Kyriakin Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 1 hour ago, wayniac said: Really, as said before for me it's about immersion. The old style of models don't fit from an immersion perspective, because their look is too tied to the old aesthetic. It's similar in 40k, the old "Space Ork" (early 2nd edition) Ork figures don't look like they fit into 40k anymore, same with the old Tyranids or even old Space Marine models. I feel like my immersion is shattered when I play against what is clearly old WHFB models like elves, even some Skaven, etc. (although skaven transcend things), because it doesn't feel like the Mortal Realms. I feel the same way about terrain, though; my GW has the old realm of battle board (with that damned sculpted hill on it) and like old Empire buildings (not sure from what set but like regular human looking buildings) and it just makes the games not feel like it's Age of Sigmar. It's a weird feeling. In most cases, I agree. However, if fyreslayers were a separate thing in WHFB, I think they would have the "Old World" vibe. They are after all, just an army of slayers that are pretty much all infantry-sized and not particularly OTT in terms of their design. Also, where do repacks (e.g. FEC, etc.) fall into this discussion? In such cases the fluff has been designed to fit, but not the models. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmimzie Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 I like AOS being fresh instead of the depths of staleness that is 40k and WHFB. As long as model, units, warscrolls, points, and lore are in development and relatively fresh ithink things should be kept from compendium, but if there is nothing for 2 years and no plans for the next year i say let it go compendium. Let tournaments either take or leave compendium as they please. If given to me as a vote i'd leave them. That's my jam in this sandwich Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whataseamus Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 The aesthetic argument doesn't really sway me. What's the aesthetic difference between skeleton warriors and skeleton archers? Bretonnian men-at-arms and archers aren't radically different from their Free Guild counterparts. They may have fleur-de-lis iconography in place of hammers and comets, but the Free Guild stuff still has Karl Franz's initials stamped all over it and if anything, I think the renaissance-era flair of the Free Guild is more out of place in a setting that is dragging itself out of ruin that the more medieval Brets. Also for anyone who doesn't think knights in ornate armour riding winged steeds or skeletons on the back of giant skull-faced serpents don't fit in with the broader aesthetics of Age of Sigmar, then we have a fundamental disagreement on what those aesthetics even are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gaz Taylor Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 Guys, I've just had a read through this thread since I last posted and can I ask some of you to play nice please? The great thing about internet forums is that it allows us to have cool discussions about something we all love doing. If you don't agree with somebody you don't need to be an idiot about it. This forum is for all of us to enjoy talking about Age of Sigmar. Please remember that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleboda Posted January 30, 2017 Share Posted January 30, 2017 2 hours ago, wayniac said: Really, as said before for me it's about immersion. The old style of models don't fit from an immersion perspective, because their look is too tied to the old aesthetic. It's similar in 40k, the old "Space Ork" (early 2nd edition) Ork figures don't look like they fit into 40k anymore, same with the old Tyranids or even old Space Marine models. I feel like my immersion is shattered when I play against what is clearly old WHFB models like elves, even some Skaven, etc. (although skaven transcend things), because it doesn't feel like the Mortal Realms. I feel the same way about terrain, though; my GW has the old realm of battle board (with that damned sculpted hill on it) and like old Empire buildings (not sure from what set but like regular human looking buildings) and it just makes the games not feel like it's Age of Sigmar. It's a weird feeling. I actually agree that older terrain breaks the immersion. A lot more than the models, anyway. I wonder how much that will hold true after they introduce a "normal" pastoral setting where the free people of Sigmar live in nice cobblestone houses? We've seen such a tiny sliver now. More is sure to come, right? I mean, look at 40K. The universe is huge. Not all is Terra, Mars, or Iyanden. There are plenty of other, simpler pockets and places that are totally at odds with the 'standard' battlefield look. I think part of the brilliance of AoS is the 40KFlexibleNess of it. I think all these peeps griping about what looks like AoS may be looking up recipes for ways to prepare crow when, 5 years from now, we see a myriad of different looks for "real" AoS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AGPO Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 On model availability, I feel that as long as conversions are allowed, this shouldn't be a problem for most units. Looking at my high aelves I could quite happily convert a model to represent say Eltharion, Teclis or Alith Anar, and as long as I discuss it with my opponent there shouldn't be an issue. Aesthetics are an interesting issue. One of the issues I had as a narrative gamer when AoS first came out was that the setting felt quite shallow given that there was very little wider background. I like to theme my armies and create fluff but I had no idea where my dwarfs, elves or Slaaneshi warriors belonged in this new setting. As the game and story has progressed I've grown to like the setting even more than I liked the Old World, and I like the fact that it provides a sandpit where you can create whole nations that still fit into the wider setting. This last point is why I am not too fussed about the hangover aesthetics from WFB. Until GW fully update all their ranges (which I see as AoS reaching aesthetic maturity) Spire Guard will still look identical to Lothern Sea Guard and Chaos Warriors could just have easily fought at the Seige of Middenheim as in the Realmgate Wars. One of the reasons I love playing Chaos is that my older models can integrate with my newer kits and still be 'right' because Chaos is all about variety. I can mix my Realm of Chaos Plaguebearers in with the new plastics and it just adds to the chaotic look of the unit. With AoS I can take this approach with any army. If I want to kitbash my high elf archers with glade guard hooded heads and paint them as a nomadic tribe of aelves wandering the Endless Desert, that's a perfectly valid thing to exist in the mortal realms. Likewise if I want to stick handguns on some Bretonian men-at-arms, or paint my old Empire, Dwarfs and Dark Elves in a matching colour scheme and have them as defenders of a Free City where the races live in harmony, I can do that. We're no longer limited to the same dozen civilisations that existed in the World That Was. Personally speaking, it breaks my immersion far more to see a three colour minimum army than an old one, but that's probably because I'm prone to nostalgia and paint far more than I play these days. Ultimately, I just like to paint, play the odd game and have some beers and pizza with fun people who share my hobby. Anything that enables that, including undercosted compendium scrolls and decrepit old models on square bases, is fine by me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkBlack Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 11 hours ago, wayniac said: Really, as said before for me it's about immersion. The old style of models don't fit from an immersion perspective, because their look is too tied to the old aesthetic. It's similar in 40k, the old "Space Ork" (early 2nd edition) Ork figures don't look like they fit into 40k anymore, same with the old Tyranids or even old Space Marine models. I feel like my immersion is shattered when I play against what is clearly old WHFB models like elves, even some Skaven, etc. (although skaven transcend things), because it doesn't feel like the Mortal Realms. I feel the same way about terrain, though; my GW has the old realm of battle board (with that damned sculpted hill on it) and like old Empire buildings (not sure from what set but like regular human looking buildings) and it just makes the games not feel like it's Age of Sigmar. It's a weird feeling. Your immersion is subjective. What YOU feel about anything is fine for how you build your army, but YOU don't have any right to tell others what their army should look like. Invoking something you can't define when pressed to defend your views is not an argument, it's a cop out. Every one has their own ideas and I chose to let it make the experience richer; why let the creative freedom afforded us go to waste? 18 hours ago, wayniac said: It breaks down a competitive game, because everyone is no longer on assumed equal footing; someone who collected Tomb Kings in 8th now has marked advantage over someone starting fresh, because they have a collection that isn't readily available anymore. David Sirlin explains this in his book "Playing to Win: Having an army that is no longer available to buy, but still able to be used, isn't equal access. That is not applicable because this isn't Magic and models are not cards. Models are meant to last where Magic cards are meant to be replaced. In wargames we put everyone on a equal footing by balancing the game. The "marked advantage" is because TK are under-costed, rather go after that than exclude people. I'm limited by what I can afford, do I get to ban models above a certain price? All of that said: TO's may place any restrictions they like, whether anyone approves or not. If you don't like it don't go, vote with your feet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie Grimwood Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 It's all subjective though, it's just people's opinion, some like em some don't. Plenty of room for everyone. TOs and gaming groups have been modifying and excluding stuff since as long as I've been paying wargames. GW have said in the FAQs that they'll be keeping the Warscrolls for the discontinued stuff, it's down to the players/TOs/NEOs whether or not they use them or indeed anything for that matter. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CoffeeGrunt Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Again, a lot of very silly points being made here that don't hold up to scrutiny. Here we go: Aesthetics: If you have the right to discard my army based on legacy models you don't like, I therefore counter with the right to discard your army if all you have is a slapdash 3 colour minimum. Painting is important to me in the hobby, and I spend a lot of time and money trying to make my models look as good as possible. I therefore will hold it against you if you can't or won't. I also hold the right to discard your army if you picked a colour scheme I don't like. or based them in a way that doesn't match how mine are based. Additionally, it's not even an issue exclusive to compendium models. Look at Fell Bats or Bat Swarms - woeful models. Imbalanced Rules: They're PDFs. Why do you have to bin legions of units rather than update some PDFs? Don't Fit the Fluff: The best part is people saying this in the same post as, "the great thing about Age of Sigmar is that it's so vast you can always find a niche to fit your army into." Plus as Señor Mengel has shown, Tomb Kings could very much fit into the fluff. I don't see how Sigvald wouldn't either, or Krell. They're tacky and I hate them: Grow up. 14 hours ago, Kaleb Daark said: A death player shows up with his vampire counts army which has no battletome, but has a slew of forgeworld monsters like a mourngul which like all their models were pre-AoS and put into a compendium, would you be happy for him to play that army? Well if they're Death, they only ever got the Mourngul. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kaleb Daark Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 1 hour ago, CoffeeGrunt said: ...Well if they're Death, they only ever got the Mourngul. Yup , I'll wear that one! Touche' CoffeeGrunt, Touche' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amysrevenge Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Not to harp on this (he said, as he harped on it without relent hahahahaha), but for the notion of "stale" vs. "fresh". What's the expiration date for Seraphon? Book was released 07-NOV-2015, which is now, what, 14+ months in the past? By the time we get to the summer, the Seraphon book will be older than the Compendiums are right now. So if the Compendiums are stale now, will Seraphon be stale by this summer? There are others, the first of the AoS releases, such as Nurble Rotbringers, Skaven plague-dudes, even Khorne Bloodbound, that haven't been updated or re-released, and are heading toward 2 years old. What's the arbitrary cutoff for what is fresh and what is stale? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bosmer Nightblade Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 8 minutes ago, amysrevenge said: What's the arbitrary cutoff for what is fresh and what is stale? It's "stuff I personally don't like". That seems to be the crux of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amysrevenge Posted January 31, 2017 Share Posted January 31, 2017 Yeah I hinted at the answer in my question - it's an old trick (the hint is the word "arbitrary"). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ollie Grimwood Posted February 1, 2017 Share Posted February 1, 2017 Well based on the upcoming Stormcast rerelease not very long at all. Seriously though just like when 40K first came out (Old so old*) we'll see stuff changing very quickly as the game develops (then followed by 20 years of minor tweaks [emoji57]) * not really I'm only 38 Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mc1gamer Posted February 1, 2017 Author Share Posted February 1, 2017 On 1/29/2017 at 11:00 AM, Bimli said: If they get rid of the compendium units I think gw would lose some players. I'm a dispossessed player and I can tell you without the compendium they would just suck. Right now it's hard for dispossessed to win due to some other armies being crazy so why get rid of the thing that can keep my army competitive? I imagine the next release will help but right now, they NEED the compendium to even remotely be competitive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mc1gamer Posted February 1, 2017 Author Share Posted February 1, 2017 On 1/29/2017 at 10:07 PM, buffalozap said: I really liked that video because it was honest. A lot of people are afraid to say what they want to say because they are afraid of being rejected by people or are afraid of hurting someone's feelings, its really refreshing when you get to hear an uncensored opinion. I didn't agree with some of his points but I respect his opinion! You can do both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mc1gamer Posted February 1, 2017 Author Share Posted February 1, 2017 On 1/30/2017 at 6:05 AM, Bosmer Nightblade said: I wasn't going to say this, but it's relevant. I'll reveal no names but let's just say that the other week I witnessed one of the most influential people in the tournament scene in a full blown, raging, toys out of the pram rant about exactly this topic (I.e. compendium at tournaments) His attitude and indeed his words were essentially that anyone who wants to use compendium in competitive can **** off. I'll not embarrass him or associated tournaments or podcasts by saying who, but unfortunately the elitist attitude goes deep into the community. I didn't agree with his attitude then and I don't now, but I'm a little concerned that it's people like that who otherwise act as a beacon to the community and with the ear of GW. I've been saying this for a LOOONG time. The GHB fixed alot, but it fooked alot too. Namely the innovation of AoS, and Matched Play has become a throwback to 8th Ed with notions of 'balance' that are really just retreads of core, max's, etc. They even took some units that had no max and made them single models only because that was what they were in 8th. And it was those VERY influential people who pushed for the GHB at all, when GW was saying that there wouldn't be pts. They bowed to pressure from that community element. Now, the GHB did LOTS of great stuff, but some stuff they killed, namely the innovation and creativity of AoS (like the game of chicken deployment) but some things had to be addressed, like how out of hand summoning was. I feel strongly it wen too far in some areas, but overall its been a positive thing for AoS. My hope is that now that the entire community is providing feedback (GW asked us all for input) that the sample size will be greater to institute more ideas, but it doesn't change the extreme influence those people have and will likely continue to have. AoS wasn't built to be a competitive game, and the GHB has allowed it to be that. Its an easy system to put in an overlay to include a Matched Play format though, and one that will likely evolve over time. My hope is that it takes into consideration that many things done in the GHB1 were knee jerk and rushed, and that we'll see an adjustment in the GHB2. The mindset of 'some' about the compendium makes me think that influence could be a factor here, so if you feel a certain way about this, you should absolutely post your ideas and thougths on that thread that GW put on their FB page! And comment about that view....often. Its the only way your voice has a chance to be heard when others appear to have the red telephone hotline and GW on their speed dial Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wayniac Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 3 hours ago, Mc1gamer said: I've been saying this for a LOOONG time. The GHB fixed alot, but it fooked alot too. Namely the innovation of AoS, and Matched Play has become a throwback to 8th Ed with notions of 'balance' that are really just retreads of core, max's, etc. They even took some units that had no max and made them single models only because that was what they were in 8th. And it was those VERY influential people who pushed for the GHB at all, when GW was saying that there wouldn't be pts. They bowed to pressure from that community element. Now, the GHB did LOTS of great stuff, but some stuff they killed, namely the innovation and creativity of AoS (like the game of chicken deployment) but some things had to be addressed, like how out of hand summoning was. I feel strongly it wen too far in some areas, but overall its been a positive thing for AoS. My hope is that now that the entire community is providing feedback (GW asked us all for input) that the sample size will be greater to institute more ideas, but it doesn't change the extreme influence those people have and will likely continue to have. AoS wasn't built to be a competitive game, and the GHB has allowed it to be that. Its an easy system to put in an overlay to include a Matched Play format though, and one that will likely evolve over time. My hope is that it takes into consideration that many things done in the GHB1 were knee jerk and rushed, and that we'll see an adjustment in the GHB2. The mindset of 'some' about the compendium makes me think that influence could be a factor here, so if you feel a certain way about this, you should absolutely post your ideas and thougths on that thread that GW put on their FB page! And comment about that view....often. Its the only way your voice has a chance to be heard when others appear to have the red telephone hotline and GW on their speed dial I definitely hope. I completely echo these sentiments, that while I feel the GHB was perhaps "necessary" it shifted things right back to the old style of "min/maxing" and perceived "balance" while at the same time crippled some factions (see: Death which relied on summoning to mitigate its major weakness). I do hope that they evolve it to be more than just that same tired old style, because for a bit with AOS it felt like GW was trying to go into a new frontier, only to be dragged back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleboda Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 1 hour ago, wayniac said: ... for a bit with AOS it felt like GW was trying to go into a new frontier, only to be dragged back. Exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BeastsAndBrews Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 I posted a video, as a response to vince. I am of the opinion that they should split them into a separate category such as 'legacy' matched play. For the reason of most people need a title of some sort, to qualify actually lumping then in a new category. And yeah most ppl who have poured hundreds of hours into their army and hundreds of dollars. But I feel in the tournament scene it is a big disadvantage that some people can't get some models. My personal opinion is that T.O's should just do what they want and I'd one or 2 people are mad they can't use their army so be it, or develop there own form of legacy. Maybe they could at the same tournament run one event where compendium is allowed and one where compendium is not and see which event gets more people. I think this debate will end when the GHB 2 droos and re-points the compendium any how. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zephyr Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 I WANT outlier armies and races. Not only do I want to play against them, but I want to own them. Perfect is example is the obvious pirate dark elf army - no doubt in my mind I'm going to pick up a small force of those guys to use in Path to Glory or fun small games with friends. I'd love to do the same with Tomb Kings and Brets - hell, I'd really love to have a Tomb King army, in all its Egyptian glory. I'm not asking for them to be fully supported with new battle tomes, and I'll happily pay a premium for some character models via made to order, but I don't think its too much to ask to have the main kits available regularly. With technology the way it, I don't see any reason why GW can't do the "we will produce X boxed set, but we need to produce Y of them in order to do so - if we get that many orders, we'll make it, if not, we don't" and handle the whole thing online. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wayniac Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 Ultimately what I think they should do is remove points from them. They are still viable to use, but not in matched play. There is already a precedent for this, with some battalions not being allowed and the white dwarf model himself specifically being intended only for default age of Sigmar. The multiple ways to play are essentially similar to Magic formats. They could even introduce a fourth variant that only allows the Legacy Scrolls with special characters and all sort of an old-world battles kind of thing. You would hear complaining from the tournament players that are upset their old models cannot be used in a competition but they would still be viable for use in the game just not in all modesSent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zephyr Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 Splitting the game is a bad move. We're already fighting an uphill battle because of the WHFB baggage. It doesn't matter that most folks don't own and have never owned those models. Perception is already negative for so much of the mini community, especially in the US - if I have to explain why AOS is a good thing AND why the split isn't a bad thing, their just going to pick up another game. Let's face it, our community is in a decent spot right now, we don't need the wailing and gnashing of the teeth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wayniac Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 On the contrary, IMHO the major blowback to AoS came from the "old guard" unhappy that GW "killed Fantasy", squatted TKs and Bretonnia and had "joke rules" that felt like they were making fun of the old crowd, and complaints about "balance" which really meant "I liked how it was before". I think to have an evolving game, GW needs to get people to care about the new world, not cling to the old, otherwise you'll always have jaded greybeards lamenting the fact that "their game" was killed off. Keeping the old stuff around to appease that crowd is IMHO a longterm mistake, but the only fair way to approach it is to allow it in some cases and not in others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squirrelmaster Posted February 2, 2017 Share Posted February 2, 2017 I've said it before: Matched play (or points only) is all I'm interested in playing. And for the record, I am not a tournament player. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.