaking recycling as much as possible is the way to go for many.  The game just isn't being designed for moderate expenses from a person collecting a single army over time.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

exactly

if this would be a Skirmish game with 10-20 models or better said 100-200€ per army that is released as full game (not just core rules with armies change over time but everything at once) we could talk about that specific colours are bound to specific rules (remembering the 5th Edition dragon rules were the actual colour of the model decided on which effect the breath attack had)

yet with a game that cost 800 per army in same cases and there is no guarantee that the list you start is still there in 6 months, trying to enforce this and calling people who do not "that guy" is something the community should not only ignore, but calling out to GW that this is bad move from their side has nothing do to with our hobby

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I played a 1000pts game with a new player yesterday - it was a lot of fun, but there was one worrying thing that stood out to me. That was that there were loads of rules to remember for them. While I was fine with it after doing a lot of reading through pre release, they had barely gotten their heads around AoS 2 and the amount that AoS 3 added on was very overwhelming.

I personally love the AoS 3 rules, but it was taking the new player 45+ minutes to do their turn because of choice paralysis. I can see AoS 3 becoming much harder for new players to learn, and while this may not be an issue if starting with simple rules, eventually they would need to move up to the extras.

The things they struggled with were heroic actions and command abilities, on top of all of the rules in their battletome and on their warscrolls. 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Sleboda said:

That's a very generous attitude, truly, but at that point is your opponent really in the hobby at all, or is he/she "just" a gamer in the level of a Monopoly player?

I mean, the core of this wonderful experience of ours is the collecting, painting, and playing with models that look like the things they represent in the rules.

If the only part a person is into is the pure tabletop tactics, that's fine, but it's hard to argue they are participating in a hobby. And even if they are, the are assuredly massively diminishing the experience for their opponents andn any onlookers.

As to the financial piece, as harsh as this may sound, nearly all hobbies have equipment, fees, etc. that present financial barriers. You can't show up to an organized hockey tournament with a stick off a tree and tennis shoes instead of skates. You can't drive in a Formula 1 race with a bicycle. You can't have a game of chess, even, with 16 ball bearings as your pieces.

You need the correct equipment. I certainly don't want to exclude people, but there is something to the reality that most activities like these do require you spend at least the minimal amount of money to make them functional and in keeping with what others have committed to doing.

Well, I guess the issue is that we have a fundamental disagreement on what is the meaning of "community".

To me, a community is a group of people that share certain interests or circumstances and help and support each other.

As of late, with the rise of social media and whatnot, "community" has also entered corp vernacular and it has come to mean a group of people that can be relied upon for free marketing and public presence.

See the difference? Community benefiting itself and its members vs the "community" benefiting outside entity.

You can also easily distinguish between the two from the inside as well - in this example, if a player wants to try the game but does not currently have the means to get the full army, will you side with the fellow community member and enrich your circle of friends while at the same time making someone's life easier and nicer, or will you side with the corporate bottom line?

Are you in community or in #community?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Proxies, e.g. using a different miniature to represent another with no alterations, can be extremely annoying since not only do your opponent have to keep track of all your rules but also which unit you randomly decided is a different unit this time around.

Since no effort has been made to convert or kitbash it is a proxy, not a conversion. AFAIK this has been a part of pretty much every tournament I've heard of and is a staple of good sportsmanship. 

Similarly, things can get very confusing if you're rocking the colours of one sub-faction but have different rules every other game. Now your opponent, once gain, have to keep track of your battletome and opens up to gotcha-moments.

I wouldn't mind though and I do not think GW expect people to enforce these rules with an iron fist. It is, however, good to be aware of so you 1) make it VERY clear to your opponent which sub-faction you are, 2) clearly distinguish the differences, 3) give opportunity for your opponent to ask questions and clarify things.

The spirit of the rule is clarity. That's my interpretation anyways.

Edited by pnkdth
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you even know what the colors of any AOS subfaction are, such that you would be confused if someone brought an army painted that way and told you they were something other than what you were expecting them to be? If so, I think you're ahead of 95% or more of us. 

This isn't even 40k where you can mix detachments of different subfactions, so there's not that potential confusion during the game as to which is which. 

I'm not trying to be rude here, it just never even occurred to me that anyone in AOS pays any attention to what colors someone's army is and assumes things based on the painting scheme as to what sub-faction they are. I thought everyone was like everyone I know and told their opponent before the game (and on their list) what their subfaction is and what bonuses it provides. I've never had anyone show up at a table and be like "well as you can see, my wobbleworfs are all puce, magenta and chartruse, so we all know what that means, right? Roll-off time!"

 

 

 

Edited by yukishiro1
  • Like 8
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

Do you even know what the colors of any AOS subfaction are, such that you would be confused if someone brought an army painted that way and told you they were something other than what you were expecting them to be? If so, I think you're ahead of 95% or more of us. 

This isn't even 40k where you can mix detachments of different subfactions, so there's not that potential confusion during the game as to which is which. 

I'm not trying to be rude here, it just never even occurred to me that anyone in AOS pays any attention to what colors someone's army is and assumes things based on the painting scheme as to what sub-faction they are. I thought everyone was like everyone I know and told their opponent before the game (and on their list) what their subfaction is and what bonuses it provides. I've never had anyone show up at a table and be like "well as you can see, my wobbleworfs are all puce, magenta and chartruse, so we all know what that means, right? Roll-off time!"

 

 

 

If you're already making things clear and obvious for your opponent this rule wasn't written for you.

I'm also convinced people would bash GW if these rules weren't here as being unclear and opening up to scenarios where "that guy" would claim that there's nothing in the rules which says I can't use a potato to represent X unit or other silly scenarios... Or to confuse through cheating/gaslighting, "oh that was actually that model..."

As someone once said, once you know the rulebook you're in a much better position to throw it away. In this case, each group and club can make their own adjustments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see what using potatoes to proxy things has to do with my doubt regarding trying to mandate subfaction paint schemes in AOS and whether anyone even knows what those schemes are in the first place.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe some people do look at a Seraphon army and are like "blue, green blue, and bluish white! That's clearly Fangs of Sotek, don't you try to be pulling a fast one and telling me those are Thunderlizards!" I've just never met one, and you not answering the question makes me think I still haven't. 

Proxies and paint schemes strike me (and, judging from the thread, a lot of other people) as two completely different things, such that putting them in the same rules section is inappropriate and confusing. If the purpose of the rule is clarity, conflating the two actively undermines the purpose of the rule IMO. What color you choose to paint your models isn't equivalent to using a potato to represent a Mawcrusher (everyone knows a cabbage is the only acceptable proxy there). 

Edited by yukishiro1
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, pnkdth said:

If you're already making things clear and obvious for your opponent this rule wasn't written for you.

I'm also convinced people would bash GW if these rules weren't here as being unclear and opening up to scenarios where "that guy" would claim that there's nothing in the rules which says I can't use a potato to represent X unit or other silly scenarios... Or to confuse through cheating/gaslighting, "oh that was actually that model..."

As someone once said, once you know the rulebook you're in a much better position to throw it away. In this case, each group and club can make their own adjustments.

I mean... if a potato is all they have on hand, then why should I stop them? Just make sure it has an appropriate sized base.

People want to try out things on the table before investing significant money in the plastic and that is 100% fine. Also, someone might not have the money to afford all the units for an army right now, and might buy it incrementally, over time.

As for "gotcha" moments - I use Splintered Fang cultist models mounted on 25mm instead of marauders. Marauders are ugly and old models (1997 I think), Splintered Fang cultists fit Slaaneshi aesthetics much better and it is not like cultist rules are of much use to begin with. I assure you that there is exactly 0 people on this planet Earth of ours who have the intellectual capacity to remember different rules for Splintered Fangs and Marauders and plan their moves accordingly, but also lack the intellectual capacity to remember that this blob of half-naked guys on 25mm bases are in fact Marauders and not this other unit that no one ever uses.

Again, as someone mentioned gatekeeping and poking holes in opponent's army is pure powerplay and mindgame and it has nothing to do with practicality. Person playing the game with what they have is not being tricky or underhanded, the person who is trying to leverage the opponent's lack of models into an advantage is.

Edited by Golub87
  • Like 7
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Long time lurker. Just wanted to add this.

Painting guides aren't provided for every subfaction. Even when they are present, AOS has not been a game where that level of painting specificity has ever been required. I stopped playing 40k when local gamers were debating the legality of specific paint colors. I thought AOS was a more accepting place. I guess I was wrong?

I am guessing, based on the arguments here, that a person who painted up a 'stonecast' army would have to not choose a subfaction, or a person who painted a nurgle army (which did not have subfactions until recently) would be unable to claim a subfaction without repainting an entire army. This is exactly the mindset that makes people walk away. Hobbyists should be able to paint their armies as they choose. Full stop. Otherwise, there is no reason the models couldn't be sold pre-assembled and pre-painted. The limiting of paints limits the hobby.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...