you seem to be the only person hear who thinks it's not AoS doubled it's player count last year not shur it's as hard to get into as you say. also majic the gathering is even more complecs and its doing gangbusters or it's just not for you maby it isn't about remembering rule but that some ultimately like it. no that would gut the whole sistem AoS was built with that in mind you would have to start from the ground up just play warcry you seem to like that one well that was unesisery and childish i think that your taking your tast and making it objective quality.
Samheim is a troll who shouldn't be taken seriously - in one of his first ever posts on this forum he complained about how the game was going to be dumbed down to oblivion because girls were getting involved, now he's saying it's too complex? No idea what this guy's about.
What's happening with AoS now is what happened with all the previous versions of 40k and WHFB. They got more and more complex and became less and less fun. The problem is, the fanbois, constantly beg and demand new rules. They have the loudest voice. GW then add's more complexity to appease them. And then everybody who would have enjoyed the game, get board of it and move onto other things. It's easier to get started building your own circuit boards, then it is to play AoS. Electronics's follows simple principles, the complexity only comes from sticking lots of simple things together. AoS introduces new principles randomly every month, that contradict old principles. It's like, imagine you jump in your car to drive to the super market. You goal is to buy some food. Well half way into your journey, the driving rules all change. Now a red light means stop, but only if you are driving a red car whilst wearing a blue bonnet. Then you get to the super market, but your not allowed to enter, because the new rules are, that customers will only be admitted through the fire escape if they have already notified the super market in advance that they will be doing their shopping that day. Do you see how important it is now to keep the rules simple and stick to them? The whole of civilisation would collapse, if we changed all the rules so that it appealed to what different groups of people liked. The rules need to be simple and the same for everybody.
i don't know why your replying to me if your going to ignore what i say. you are also very bad at metaphors and according to your own statements think very little of civilization so it's odd that your clutching your pearls now
That's false. I said the lore would be changed and dumb'd down. I never mentioned the rules. Don't attack me with falsely created strawman. That's the way it always goes. Someone points out something really simple and well understood. Simple rules make good games. Its 101 of game design. Fan boi's get hurt and instead of arguing the points of why their system is better, resort to personal attacks , strawmen and calling someone a troll (witch?). Ok if you want to believe square wheels are better then round ones, then I can't do anything for you. I will be unable to enlighten you. I am sorry for your beliefs.
magic the gathering dnd or any ttrpg realy crusader kings stelaris dwarf fortres i could go on . simple rules sometimes make good games some times complicated rules make good games it's a case by case basis. i have done nothing but make arguments and i have yet to attack you personally. you have yet to demonstrate this maby if you provided samples instead of just making clames i would now think as you do but all you have done is say war cry is better becous you think it is.
That post wasn't directed at you. You didn't resort to underhand tactics, for which I salute you. Fair point. I don't know much about Magic the gathering. I have played DnD. You can't really compare DnD to Warhammer. Warhammer requires you make a large time and money investment in building your army first. But it's also a completely different game. You don't have a dungeon master to keep track of the rules. The main problems with AoS is that the rules are in a constant state of incompleteness anyway. As new tomes come out introducing new mechanics, meaning that older tomes become obsolete and noncompetitive. One would think that in a game of military strategy based on points matched armies, balance would only make the game more fun. But with the constantly shifting rules, balance is impossible. My solution would be, GW should release a different set of rules for people who want to play a more streamlined version of the game. In the same way they made Apocalypse for 40k, to handle big battles. They should make a simplified version for people who want to be good at the game, and not good at remembering rules. This makes sense anyway, because owning and painting all these miniatures is such a big investment in time, its trivial to have multiple different versions of the rules.
True. Also true. That's the same in D&D. At least during the time when I played, new books with new rules (and power creep) were very real in D&D. They did! The GHB 2019 has such rules. As for learning rules: a more complex game is harder to master, which appeals to many people. And AoS is still a LOT less complex than WHFB. I don't see many problems there yet. However I agree that it does expand more and more and GW should try and keep the rules more together.
pathfinder then the books alone cost 1180$ and thats without campaign modals true you have a table juge its also a lot more to keep track of if you army is your character then it's about the same as running a wizard for complexity that doesn't acount for every thing else in the game and thats what the dm keeps track of. you don't need to know more then your own army just ask questions of your oponent or take the 12 seconds to look it up. i mean it's not like real war didn't have constant advance ment or that adapting to a changing story/rules isn't half the fun. also balance is posable for most of the game ther are always outliers but 20 out of 26 armies are in the fat midle at the moment they did it's called war cry you seem to like it there is only 1 set of rules it just updats 1 out of 26 armies every month or so and the mane rules once a year
In terms of complexity, maybe we have a case where there is no such thing as the right level of complexity, but rather the right level of complexity for you specifically. Everyone can simply choose to play the game with the level of complexity that they personally enjoy. For me that is WFB, for others it is different.
This is true. I think why AoS was so successful at the beginning was because its rules were simplified. 40k 8th edition was really popular and brought people back because of it being simplified. At this point in time, I can totally agree that WHFB was less complicated then AoS is now. The problem is, they made new simplified versions of their table top games, and then they reverted back to old habbits by throwing in endless battle tomes with superfluous rules. To me a better system would be this. Once a year release a generals handbook, with all the stats for all the armies in it. People will say that's no good, but the GHB already comes with the points. The reason is because the points need to be updated in once place. Makes sense. It would make more sense to put all the stat lines and abilities in one place as well, so everyone's armies were up to date.
And also, I don't think battle tomes that combine rules and lore, are an efficient way of doing things. After all, when I buy box of miniatures they don't bundle them with the paint. I mean why not combine the paint and the lore? I know the battle tomes are nice to have. They look great and its nice to get your lore in with the rules. But it would be far better for the game if they done updates to at least the whole grand alliance at the same time. Then they wouldn't feel the need to stick in these game braking mechanics, to make the tomes seem more appealing.
in other news bone reapers have six subfations including but not limited to exploding skeletons... that sounds awesome.
Fair warning, incoming wall of text O sure, it has its advantages. It just has very significant disadvantages as well... Also do they even update the warscrolls on there? That's not what I said. I said that winrate is pointless as a measure of how well balanced & healthy a game actually is as it simplifies everything down to 1 number. Ignoring every single little thing that factors into how that number came around. Slaanesh is overpowered, but ultimatly that doesn't dictate it's winrates. To give an extreme example, you could make a monstrous model like Gotrek but even worse. Now add in the rule that the first turn you have to flip a coin, tails you lose the game, heads you continue the game as normal. It'l probably have a "healthy" winrate. But I don't think anyone is going to claim the model isn't completly broken and unfun to play against. Most boardgames that are interesting actually don't have a 50% winrate. Most tend to favor 1 player, or be a guaranteed draw, assuming optimal play. Games with RNG can come to a more balanced winrate, but to get 50% you essentially need to thrown in so much RNG player actions barely matter anymore as you need to negate every single (dis)advantage players manage to create. O getting rid of all rules is equally bad. But praising complexity for complexities sake is no better. Constelation, the spell, Astrolith bearer, Sunblood'scommand ability, Scar vet on cold one's command ability, Stegadon's alpha, terradon/ripper's swooping dive, Shadowstrike's the trap is sprung rule, Thunderquake's swift rule. And several realm artifacts and spells. And then I probably forgot some as well. These all give variants of re-roll hits/re-roll hits of 1. It is both our most common buff and more often than not the only buff that unit can really get. Adding in that new spell to this already massive list was all sorts of pointless. This is indeed one of the biggest issues right now. AoS is an utterly massive game, and by adding in subfactions that vary this wildly in what they do it just gets more and more complicated to keep track of everything. A similar thing can be said for the extend to which they break core rules (e.g. our random teleporting) both of those are things you need to be super carefull with or it'l spiral out of control. Nah, it looks like a admech skitarii gun.
honestly I tried really hard to be nice and understanding, but all I'm hearing here are complaints and commentary that indicates a serious controlling personality disorder. "they need them taken away for their own benefit"... dude why should you be the one that gets to say what someone else gets to play and enjoy? that's why GW made different versions of its games. you like warcry, I don't. and that is perfectly ok. you don't see me saying warcry should be put in a bonfire because only my way to play is the right way to play. you cry because we "strawman" you and insult instead of counter your points, but then you tell us the game we play is only good for toilet paper and that nerds have no business making games because they " get off" on being able to recall rules. first, no one has "strawman'd" you... that's the wrong logical fallacy for this situation. second, you are seriously projecting a lack of ability to engage in meaningful discussion while accusing others of the same. cognitive disassociation much? might I suggest go fish if you aren't capable of, or don't enjoy, games with more than 1 page of rules.
It might be none of my business but i'm pretty sure those discussions belong in private messages and not in a rumor thread. The debate about AoS rules is an interesting one, perhaps a new thread could be dedicated to that discussion to avoid it taking over this one.
GW has always made this mistake before. And they are even in the process of doing it to warcry as well. They get the original game right, then expansion time! Maybe that is their market though. It is hard to say, because when they made the games simpler they had renewed interest. I am going to look at the GHB2019 and find out about the more straight forward rules. Are they called pitched battles?