Dead Scribe

Yeah they come off as an elite army in the book and the models, but in the rules are just regular normal knights or warriors.

I'll chime in and say I don't think most of what they offer is that good. The writing itself just does not engage me. There are a few exceptions, but I think they need to re evaluate their formula.

Well they will totally collect a netlist to be competitive, they'd just rather the army that call to them be competitively viable. We have a couple guys that really love chaos in general and were hoping the new chaos book would be competitive, so were highly disappointed when they saw that it was just a middle tier book and then on top of that it got nerfed right out of the gate when other armies are obviously more powerful and stay that way.

Well believe it or not there are competitive tournament players that also collect armies based on what fits them the best and would rather run those armies than a netlist they have no attachment to.

Well actually its more that I'm not going to drop $500 or so on an army that has next to no players that I have to hunt down to get a game in and whose only tournaments will be once a year at Adepticon. Thats not something I find enjoyable. I like regular games with different people and regular tournaments, at least two a month.

People talk about using GW models in conquest and kings of war and that warlords of nowhere game. I don't know much about them other than no one around me plays those games so they are not an option for me.

I don't disagree with you. I believe exactly what you are saying is the case. However, people are angry that the models that they like the most are not effective, and to them means they cannot really use them competitively. For people whose main priority in gaming is competitive, that can sting. Especially if they went out and bought the models and then just like that had it FAQ'd into a wet noodle, especially after other armies kept their OP nature for months now.

Thats probably most definitely not called for. If you think general people enjoy picking up a faction that ends up weak and fodder for the stronger factions is good for the game and the continued success of the company, I think you might want to reevaluate.

Well actually I have read and talked with a few people that are upset that something broken was fixed, because they have no competitive answers to the stuff that GW doesn't balance. Most of the traffic that I have read and talked about with others there is a general resentment that the slaves to darkness book was so low in power that it can't be competitive anyway, and then they make it even less so, despite the things in the game that are right now pretty OP and competitive.

Doesn't bother me. Saves me money and I don't have to worry about that army being competitive enough to care about facing either.

They don't have to be complex or detailed to be bad. I can't count how many times someone that likes to house rule comes in and gets mad at having to play by the official rules, or a player who doesn't know better is playing someone using house rules and then they end up thinking those are the real rules, and then arguments happen.

I say house rules are bad because there are now two sets of rules a player has to learn. The real rules, and then some other person's version of those rules.

They will absolutely do so regardless, but I'd rather the collection they can pull from be more standard (gw terrain only) as opposed to them being allowed to bring whatever they want or create that benefits them more.

I just don't think GW games are the place for homemade terrain anymore. I think it opens up abuse of the system. Its like people modeling their characters crawling on their bellies so that they can't be seen. If I was a shooty player I'd bring terrain that was tiny to the table. At least with requiring GW terrain, you have a standard and don't have to worry about people showing up with 24" tall tree models glued in an inpenetrable line or the massive foam keep that does a great job of blocking line of sight - to everything. I think GW not releasing buildings and rivers tell that they don't really see a use for those in today's game at the moment. At least, not a lot of use. They set the standard for the game with their releases.

I've seen many suggestions. Some simple. Some complex. All rejected. If the goal (and I believe it is, and I believe most of you believe it is and want this) is a simple game, you have to accept abstract gamey terrain rules and enjoy that for what it is. You can't have both a very simple game with simple mechanics, and complicated terrain rules. If one wants a more complex game there are several on the market right now that might make one feel better without complaining about aos not having those rules (when aos is designed for simple gameplay marketed at a wider audience that doesn't want complicated rules)

I can agree with that. That would be cool by me. However, having taken part in this conversation about 100 times last year at various events and local shop talk, most people I know don't want to add additional rules and the counter argument to this is that "waac neckbeards will slow down the game with laser pointers taking up too much time finding the right angle to prove they can see when its just easier to say they can see like the rules say now".

I would agree with that. It has to be as simple as possible. Checking if things are in the way would put people off to the game.

Our store rule is that it has to be citadel GW terrain or you can't use it. So no custom modeling for advantage terrain. Otherwise anyone with a shooty army would just show up with teeny tiny non blocking terrain and everyone else would just make and bring big fat huge terrain.

That is why house rules are bad. You are playing with a different set of rules than your opponent is.

As long as each model in your shooting unit can see at a minimum a toenail or spear point of someone in the enemy unit, it can shoot at that unit. If any models in the unit cannot see the target, they cannot shoot at it. However even if you only have one target model out of a unit of ten models that can be seen, if you can have as many guys shoot that one model, the damage leaks over so line of sight obstructions are very minor in AOS and don't really matter too much, which is where sloppy play comes in when people don't bother checking anymore. This causes some people to rage because it doesn't make sense to them, but this is a game, and its not supposed to make sense. For rules that make sense, people should find simulation games which are built around making sense. AOS is an abstract game built on the back of card games and board games, not simulations.

I don't think that wanting to win or not caring who wins really has any bearing on using house rules or choosing not to use house rules that arbitrarily enforce someone's vision of "reality". I don't think those two things are connected in any way. Thats the price you pay for an ultra casual ultra easy system that caters to the casualest of players however. Thats what the gw fans want.

Thats understandable. Unfortunately AOS is not a game that supports that type of thing. Its a game, so people are going to have to accept that level of abstraction in lieu of "reality".

I've never in my two plus years of playing AOS have had anyone question the line of sight rules as being not clear. I have heard many people complain about the line of sight rules (shooty players mainly complaining that forests now block line of sight as being not fair to them), but never had I until this very moment had anyone say they were not clear.

We don't houserule anything. We use the rules as written. If you can see any part of the model then you can target it.

I dont like Dakka simply because dakka doesn't have a very active group and the people that post on AOS are all questionable in terms of what I think they know about. I use facebook groups or private chat groups a lot, and I do reddit a lot. There's negativity in pretty much every group I read, I just ignore that and focus on the posts that I care about.