@OmniJackal : I sense a little bit of venom in your response. I think a couple of things should be made clear for you:
- First off, your constant accusations of me "making shit up" is not a valid argument. If you disagree with what I say (which is completely fine!) by all means raise some counter arguments (preferably with factual/logical support) but please don't misconstrue your blanket statement of "you're making shit up" as being any sort of intelligent counterpoint.
- Secondly, you should note (because you quoted it) that my original post clearly states that these are my personal opinions on the matter (this can be seen from my use of the words "I" and "personally", which were written in bold letters of a different font for emphasis) . Therefore, it shouldn't come as a surprise, that the content that follows is subjective in nature. In some cases those feelings can be backed up with supporting evidence, whereas in other instances it is purely personal preference.
ridiculous new names for factions, locations, units (i.e. Seraphon = weird cartoon cat tickling fetish)
Those ridiculous new names are so GW can trademark them.
They are for trademark purposes (that is not in dispute), but that doesn't make them creative or great in any fashion. Aelf???
Although in GW's defense, some of that naming is so laughably pathetic that no one would want to rip off their intellectual property. Let's call that a win then?
fluff that feels over the top without having anything at stake, there are no "little guys"
Not sure how to respond to this one. It's a fantasy game. Exactly what defines over the top?
Everything has to be bigger and badder without any thought at subtlety or nuance. Who cares if a Sigmarine or Seraphon dies when they just come back to "life"?
What defines something to be over the top? Well that is once again a subjective boundary. If you enjoy the fluff, then immerse yourself in it, but compared to written material that I consume, I feel it to be pretty lackluster.
switching to rounds for no legitimate reason (and yes, I'm aware you can play with squares, but it fits in less and less as time goes by)
Switching to round bases. Is the fact that the models look better on rounds not a legitimate enough reason?
I think you're confusing the word "fact". Models looking better on rounds is not a fact, it is a personal preference. What looks better, red or blue? What tastes better, apple pie or cherry pie? Both are examples of personal preference... not fact! However, the act of switching bases to rounds has :
- created extra work, inconvenience and cost for those who had significant forces on squares
- made it more difficult for people to switch between games (ranked and skirmish), it can be done with specialized trays but that is an extra difficulty
Those two points
are facts.
No armies are broken up. Not only can sub factions fight together in the same army, different armies can fight together within the same alliance.
I am aware that you can combine them, but it is still messy. The GW site is now littered with factions where organized armies once stood.
You can give characters special abilities and artifacts. Please share what you're smoking
Not nearly to the degree to which you were able to in 8th edition.
The rules are spread out? They're 4 fucking pages long dude. How spread out could they be. Now I think you're making shit up.
Can you play the game with just the 4 pages in isolation? The rules I am referring to are all the rules you need to play the game, not just the main rules. In Fantasy you needed the BRB + relevant army book; two items. With AoS you need to 4 pages of main rules, each and every warscroll for all of your units, the general's handbook, etc. So although the documents are shorter, more of them are required. Hence, "spread out".
You don't like the new models? That sucks to be you then because most people love them. Even people who hate fantasy and AoS say that
I'd love to see the data collection and statistical analysis you used to devise that "most" people love them. The fact that your gaming group or the members of your gaming store like them is anecdotal evidence and in no way indicative of the preferences of the greater population. I'm not saying that most people like or dislike them, we simply don't have access to that information. What is factual is that you seem to like them, whereas I do not (and hence a reason why
I personally do not like AoS).
Simple magic phase. Again, do you fear change? I like complexity but for the sake of smooth games, this is a welcome change
I found the old magic phase to be much more robust, and I never found it to disrupt the flow of the game. It's not about fearing change, it's about having a negative reaction to what I feel is a change for the worse. If you found the previous system to be too complex, then by all means have fun with the more simplistic one. Personal preference!
points system is nowhere near as incremental/refined as 8th edition
The points system is fine. You clearly don't play this game and are making shit up
It's sort of sad that I don't play the game but I have a more sophisticated understanding of the refinement of its points system. If we are both playing a 2000 points game (me Fantasy and you AoS), and we each have 25 remaining points, I can add models to an existing unit, whereas you must purchase a whole unit (which may not be possible for the remaining points you have). As a consequence, the Fantasy points system is more granular; it has finer gradations of choice.
Lizardmen are daemons now. Surprised you know any of the lore you hate
I never said Lizarmen are Daemons, but agree that fluff-wise their function is nearly identical. Being part of the wargaming community I hear things (and I did look into AoS at its release). Luckily for me, I possess a brain that is able to remember things that I have sensory interaction with.
Ranks/flanks boring napoleonic tacitcs. This is a skirmish game now
It is skirmish game... which I personally like less. That's why I transitioned from 40K to fantasy. Personal preference!
on average, the models are even more expensive
The models are also larger and you're ignoring all of the great new start collecting boxes which are great deals for starting new armies. It has never been cheaper to play fantasy.
I am not ignoring the start collecting boxes. The "on average" portion of my statement takes care of that, and my words were deliberately chosen with that in mind. As for the models being larger... you can add scale creep to the list of AoS things I dislike. Either way, material-wise + production-wise + transport-wise + storage-wise, the size increase does not justify the price increase
