Jump to content

Unpopular opinion thread


Recommended Posts

 +++ MOD HAT +++ 

Just a reminder, this thread is about highlighting our own unpopular opinions on AoS, it's not an opportunity to attack each other if we disagree.  Not impressed.

Also as a polite "suggestion", let's drop the double turn discussion.  It's a hugely polarising topic and we all need to accept that its a subject not everyone will agree with.  It doesn't need another justification on why your view is the right one.

 

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  1.  Most GW games that are not core games are not worth getting into. The half life of thoose products is so short and GW seems to actively cripple releases to stretch them out into some add on books as seen with Necromunda, Blood Bowl and so on.  While the games as game suffer from gw's policy, the models remain awesome tough. Still most rule sets remain really painfully bad written.
  2. MESBG remains the best ruleset by GW currently has to offer
  3. While I think WHFB was not the superior game compared to AoS, I really hate the lack of armies with a classic army style rooster. In WHFB each army had variations of troops with different loadouts: Ranged, Sword and Shield, Spears as well as a good overall vibe for footslogging heroes. AoS lacks this in most armies. LRL are the first army since ages that have "classical" roles with Spears, Bows, Warmachines and Cavallery (which are even of Horses), which is awesome. Despite them only CoS come to my mind fullfilling this sheme.
    • Deviating from this, I wish we had the option to merge little footslogging heroes into other units. This would make playing some little cheap supporters and beatsticks more viable and fun by boosting durability. 

 

Edited by Charleston
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Was WHFB ever very much into the satire and political commentary? That always seemed more like 40k's specialty to me. 40k really came out of the 80s in the UK, whereas WHFB always felt a bit less overtly political and more timeless to me. They've definitely moved away from the political element to 40k, though, presumably when they realized how many of their fans seemed to not be in on the joke. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, yukishiro1 said:

I honestly don't know whether this one is unpopular or not:

Mortal Wounds are just a bad mechanic. They shouldn't exist. Just give stuff high rend if you want it to go through armor saves, or even let it ignore armor saves entirely. MWs in 40k sorta make sense because you have a toughness stat, they don't make sense in AOS. Spells should just deal x amount of normal wounds at x rend. It would give you a lot more room to work with in that space too, instead of having practically every damage spell be "yeah, you guessed it, this one does d3 mortal wounds too!" 

 

My views would be pretty close to this. That said, I'd say that magic should be the source of damage that does mortal wounds from the perspective that magic should circumvent ordinary armor - even if d3 mortal wounds is a bit boring  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, Abstract_duck said:

My views would be pretty close to this. That said, I'd say that magic should be the source of damage that does mortal wounds from the perspective that magic should circumvent ordinary armor - even if d3 mortal wounds is a bit boring  

That means that armies that don't have magic will not have Mortal Wounds, and armies that can abuse magic will have a high number of mortal wounds.

Imho, I think that Mortal Wounds should be delivered by unique and special conditions/ weapons as unmodified 6 to wound rolls. Something that it's nice to have but not mandatory to play. Ex.: venom/magic weapons/spectral claws, etc...

Everything else can just be tweaked to high rend attacks or Auto-hit or/and Auto-wound attacks (even magic).

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, yukishiro1 said:

Was WHFB ever very much into the satire and political commentary? That always seemed more like 40k's specialty to me. 40k really came out of the 80s in the UK, whereas WHFB always felt a bit less overtly political and more timeless to me. They've definitely moved away from the political element to 40k, though, presumably when they realized how many of their fans seemed to not be in on the joke. 

In 40k it is definitely more overt. It is there in wfb, but best seen in the RPG books and black library novels. In many ways those were what really soldifed the setting and themes of warhammer above and beyond what tje wargame could spotlight. 

For those wanting more of a sense of place and depth to the aos setting and not finding it in battle tomes should maybe try Soulbound. Only read the core book so far, but they certainly have a strong range of topics being covered.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, yukishiro1 said:

Was WHFB ever very much into the satire and political commentary? That always seemed more like 40k's specialty to me. 40k really came out of the 80s in the UK, whereas WHFB always felt a bit less overtly political and more timeless to me. They've definitely moved away from the political element to 40k, though, presumably when they realized how many of their fans seemed to not be in on the joke. 

Yes it was, back in the 80's it was very much tongue in cheek humour and satire at film, politics and genres.  You have to remeber as well that back then it was very much a UK thing, they still hadn't had the big global reach that they have now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Charleston said:
  1. While I think WHFB was not the superior game compared to AoS, I really hate the lack of armies with a classic army style rooster. In WHFB each army had variations of troops with different loadouts: Ranged, Sword and Shield, Spears as well as a good overall vibe for footslogging heroes. AoS lacks this in most armies. LRL are the first army since ages that have "classical" roles with Spears, Bows, Warmachines and Cavallery (which are even of Horses), which is awesome. Despite them only CoS come to my mind fullfilling this sheme.
    • Deviating from this, I wish we had the option to merge little footslogging heroes into other units. This would make playing some little cheap supporters and beatsticks more viable and fun by boosting durability. 

 

I have to say that the armies in fantasy were polarised for the better in my mind.

Chaos for instance had literally no range whatsoever, so it's natural anathema was an army with heavy range, but when you got in close, a slab of chaos warriors was hard hitting a tough to break, and unless you were facing a vampire lord (I'm not even going there with elves) or a minotaur, there was very little a chaos lord was scared of being challenged by as they were utter wrecking balls in their own right.

Undead armies had lots of troops and powerful characters, but lose the character and the whole army crumbled - hell, in 2nd and third ed I'd literally be making the tea for the other players as my undead army was wiped out to be considered anything meaningful by turn 3 due to instability.

In the advent of AoS with models being removed due to battleshock, well, that was a 1st to 3rd ed undead army without even having to fight. it wasn't uncommon for whole units to just disappear - BUT - you had fear and terror, which proportionally were very powerful, as they reduced attacks, strength, and all sorts of shenanigans.

Yes, empire did, but at the same time the average human statline was the weakness of the army, but common with every fantasy trope, the humans had a bit of everything and were the most versatile army.

..and elves, well , lets just not go there in 8th ed, yes toughness 3, but try denting the allarielle whitelion deathstar with anything, anything at all.  Many new to AoS players never really got the elf hatred amongst longbeards but trust me when I say they were always a vile faction to play against as there was nothing they couldn't do bigger better faster more.  Which would be fine if they were points costed to high heaven but they weren't in respect to what they could pump out.

 

What I'm really trying to say is that I'm not adverse to armies having obvious big holes and weaknesses in their arsenal, but compensate with another greater strength to make up for it, and as much as it's a nice to have, I don't see why every faction should have it all and cover every base, I think it diminishes the very flavour of the faction when we start talking like the 40k base about MEQ, TEQ etc.  how about a faction with no EQ's to another faction's thing?

Edited by Kaleb Daark
  • Like 2
  • LOVE IT! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Kaleb Daark I really enjoyed reading your opinion on that matter! I agree that not every single faction should have *all* the options and that those differences make up the charm of the game! WHFB had some sort of a base frame and you could easier put models in to different categories. AoS factions seem to lack this common frame, or at least it is overshadowed in my opinion by the different Warscrolls that all try to be different and new and end up feeling noisy. Which is why I miss thoose clearly defined roles in AoS and dislike that weird, pushed individuality of models.

AoS 1.0 had the same rule for all Banners, Musicians and Leaders across a faction which somehow had this "common frame" theme. If you were about to learn your  faction, you mostly had to memorize those once and it made your army feel more coherent. All Dwarves Musicians had their ability to march instead of running to mention an example. Current design trend leads to more and more "unique" patterns. But like in society: When everyone tries to be unique, no one really is. 

That is why I prefered the frame of "boring" repeating patterns: Because minor deviations were enough to stand out and make units exciting. F.e. by making the elite infantery better and by not including a ranged unit you can easily create perks that make a faction feel unique, like the example of Chaos Warriors you mentioned. 

That is also why the current allegiance system is a blade with two edges: While it allows you to adjust the gameplay of your army way better it also makes the traits of the faction as a whole less defined. Archetypes are no longer tied to factions. You can play Skaven as Horde or Elite army, SCE can field either 40-50 redeemer units or just 10 dragons and so on. 

  • Like 1
  • LOVE IT! 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Charleston said:

Current design trend leads to more and more "unique" patterns. But like in society: When everyone tries to be unique, no one really is. 

I think that 3.0 has a santandard of:

Champions: +1atk
Banners: +1 Bravery
Musicians:  +1 charge

I know that some units have an special ability (Ex.: Vanquishers), but that's just for some special cases.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I honestly wish they would stop doing this and just bake it into the Bravery characteristic. Mostly because I forget about  it every time.

I agree with this. I also dont like being forced to build all options for msu. It made sense in whfb with horde units and siege style gameplay but i think it should have stayed there. A 5 model unit with full command just looks weird to me.

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

5 hours ago, Beliman said:

Not-sure-if-it's-an Unpopular Opinion but:

  • Look Out Sir should be a 2+ bodyguard instead of a -1 to be hit.
  • Challenge should return to engage (and kill) that pesky characters that stays in the middle of a unit (with Look Out Sir).

I know that there are a lot of buffers in the game that must be killed ASAP for gameplay reasons, but it's boring to kill them with magic/pew-pew-pew.

We see the villains engage with the heroes in a one-on-one fights in movies. Sometimes using swords, sometimes just with bare fists. But always with pure epicness!!! And Age of Sigmar should try to emulate that!

Heroes on foot should fight other Heroes on foot, in a ferocious battle!!

I completely agree with this idea. I think it would be cool if they had to 'join' the unit sharing the movement characteristic of the lowest movement between the hero and unit. It could also result in the unit gaining the hero's bravery characteristic to help mitigate the effects of battleshock and make heroes bravery actually have a functional purpose.  Also Behemoths would be unable to join units.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Beliman said:

Not-sure-if-it's-an Unpopular Opinion but:

  • Look Out Sir should be a 2+ bodyguard instead of a -1 to be hit.
  • Challenge should return to engage (and kill) that pesky characters that stays in the middle of a unit (with Look Out Sir).

I know that there are a lot of buffers in the game that must be killed ASAP for gameplay reasons, but it's boring to kill them with magic/pew-pew-pew.

We see the villains engage with the heroes in a one-on-one fights in movies. Sometimes using swords, sometimes just with bare fists. But always with pure epicness!!! And Age of Sigmar should try to emulate that!

Heroes on foot should fight other Heroes on foot, in a ferocious battle!!

 

5 hours ago, NinthMusketeer said:

I miss challenges.

I actually don't miss challenges that much. It sounds nice on paper and totally epic, this is true. The problem I have seen in WHFB as well as 9th Age was that challenges simply became a tactic how a 10+ Upgrade Champion tanks all the damage of a 400 Point Hero on Mount and the unit winning against that Hero because of passive boni.

 

1 hour ago, Neil Arthur Hotep said:

I honestly wish they would stop doing this and just bake it into the Bravery characteristic. Mostly because I forget about  it every time.

1 hour ago, Iksdee said:

I agree with this. I also dont like being forced to build all options for msu. It made sense in whfb with horde units and siege style gameplay but i think it should have stayed there. A 5 model unit with full command just looks weird to me.

You are not forced to use all options. I have build a Ogor Mawtribes army that doesn't include any Banners, only Champions and Musicians

9 minutes ago, Neverchosen said:

I completely agree with this idea. I think it would be cool if they had to 'join' the unit sharing the movement characteristic of the lowest movement between the hero and unit. It could also result in the unit gaining the hero's bravery characteristic to help mitigate the effects of battleshock and make heroes bravery actually have a functional purpose.  Also Behemoths would be unable to join units.

Sounds a little like OnePageRule

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Neverchosen said:

I completely agree with this idea. I think it would be cool if they had to 'join' the unit sharing the movement characteristic of the lowest movement between the hero and unit. It could also result in the unit gaining the hero's bravery characteristic to help mitigate the effects of battleshock and make heroes bravery actually have a functional purpose.  Also Behemoths would be unable to join units.

That's how old 40k worked and Horus Heresy still works!! It has some problems but a lot of good things!!

20 minutes ago, EMMachine said:

I actually don't miss challenges that much. It sounds nice on paper and totally epic, this is true. The problem I have seen in WHFB as well as 9th Age was that challenges simply became a tactic how a 10+ Upgrade Champion tanks all the damage of a 400 Point Hero on Mount and the unit winning against that Hero because of passive boni.

No need to do the same as Warhammer Fantasy!
I just said Challenge as a mechanic to kill that 5-wounds force-multiplyer Hero that has 30 Zombies/ Skavens/ Dwarfs/ etc... around him, and you need to kill ASAP no matter what. Instead of going full pew-pew-pew or magic, just throw an assassin/big dude/whatever to challenge him/her.

If not accepted, that Hero can't use their abilities or issue commands or whatever (for a turn), but if he/she accept, LET'S BRAWL!!!

Win/win!!!

Quote

Rules of the Challenge Club:

  1. You do not talk about the Challenge Club
  2. You do not talk about the Challenge Club
  3. Nobody can stop the Challenge
  4. Only two heroes fight
  5. All Heroes can issue Chalenge
  6. No Mounts allowed
  7. Only one Hero can win
  8. If this is your first night at Challenge Club, you have to fight.

The perfect blockbuster experience!!!

Edited by Beliman
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Phasteon said:

Unpopular Opionion: 

WHFB and all its antiquated rules are dead for a reason. 

I don‘t think old world will exactly work like WHFB did, because it wouldn‘t be succesful. 

Well if we can’t be for certain till it is released,

yet I did hear that warhammer fantasy army project seems to be a good alternative till it arrives 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, Beliman said:

That's how old 40k worked and Horus Heresy still works!! It has some problems but a lot of good things!!

No need to do the same as Warhammer Fantasy!
I just said Challenge as a mechanic to kill that 5-wounds force-multiplyer Hero that has 30 Zombies/ Skavens/ Dwarfs/ etc... around him, and you need to kill ASAP no matter what. Instead of going full pew-pew-pew or magic, just throw an assassin/big dude/whatever to challenge him/her.

If not accepted, that Hero can't use their abilities or issue commands or whatever (for a turn), but if he/she accept, LET'S BRAWL!!!

Win/win!!!

The perfect blockbuster experience!!!

Unless you are skaven... Fight from the back... 

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mortahi and bowsnakes is boring, It's like playing the skyfires list in first edition. 

Winning with this list doesn't make you a good player but good at turning stats into facts. My friend should stop bragging about it 😂  and before you jump at my throat, yes I do play dok as well and yes I stand on my point. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Phasteon said:

Unpopular Opionion: 

WHFB and all its antiquated rules are dead for a reason. 

I don‘t think old world will exactly work like WHFB did, because it wouldn‘t be succesful. 

WHFB had a fair share of criticisms, but this feels almost like elbowing an elderly gentleman on his 85th birthday.

I understand this is an AoS forum, but this is a very simplistic take on why WHFB died (and I believe if we'd have had Total War: Warhammer, Vermintide and you know, GW actually caring about Fantasy, it wouldn't have). Ironically AoS seems to move towards WHFB with increasing complexity - we're far from needing a single A4 and warscrolls.

And of course TOW won't be 8th, they already had (allegedly) 9th edition almost ready as End Times happened - and even if the rules we have are completely unrelated to those unreleased ones, it won't be exactly what we got - just like AoS 3 isn't AoS 2, or Fantasy 8th wasn't WHFB 7th which weren't 6th which weren't...you get the gist.

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2
  • LOVE IT! 1
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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...