Does bitching about Age of Sigmar get you an auto ban?

This user summarised pretty much the problem.

Peoplease opening their mouth without thinking, or worse, when they don't have any stake in it, I.E haven't touched a GW game in decades or don't play at all, yet will still complain to get a miserable sense of community.

What's wrong with them? What problems are inherent to the game?

NEXT YEAR

Fixed dice targets
Removal of magic items
Simplification of magic
Slapping at least 3 special rules onto every single unit
Total lack of consistency between weapon / shield rules
GW points =/= Balanced points
Vulnerability of characters
Complete break of immersion regarding ranged weapons and combat
Removal of mechanics in general (templates, miscasts, psychology)
IGO/UGO double turn smackdowns
No bases
Measure from weapons

And I didn't even touch the aesthetics or silly names.

So you don't personally like it so it sucks. Got it.

someday you'll play a well-made game and understand what he means. until then, enjoy your ignorance as it really is bliss

I don't know the specifics but the local AOS group strangled itself in an arms race a week after the points came out, culminating in some kind of "the entire table is now Catachan" bullshit. I tried it when it first came out and got tired of having to learn a new 30 pages of rules each game because every opponent brought different units. I spent more time teasing apart rule interactions than playing.

More than half of his points are blatantly false. The others are entirely subjective. To add on that he manage to whine about increased complexity and reduced complexity at the same time.

and you've provided no counter points, despite responding to two posts. thats a might red shirt you have there, friend

Also why do GW games die in arms races? I have played games for 13 years and only their games do this. Never happened with Warmahordes, or X-Wing, or Guildball, or Flames of War, or any of the dozens of other games I saw here.

Complexity is bad, tactical options are good.

Putting in something that requires you to think, is good. It promotes being a general (See- wargame) and allows you to be 'good' at the game.
Needless complexity is bad because it creates confusion and doesn't actually require thought to apply, only to understand.

Slapping on more rules doesn't add anything to work with, if the unit only has a limited toolbox to apply them with.
I don't want to remember why your shields are different to mine, I want to think that if I create a shieldwall as opposed to rushing into a counterattack, I am rewarded for being a good general.

>Fixed dice targets
subjective
>Removal of magic items
false
>Simplification of magic
subjective, mostly false. Mechanics are simplified, tactical options are much more increased.
>Slapping at least 3 special rules onto every single unit
subjective, as you are just using the fact that AoS write these on the unit instead of on the rulebook.
>Total lack of consistency between weapon / shield rules
subjective and false. The former are consistent across armies, the latter in the same army
>GW points =/= Balanced points
subjective and false, the GHB weren't created by GW, and they are the best balanced points they have ever used
>Vulnerability of characters
False
>Complete break of immersion regarding ranged weapons and combat
Subjective.
>Removal of mechanics in general (templates, miscasts, psychology)
Subjective.
>IGO/UGO double turn smackdowns
Subjective
>No bases
False, using bases is an official option and it's enforced basically everywhere.
>Measure from weapons
False, see previous points

Happy now?

Tomb kings and Seraphon are still the best armies out there and they were the first to come out.

I don't mean increasing power level. I mean players goading each other into breaking the game more and more until everyone quits.

I never noticed but it sure looks like it

Your false's are false

Clever counterpoint.

fixed dice targets are not subjective.

No bases, but its just an option. characters are vulnerable.

I was gonna take the time to actually respond but holy fuck you could only be a troll, a shill, or someone who literally has never played a non-GW war-game. like i said, enjoy the ignorance, friend. so blissful.

You didn't make any points, you just made claims.

>Slapping at least 3 special rules onto every single unit
>Total lack of consistency between weapon / shield rules

The first one is straight up wrong, there exist Warscrolls with only 1 or 2 special rules (Rotbringer sorc, harpies, warp-grinder, etc. )

And the second point isn't correct either, All shields are consistent per faction. E.g: All lizardman shields ignore rend unless it's -2. All Chaos runeshields provide a 5+ against mortal wounds, etc. This isn't hard to grasp.

>No bases
This isn't really an issue either since basing is subjective. I continue to use square bases because I'm not rebasing all my shit, and i feel they look better.

Everything else in this post is an actual complaint or problem with the game, and i gotta admit i agree with some of them, especially the stupid random turns thing.

Fixed dice targets are a thing that exist, true, but it's entirely subjective how they are bad, except for the fact that you clearly don't understand math and how variables works.

Using bases it's an options, so it's false that it's a problem. It just means that you see a problem the fact that the game allow you to do a thing you don't like instead of a thing you like.

Characters are indeed more vulnerable than WHFB where they were immortal, but the fact that their vulnerability is an issue is false. Teh current top armies rely on extremely though characters.

If you say a false thing there aren't point ot be made. It's false. Like how magic items don't exist, which is strange considering how everyone is using them in every list.

The only reason a person would think these weren't issues in a war-game are because they haven't played enough of a variety of games to understand the various issues these rules create. Notice how so many GW patrons are either children or people who spend all their money in it when they were kids? Their entire business model is nostalgia and inexperienced gamers because they know their rulesets are absolute shit.

Take this with a pinch of salt since it's pretty much purely from observation; but it is largely not the fault of them games themselves but the players and the mindset adopted. With the GW games, the players typically start as kids, not playing narrative-based battles which the designers have consistently promoting in the rulebooks since Warhammer 1st edition, and they play equal points standardised scenario battles almost exclusively, with an edge being got over others through customising an army to have a unit the others cannot deal with, since armies don't spring forth fully formed like Athena when the players are young.

Now whilst Warmahordes promotes a tournament-play ideal and still relying on unit combos, does it a lot better because it's the core of the system, the designers intended form of play, and of course the added point of the starting age being much higher. And it lacks the huge amount of army customisation mechanics GW games tend to focus on.

Players that branch out to game systems like Infinity, Guildball, X-Wing and so on tend not to make that the only thing they play so there again there's less emphasis on constant competition with other players in the way of army building.

Forces in pretty much every other example of widely played games are smaller than a typical GW game too, and again the players are older with less free time but more cash leading to players being more likely to get an entire force at once rather than build it up over time as kids tend to, so there isn't so much of a case of X person having brought a tank or whatever when everyone had just been doing infantry skirmishes and are not capable of dealing with it, especially if strict what-you-see-is-what-you-get modelling is being enforced (which is rare outside of GW games due to much smaller amounts of unit customisation that require modelling).

Anyway, that's my brainfart of an explanation.

These things are false. False as in wrong. They don't actually exist

>The only reason you don't understand the issue they create...

Stop. They don't exist. They don't create issue by virtue of not existing.

>misquoted me
Do you have some sort of learning disability buddy? Or does GW pay you this much to shitpost for their product? I'm equally impressed and disgusted that you are able to be so stupid with such passion. Either way, someday you will play a legitimately quality game and be sad you wasted time and money on AoS, I was trying to get you there sooner. Sorry for the ludicrous amount of time you're losing, friend. I wish you the best of luck in the future.

DESU, you should avoid playing better games. Maybe then you won't realize how much time you wasted and you can just enjoy the shit product until you day. Will probably make you happier. Whichever path you choose, you are not experiencing quality gaming and for that I pity you.

You saying, "false" and "subjective" doesn't make you right lad

Neither does saying things false and subjective.

>this nigga right here
>"I'm not going to provide an argument because my opponent statements are "false" and are where he isn't it's really up to someone's personal prefrence. Of course i don't provide reasons why these are false or why i believe there is no objective truth in his statement's because they are."
arbiter of truth tell me more

You still failed to make any point about any issue. Everything you did is to list a bunch of things, many of which blatantly false.

Please, show me how fixed dice targets are a problem.

It should. If you all ignore It it'll go away you dinguses.

Dude, have you ever tried to open the GHB? Because how "removal of magic items" isn't false when there are dozens of them in the GHB alone and six or more in each battletome since is beyond my grasp.

I didn't list anything at you, pal. But I'll say this: if you like fixed dice targets, you like simple game mechanics. If you like simple game mechanics, why are you spending so much money on AoS? Just go play monopoly or risk. Unless you actually like the lobbying aspect, AoS has been dumbed down to the point that it's not even in the same league as Warmahordes. And the fact I have to explain this to you proves my point yet again: you clearly don't have real gaming experience, and until you realize there are a lot of good reasons older people don't like AoS you will probably get such experience. And, I'll say again, I pity you for that.

>have you ever tried to open the GHB?
It's sitting right next to me, about a foot away.
but that's besides the point, I'm fond of they saying "a exception does not deny a rule" because quite a lot of people have teenager brains and think hat one instance defeats all.
Yes he was wrong about one instance.
now the others user.

You still haven't explained anything, except that you are enlightened by you warmahorde playing.

probably never get such experience*

>Total lack of consistency between weapon / shield rules
Shield rules are perfectly consistent across the same army. Weapons rules are consistent across different armies.

>Vulnerability of characters
The top lists all rely on unkillable characters.

>No bases
>Measure from weapons

Measuring from bases is an official variant, and one that is played literally everywhere.

keep going user.
you aren't done yet.
I swear it's like pulling teeth.

>The top lists all rely on unkillable characters.
as a side note, this a shit.
hero hammer a shit SHIT

>Measuring from bases is an official variant, and one that is played literally everywhere.
how the fuck did that work before the variance?

> top lists
> implying that tiers still exist and that points have not actually resulted in balance

>Is wrong
>Is called out for it
>Nu-uh, I'm not wrong
>Is proven wrong
>Nu-uh, it was only that thing
>Is proven wrong again
>And again
>And again and again
>You still have to prove me wrong on every other thing I said

Sure buddy. I'm going to bed. More productive use of my time.

>>Is wrong
I'm a different user anon.
>>Sure buddy. I'm going to bed. More productive use of my time.
you really ought to have thought about that before you posted on the internet

This a GW training seminar? Because this thread is full of redshirts.

AoS changed bases from square to round. Because WHFB grognards threw a shitfit about rebasing their entire armies because tournaments don't allow wrong bases GW said that bases don't count and you misure from the model, with measuring from bases being a suggested variant.

The main problem with smegmar isn't just oversimplification of the core rules
It's not that the rules are made to sell models like an arms race
It's not that there isn't a point for point balance between units

The problem is simply that the winner of a game is decided before set up begins. Certain factions simply can not compete with others. Certain factions are crippled or overpowered depending on the battle plan. Its like playing Rock Paper Scissors except you spend 300 bucks to have rock forever. I've played a bunch of sigmar and won a lot, and lost a lot, but because of these issues every victory seems hollow and every loss seems unavoidable.

>>No bases
This isn't really an issue either since basing is subjective. I continue to use square bases because I'm not rebasing all my shit, and i feel they look better.
It's absolutely an issue. Measuring from the model is really, really silly. Leads to stuff like knights riding along backwards because their horse's tail extends out a bit further. Whereas with bases, every model has a well-defined, regular and standardized area it occupies.

>Because WHFB grognards threw a shitfit about rebasing their entire armies
dude that actually legitimately sucks to do.
It's MORE then reasonable to be pissed about having to re-base especially if really spent time basing shit.

Adding points only made the game worse hey
Under no circumstances should AoS be mistaken for a competitive wargame, and the generals handbook just slapped points on and pretended like it was good to go for tournament play.
It's fine if you just treat it as the easiest, simplest wargame, and play it as such, but obviously it's rubbish at providing a balanced battle where the better player will win.

This,
You HAD to have square bases before
If they forced circles it would have been an even bigger slap in the face to the established player base and an even bigger shit on their investment into the hobby

> Play Beastmen in 5th
> Ungor are 20mm
> 6th releases, Ungor go to 25mm
> 7th releases, Ungor back to 20mm
> AoS releases, Ungor to round
> On a 5pt/model horde unit

Pretty true. Any 13 year old male with a $500 GW gift card could wreck any local meta

AoS is perfectly playable with square bases, rebasing was and is completely unnecessary. The problem was that the autists that played tournaments could not even comprehend not using a base 1mm larger for that 1mm advantage.

Why would you ever do that? The horse thing is absolutely useless as the tail also started more advanced and the movement is the exact same.

>> 7th releases, Ungor back to 20mm
Really?
Was that a mixed unit to non mixed unit thing.
Jesus that fucking sucks, no wonder i've seen so many ungors stacked on a 20mm/25mm base pyramids

>Have cavalry with lances
>move them foreword
>face them backwards at end of movement
>wheeling is free
>on next turn point lances at enemy
>just gained an inch

ITT: We learn there are seemingly actual people that still shill for this shit

It's still better at that than 40k or WHFB.

Which is basically saying the equivalent of still a better love story than twilight, but at least it's an improvement.

utterly irrelevant when you can just play any other, functional wargame.

>wheeling is free
It's not. The FAQ are pretty clear about it.

You can literally move in any direction you want bud
It's not just free, it's not a thing

Still relevant if you actually want to play it with someone. With all the bad about GW games in lots of places they are the only wargames played.

Still, if by turning your lance your model end up 1" closer to the enemy it counts as 1" movement.

>Q: Since we measure from the model and not the base, does pivoting count as moving?
>A: Yes, pivoting counts as moving. When making a move in Warhammer Age of Sigmar, you have to take into account how far all parts of the model have moved. Or to put that another way, trying to come up with a way of making a move that allows a model to move ‘further’ than its Move characteristic is illegal. It is not allowed for a model to move 5" towards or away from something, and end up more than 5" closer to or further away from it!

AoS bashers really like being wrong.

Still allows for abuse in the pile in phase if you have a lance hanging over three rows of enemy troops. Not going to touch the fact that the rules are so vague there needs to be a thirty page FAQ for four pages of core rules

So point all spears outward now the unit has extra charge range in every direction

And has to start way back, so again, no change.

Only one model needs to finish the charge movement within .5 inch of enemy unit so even though the units on the opposite side still face away, the charge is still legal