AoS is a great game, but can it be a casual game? You have to casually assemble and paint 40+ detailed plastic miniatures. You have to casually familiarize yourself with the main rules, faction rules and season rules. Then you're setup for 2-3 hours of "casual" non-stop tactical and strategic challenges. Love it!
I think a "casual" mindset is more about what a player wants out of a game, not in the time or money they put into it. You could play golf casually every day of the week even if you spent a ton of money on equipment and learning the game.
This is HANDS DOWN your best video yet! You masterlyfully explained how I feel about the game but cannot always sum up into words in the moment. This is some S tier content. You nailed it.
Rob. I'm extremely time poor. My very limited hobby time is spent building, collecting and painting models. Gaming is something I haven't done in years. I have too many other commitments. Since your appearence on the painting phase I have been watching your channel and I have to say... I want to start playing games again! Your knowledge and enthusiasm are infectious. Thank you for the content. Thank you for rekindling the long dead ember of wanting to play wargames in me.
I think this is your best video I’ve seen, perhaps the best AoS video I’ve ever seen. You absolutely nailed what’s important about the game and I appreciate the passion you put into this
Rob, I really appreciated this take. After watching HeyWoah’s reaction video, it felt like there was a divisive reactionary vibe in the community. I think you come from a really good place in that you gave his argument charity before you criticized it, and tried to understand where he was coming from. My friends and I have gotten into issues when learning new systems or games, because we try to come at it with the same “want to win” attitude while we don’t know the rules well. This was especially frustrating with Horus Heresy where the writing sucks terribly, but I think you hit the nail on the head. It takes time to learn the game and you have to develop a different attitude until you hit that expert level of understanding. Everything is a creative process, and you aren’t gonna be amazing at it on the first try, same as painting. If I expected my models to look like Miniac’s on the first try, he’d likely call me arrogant. I think for anyone to come into a new rule set expecting to know everything and not get frustrated when someone else knows it better is the same thing, arrogance. We can all be better learners and have fewer expectations during the process.
Most of all, I want to thank you for adressing the stigma around competitive players. I'm just getting back into the hobby, but I was a very active player and traveling to events and tournaments as well as organizing them myself for various systems (WHFB, 40k, Warmachine mk2). Noone in my area took an interest in higher level play, and that's ok, but I was constantly stigmatized as the tournament player. I endured the complaining about everything (rules, dice or whatever came to mind) just to have games at all. Meanwhile the "competitive sweaty tournament players" I met were without exception friendly and awesome people, just having joy with eachother and being respectful to each other, and such it felt completely different than playing with the local casual gamers which felt way more obsessed with winning, and were overall more angry and less respectful. That was overall why I quit the hobby about 8 years ago, since playing in my local group just was not fun on any level anymore and I did not feel respected or welcomed.
I'm absolutely loving how you're approaching destigmatizing competitive play. I feel like so much of the stigma comes from people not having experienced being the more knowledgeable/skilled player/painter/whatever very often. When you understand your craft at a high level and get paired with someone around your level, the game is always euphoric. When you're playing casually and think you are higher level than you are, the ego gets crushed when you get caught by something you hadn't fully realized. In that moment you either 1. learn from it 2. protect your ego through denial and scrubquotes Or 3. Take a very relaxed view of "I wasn't aware of that because I'm not invested that deeply, but I should expect to get got due to my detached relationship with the game and enjoy where I'm at" And hopefully people can learn to avoid the 2nd option
In principle true. In practice though one is often dependent on who plays locally. AoS isn't a small game, both rules and army project wise. A lot of us are 'stuck' having to go to stores to get games in, a place usually dominated by people who play competitively or are simply neck deep in the rules and setting. Which is all well before we make it to the actual 'toxic' opponents, a seemingly unavoidable segment of the competitive side of the hobby. Those are often the minority, but I have yet to find a store or club where GW products, AoS and 40K in specific, are dominant where there isn't at least 'that one players' that will go out of their way to crush whomever they are playing against using their meta knowledge and list building. Add a messy system like AoS and you have a recipe for disaster / turning of new players. A problem that doesn't even need massively competitive play or challenging opponents, the lack of balanced factions is enough to disappoint people. GW's edition dev pipeline is an utter mess, which is something only those with experience or the time/energy to keep up with everything will know. A new player can easily stumble into picking up a faction they love the look of that leaves them utterly unable to survive even half a game against the majority of players. Some of them don't even need competent opponents to get crushed. Imagine spending months building and painting your first army, which is quite a daunting experience while you also slowly learn the rules. Only to find out your faction generally doesn't stand a chance.......I've seen people give up on both AoS and 40K after accidentally picking an effective dead faction/army. Same goes with GW's sales approach of scattering rules all over the place, they killed any interest my friends had in Underworlds because folks felt they had to keep buying stuff to keep up.
@@hephesto555666 True. However, you can just refuse to play the neckbeard. If you have an underpowered army and it’s agreed that it is weak, try to get house rule buffs for it to even things out a bit.
Speaking to the example 24:45, as a competitive fighting game player AND competitive wargamer, this is spot on. It's bad etiquette to complain about dice... because both players are rolling dice. Just liking in fighting games, you are both effected by good and bad character matchups, the venue being cold, what you ate for breakfast etc etc. Take some responsibility for the results of the game. It takes a bit of maturity but it makes the good results more rewarding and turns the bad results into a learning experience. A win-win really.
Yeah, but the difference is that if you're doing something else competitive, usually those things aren't deliberately set up so that a decisive advantage is supposed to occur randomly. Both martial arts and fighting games strive to create an arena that's as fair as possible. A boxing match doesn't involve one boxer getting a couple of free swings in on the other as a result of a coin flip, for example.
I’m new to AOS I’ve been looking at buying a army for about 2 years and finally got the orruks. I also somehow got my dad into AOS and this video was nice for both of us just to listen about the game. Thanks
i think most of this discussion comes down to accessibility: -the game feels flat until you are an expert -the list building is complex until you are an expert -having fun is difficult until you learn how to do it I mean... how the hell are beginners supposed to ENJOY the game? I feel most of them will drop it before they have the chance to become experts
I don't think you need an expert to enjoy the game, but there is definitely a learning curve to Warhammer. It isn't a perfectly accessible game. I don't wargaming in general can be. It is simply enjoying the process of growing in skill.
I spent my first 4 months of WH Fantasy just reading the army book and theorizing cool armies I could build. I had more fun doing that and never playing a single game than I have had with other hobbies. Does it require a certain type of person to enjoy that? Sure. Will eveeryone enjoy that? Almost certainly not, and that's ok.
The main criticism that I saw from Scott’s video was that AoS is not a great game below 2000 points. I think this is a valid critique and I am not sure there is an easy way to balance AOS for smaller game sizes like Boarding Actions seems to be doing in 40K but it would be nice if there was something more manageable in terms of size and complexity for newer players.
if you want to play a more skrimish game they have both underworlds and warcry so i see no point in telling people that there is a problem with the game when you can play 2 different games with lesser models and points.
@@adamardback i have not played those games and should have mentioned those in my comment. Your response is valid. I had understood that they have their own unique rules and are not simply a different way to play AoS unlike Boarding Actions which is a simplified version of 40K.
@@adamardback I don't disagree, but the game *should* work at any points level, otherwise they need to say it doesn't. Also, people who do play AoS at the "correct" point level do sometimes want to play smaller games to suit time/space considerations (me for one) - i shouldn't have to buy another game to do that if it's well designed.
@@kosmosfantasias7545 I don't think it can be competitive, but it does give a small point collections (like two boxes of a troop, an HQ, and 1 "cool" unit) a way to play where you still have the basics of the game and can find a direction for your collection to grow. Crusade or path to glory were the previous recommended methods but they layer on special rules, upgrades, and list building that do not translate to 40k proper, whereas Boarding Actions do.
I see a Man that is 100% exited about everything he talks about. Passionate about something you and i both love. The absolute best Video about competitive wargaming i have seen so far. Much love from germany man. Made my day
Jesus....what a video. I've honestly not heard of a better promotion of Age of Sigmar. I've been thinking about getting into it for a while, i'm finally going to do it. Thanks Rob.
I agree! I've been waffling for a while about whether to intentionally get into AoS or just stick with painting/collecting/skirmish games like I've been doing so far. Between this and HeyWoah's video I'm feeling really excited about starting AoS for real. It just sounds like my kind of thing!
Well here’s my opinion I have collected 40k for 10 years plus and never played a game because of how hard it seems I’ve been collecting AoS for about a year and have played multiple games
I like your point about accepting the roll of the dice being a matter of mindset. When I got back into the hobby I made a conscious decision to be the guy who high fives his opponent when he rolled well, or celebrate their victory. I think that's an excellent expression of sportsmanship in our hobby, and gives you the peace of mind to realise that, at the end of the day, you're both there to roll drive and have some fun 😊
I watched a game recently from Battleshock Wargaming where one of them rolled really well, and his opponent celebrated for him because it was a hype moment (but certainly not a hype moment as the enemy). It absolutely blew me away. My mind had a moment of, "wait... you can do that?" before it just clicked into place and it's the healthiest thing I've ever seen in a competitive environment.
Good video - something I learned - The opposite of complexity isn't simplicity it's transparency ... so maybe the issue is the delivery or ease of which you can find the information you need in a way that makes sense. Just my thoughts around that :)
I've only watched the first 13 minutes and you've gotten my sub. I really appreciate your tone, insights, and respectful approach to the dialogue. Fantastic.
Well here’s my opinion I have collected 40k for 10 years plus and never played a game because of how hard it seems I’ve been collecting AoS for about a year and have played multiple games
As a new tabletop player, just 4 games in, but a hell of a lot of hours tinkering with lists, talking to my friends, painting with my son, meeting new people and lost 3 out of my 4 games, I absolutely love the complexity of AOS! I'm just now starting to play around with complex lists, denying my opponent a deploy zone behind me, buffing units and all that. I have played a lot of pvp where gear and attribute complexity matters a lot, movement, placement, looking for weaknesses, this is right up my alley, but I can also see where, for someone who is not as excited about these aspects, would fall short and burn out before finishing the core rules. Great video, and all glory to Sigmar 😝
If you're already considering movement denial 4 games in you're well ahead of the curve when it comes to learning to play competitively. Similarly once I was burned out on more competitive styled video games, tabletop wargames have become an outlet for that sort of engagement only something with complex PvP could offer before. Couple that with getting to hang out with people, and no flaming in game chat, it's a dream
@@kolari8971 well, I might be "ahead of the curve" but I'm only 4 games in, there's still so much to keep track of and I like that. The complexity is drawing me in, not pushing me away. My very first game I got served a big plate of "lock out your opponent or loose" and that was great, because I took it in.
I would dispute that rules complexity is a necessity of depth. There are other games out there that manage to have depth of interactions and yet have relatively straightforward rules. The core rulebook for Guild Ball, for example, was pretty brief but the depth of the interactions was huge. Conversely, you can have layers and layers of rules that don't really grant meaningful choice. For example, the distinctions between hitting and wounding in AoS are a rules layer that doesn't really add any real choices or depth to the game, it's just a mechanical layer with few interactions. I think AOS is ok overall but it doesn't use its wordcount or the time required to play a game particularly efficiently.
Precisely, it's a fundamentally flawed argument. Chess has simple rules, but the depth is immense. Conversely, in the wargaming space, Kings of War is far less rules heavy, but I feel more tactically interesting than AoS.
Great points!!! I'm a huge fan of the new Path to Glory rules. I think it is a great way to introduce new players slowly. Won't cost as much as putting together a tournament build.
Thank you for your perspective. As a casual wargamer for the last 20 years (off and on,) I think the games workshop games have always suffered from the sales cycle. Each new army must be the new Meta so they can sell models and books. This isn't fun, it's sales. This leaves those of us who buy in at various points out in the cold a few months down the line when the new hotness arrives. Maybe the internal balance you describe happens at a top tier, but I simply haven't seen that on a casual level where the constraints of real life (time, money, family) create an unequal playing field. Complexity as you outline can be good but I do think it's unreasonable to expect casual players to master the skills to play competitively (read: not get trashed by every rules lawyer out there). In your analogy comparing skill mastery in wargaming to professional sports or artists, I think you miss the mark. In both those cases the "rules" of the game or system are approachable and intuitive to everyone involved. You don't have to read 300+ pages of rules books to understand a football game or an interesting paint scheme. The mastery of that player shows through precisely because the rules are simple or intuitive enough for all of us casual fans to understand and enjoy. When you play with or against a top tier player in a wargame you are creating an inherently unlevel playing field because the top tier player simply isn't playing by the same rule set you understand. This creates a constant stream of "gotcha" moments that makes your multi-hour time investment feel like a waste because you lose due to rules lawyering rather than a bad strategy. Thanks for reading my hot-take.
You have bad strategy cause you don't the game state well. Not cause someone lawyered you. Follow up painters and footballers put in a lot of effort on strategy, skill and talent to be good at what they do. I doesn't just happen that's why we don't that as well
@@TheHonestWargamer hmm. In re-reading my comment above, I suspect I didn't articulate the notion well. Trying here again. I don't have to read 300 pages of rules to understand the refs calls on the football game on TV or appreciate a spectacular paint job. The players themselves have a deeper knowledge without doubt from long experience, but the basics are understood by all. In the case of rules heavy wargames, this simply is not the case for casual players in my experience. When I'm hit with some faction specific rule deep in a white dwarf magazine or rule supplement that changes the game state is off-putting as a player. This is what I mean about uneven knowledge of the core game rules. I don't see it as a personal failing on my part, but a structural failing of an overwrought system that expects too much time and monetary investment from it's players. It's part of the reason I have entirely given up on 40k/AOS in favor of skirmish games and simpler systems like OnePageRules. Anywho, It was interesting to listen to an opposing perspective. Thanks for the video.
@@nwood8175 I completely agree there is a structural failing with most complex and arguably too complex games. I think I cant jazz well till I learn but I'm not sure that's jazz's fault and definitely not jazz musicians. I'm glad you've found a place to go and be happy in wargames but there are people playing AOS right now competitively and having a great time
I’ve only cannonballed into the hobby just recently but I’ve already learned an important lesson: acceptance. As a painter, I have to accept my limitations, and accept the fact that I will have to put in the work if I want to get better. As a gamer, I have to, accept that I am, as you say, time poor. And I may not be able to get in as many games as I want, nor will I be able to dive as deeply into the rules as I like. I also have to accept the fact that I have compromised executive function, and it has always made being Very technical with games difficult for me. I hate it, but I have to accept it. I think we can all learn to accept lots of things in life. But especially in the hobby space, we can learn that some games just are not for us.
@@TheHonestWargamer Aw thanks good buddy 🤝 I’ve also found that wargaming is full of amazing people like you. I’m blown away by the earnestness of so many content creators. I find myself crying like “I thought we were just painting orks??”
Thank you for putting so much love and care into this. You illuminated quite a bit, and even your points I disagreed with, I appreciated the compelling way you made them.
My brother and I jumped into AoS at the start of this year after over a decade of grinding Warmachine games. At the height of its power, Warmachine fully embraced the competitive nature that its ruleset was balanced around. Players were proud to be competitive and it wasn't used as a negative term. The player base understood that for a game to be fun at a casual level, it needs to be balanced at a competitive level. That's been the biggest adjustment when coming to AoS, it seems like a majority of the player base use the word competitive as a derogatory term. It doesn't mean that you're some try hard jerk who wants to nitpick over minutiae and bore your opponent into dust, it just means you have put the time and effort in to understanding the rules, practicing them, and finding the most effective ways of implementing them. You do an incredible job of outlining this, especially in this video when you compare it to competitive painting. They should absolutely be celebrated in the same way. Love your work and keep doing what you do
Fantastic video and points about mindset, game design, the learning curve, and fun as a primary factor in games. Keep this type of content coming, you're very very good at it, and make your points eloquently!
I will shout Ed Ball of the middle earth tournament scene. He is not only great at all the rules for the game but is also a great guy who would love nothing more than to know the person he is playing against is also having a great time.
honestly, the only issue I have with GW systems is the amount of money you have to keep spending on rule books. Just feels bad. Why can't they can update and balance on the go? its the money I know.
when scott talks about a more complex rulebook i think he's referring to something like what happens in magic: the gathering, there is an easy to understand rulebook for everyone, then also available is the comprehensive 278 page document of rules for people who are interested in high level play, and i agree, warhammer like a lot of games would benefit from 1. not changing editions just because some arbitrary time passed and 2. have a document like MTG has for people who want/need it
also the idea of artifacts costing points is something i have put forward for 40k, you could have the CP cost or free relics and warlord traits for playing power level games, but for people who want to go in depth with points based list building we're normally using apps like battlescribe so it really is no more effort to add up a points cost for a relic
Who didn't love it when the Changeling put himself on top of the balewind vortex and hand of dust'ed Nagash. A great story. Thanks for the great video 👍
I liked Miniac's video and thought he raised some valid points (even if I didn't fully agree with a few of his opinion) - this is an ace video as well (as ususal). I don't mind the priority roll - I wouldn't be devvoed if it didn't exist, but I can appreciate what it adds to the game if approached in the right frame of mind (and it's not like you can't just ignore it in narrative or even competitive play at home/within your group). I personally really like alternating activation type systems (whether that's as in Bolt Action with random chit pull or just alternating unit activations) and I think it could be good (or at least interesting to try) in AoS. I really like AoS but there again I like a ton of games (including most of the one's Scott likes) - I think it's all about finding what you want and going for it. Thankfully it's a bit of a golden age system/ruleset wise right now. Loved your appearance on the painting phase btw - keep on being a lovely human being matey.
I also watched Scott's video, and I can relate. I don't play much AoS, and it can be confusing with all the rules, building and whatnot (don't get me started on 40k). I do, however, agree that the all the rules and "fluff" allow that mastery to come into play, which is cool to watch. What I think would be the solution, is 1. Release the rules for free, and 2, develop "newb" rules to ease people in, going over just enough to get a simple game in. Then maybe have a progressively more involved game, by adding in certain rules. Then after a few games, new players can enjoy the complexity of the game, and maybe a better understanding as well.
I loved this video. I love Scott, but I disagreed with everything he said, and yet was struggling to articulate why... this summarised that so nicely! Also; if you want a (almost!) perfectly balanced, relatively simple (rules-wise), cheap and accessible game with no dice rolls to spoil it, then play chess! 🤷♂️ But I'll be over here having a blast with my ridiculous giant punching the stuffing out of goblins before it gets eaten by a giant cabbage ridden by a furious mushroom in armour!
Sounds like a lot of it comes down to casual vs mastery and your painting analogy makes sense. Running with that analogy, casual painters have slapchop, but casual games don't really have much place in AoS for a positive play experience, especially if the majority of available people in your group go for pro play and you just have to sit back and get whopped by a new tournament list they're trying. Big steps could be made to simplify the play experience for casuals by getting in the simplified rule set (non ghb) out!
@The Honest Wargamer Perhaps a (free) beginner friendly battle pack which scales down some of the rules bloat is a good start. It's not a silver bullet for addressing beginner NPE but a start.
The basic rules are simple enough to start... the problem is that no one plays that way, and if you don't play matched games with the current season rules you can't find a gaming group. I'm the definition of casual gamer who wants to try new things in aos, but i constantly get stomped by meta lists copied from the internet in my "casual "friendly" gamea. So tired of seeing hundreds of the flavour of the game unit spammed in every game. There's no real space for testing lists with a reasonable chance of winning.
Sorry for the Essay but I think it's worthwhile based on both video's Without sounding like I'm going on a "fix the world" Bono tangent, Scotts video highlights an attitude that many people have across esports/tsports/TCG's and it's this welfare/entitlement attitude that everyone seems to have is extremely tiresome and I've watched Scotts video to confirm I'm not misunderstanding his points. Scotts Points Web App/List building - Has he been under a rock? pretty much everyone has complained about the rules/app/shorthand rules however you want to dress this up GW are out of touch with their digitally minded userbase/customers (unless Big Kev has come in dickswinging telling everyone these nerds need to keep buying army books then we'll see books until it no longer becomes commercially viable for GW to print them) Game Bloat - Core Rules should be written for normal people? and the 1%ers can deal with extra reading. - What are we defining as a normal player? Billy Bob Thornton who plays one game a week at his local club whilst having a cheeky beer with his mates but only 1 incase the Mrs finds out? is that too casual? do we use hours played (like the mastery metric) to confirm who is casual and who isn't? most casual players know they are casual and they play funhammer or narratively and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, most narrative players I know go back to the core of the hobby and make house rules or change things to fit their narrative games like the hobby of yesteryear. What about Gigachad Roberto First of His Name who is going to stomp some losers at the next GT? he's not casual by the hours he's invested in mastering his craft but he may not play more than a few hours a week because of commitments? where does he fit on the welfare rules aka "I'm taking my ball home" because he's not a casual by Miniacs metric so he should get lumped in with the 1%ers or is he somewhere in between? Then lastly what if your job is to turbostomp people at tournaments as in your career/earnings are directly tied to your ability to win/compete based on you being a coach, a content creator who focusses on top level gameplay and makes a living from this. Why should they suffer when they are willing to sacrifice to master their craft and in turn mess you up, sorry there's a skill gap here but that's life, hurdur git gud. *TLDR - people want to compete with the bigger boys but in reality they don't want to put in the time and effort as the bigger boys do* In ICT there is something called continual service improvement where past successes and failures are used to improve something, however most people don't want to do any critical reflection on their ability to play a game, most video games/esports titles have the ability to watch your gameplay back and look at what you did wrong, imagine if you made a note at the end of your turn what you did and if you find yourself making the same mistake then fix it, just because someone doesn't want to invest time getting better I don't think the rest of the community should be punished. Heck we even have a some loser (Love you babe) called Rob who casts games and you can see what's happening on the table and where units are moving, imagine if you got one of your games on stream and you lost, you have free footage (unless you are forced to pay by Robs mate shilly) of your mistake to fix it. Widespread Rules - I'm onboard with this, making better digitally accessible items would make this better but I think half of the time it's to force white dwarf sales. Internal Balance - Balance is a unique issue that you cant discuss in the best part of 3 minutes, there's vacuums, knock on effects, allies - this is a monster topic that requires serious £££££ investment from GW to do and I sadly don't think we'll ever see them plough cash into it, other than fake news metawatch Flat Gameplay - I dont like this, it's a really bad example, some more elite armies are going to always have a worse board presence than the horde armies? so what Scott is advocating for is a gotcha mechanic because he's chosen an army that has superior quality of troops but no quantity and vice versa, this feeds into both Needless Risk, Internal Balance & Game Bloat - it's near impossible to fix this without giving someone a cheesy mechanic to win with because of their army "strength" Needless Risk - Removing a dice roll for a units ability and making it baked in with no dice roll and chucking a few points on top then creates another huge balance issue and Scotts example is a very poor one, because you suddenly have to look at every unit that has a similar effect and do a cross faction/cross points cost benefit analysis into what is best based on someone saying they dont want to risk rolling a 1? - wait a second your ket fueled goblin spinning a huge spiked ball and chain does 6 mortal wounds for free and my twilight horsey only does 3? well that's what you wanted. I like your example of Golden Demon - I don't paint as much as everyone but I want my Golden Demon using shortcuts and spending less time than Richard Gray. What do you mean Magnus Carlsen is better than me at chess? make chess rules easier for me to understand and make the game easier. I know it comes across badly this way, but in reality the hobby needs all types of gamers and labelling people who want to win as Pedants is a bit shit. I better get more than a desmond for this dissertation in the comments and good work as always on the video Rob.
Fantastic analysis. This was my thinking but i had to work out the tone of how to express that to people who don't want to hear it. I found this video wildly challenging to make
Pretty excited to start playing. Working on both maggotkin and.... kruleboyz (start a kruleboyz army, rob.) We're dipping our toes in with a slow grow league and kind of learning together. I'm wondering whether to play with nurgle or kruleboyz for a year (as per your advice). In regards to the video, I'm not letting miniac's video deter from having a good time and learning the rules in my own pace. Thanks for the well thought out video, Rob. You're the best guide out there for a noob such as myself.
Fantastic Video. Glad to hear your philosophy of Wargaming, especially AoS. I've been building up an army for a few months now and have yet to actually play my first game, but when I do I will keep this video in my mind.
Crackin good video, Rob. Very eloquent response to a well thought out video. You both did great work and raised fair and valid points. I intend to point alot of people to this video as a great intro to AoS and what it could mean for them. Having always been a casual player, I really identify with everything you said. Practice it the key, AoS is a toolbox and using the tools correctly is harder than it seems on the surface. That said, I think you can still play 'casually' or 'Narratively' and have a great time. One thing to mention about the latest record setting LVO tournament. Take a gander at how smoothly the event ran, maybe talk to Scott (the TO) and get his take on the flow of the tournament. 300+ players, having a blast and hardly any drama, arguments or rule/game breaking situations. Just a bunch of great games with people just like you and me. Watching that event unfold was amazing (as was the scramble to get even more tables set up as there were so FEW drops from the event!). Let's face it, AoS has an expensive curve to growth, but it's not horrible. The state of the game , IMHO, is as good as it ever has been. Your video captures that perfectly and a hearty "Well Done"! Now, to find some time to "git good, newb!!!!" :)
I really enjoyed this video, thanks for making it! As someone new to playing the game, I feel a bit lost in where to begin. My wife and I painted through the pandemic and now want to play but sometimes run into uncertainty in the rules. I think we just need to get to a games workshop and have them school us!
Excellent video. Agree with everything you mentioned. I’m a casual player, enjoy more painting my armies than playing them. When I do play, I play for fun - win or lose.
I like your comment about the mindset of dice rolls, it really resonated as my dice rolls have been hilariously terrible. To give two examples would be: Kragnos failing 4, 7" charges in a game A maw krusha failing to kill 10 chainrasps. It genuinely put me off playing AoS as I just had the feeling "my army did nothing because of dice" and I still haven't played since. The thing I liked most in this vid is changing the mindset of having 'bad dice', it really sucks when a huge model I've spent ages working on, gets on the table, and does nothing. But celebrating rolling a 6 sounds great, I adore the Kruleboyz sculpts but never played, but I can imagine unexpectedly rolling 5s and 6s to be more exciting and positive, instead of focusing on the 1s. So maybe I'll finish painting the models and give AoS another go, and this time if the dice didn't work...well that's just clearly part of the killabosses morky plan innit, cheers rob 👍
All salient points, and well made, for sure. I like most of the complexity of AoS (and like Necromunda), and I think it's a great game. I know we recently discussed this a lot on Twitter, but, for me, my main hang-up is that, while I'd like to be a more active and better player, I'm not at a place in my life that I have the time to. I'm a single dad with three kids, a full-time job, and other commitments. I love the hobby and will build and paint models when I have 15-20 mins to spend, but that also means it's rare that I have time to go our and play a full game. When I do play, I HATE the thought that my opponent has to dumb things down for me and isn't getting the experience THEY want from the game. I know lots of players are gracious and willing to do that, but I think because my time is so precious, I hate feeling like I'm wasting theirs. As my kids get older, I do hope to engage a but more, but where I am now means I'm really relegated to the lower end of the competitive scale, which is fine, and so I focus more on models and stories I like best. And I have a feeling I'll always lean more that way even when/if I get more into the competitive side of the game.
As someone who proactively seek out newer players and the "time poor" group, I never felt like dumbing down or toning down my list as something I hate doing. If anything, it allows me to bring out my other models that don't see play, and I LOVE that. I also enjoy playing with people in general. To see their excitement in bringing their army and roll some dice. I'm sure I'm not alone in this and I hope you find those you can play with, who shares this sentiment.
Re a few points: I think Internal Balance is more important than you're giving it credit for. When AOS first came out, I tried out Kings of War from Mantic as I was looking for a rank and flank game. The first edition of that game had amazing *external* balance between the different armies, but notoriously terrible *internal* balance between the different units of those armies. This lead to a lot of frustration as people would buy, build and paint armies that looked like they did in the book, or how they imagined the army should be as a rank and flank game. However there would be about a 50% chance of them having built a solid B+ to A- tournament list on their very first go, but about half the time they would end up with a D- or F tier and had wasted money, time and had a terrible unwinnable time at their first event. Thats all been fixed now, but it turned a lot of people off of a very solid core system because the balance wasn't there. I don't think GW internal (or external) balance is quite that bad, but they've put out Leagues of Voltann and Gloomspite Gitz, and as someone who's dabbled in AOS, I certainly felt like I had been left with very sour experiences buying an army I thought was cool, only to find out I've built and painted a pile of garbage (Namarti Thrall heavy Deepkin, Slaanesh Hedonite Mortals, and Kruelboy spear phalanx). My understanding is those armies are now slightly better, but its a really frustrating point to drop hundreds of dollars and spend hundreds of hours building and painting to the quality I want, only to discover I picked the worst unit in the book because I liked the models. I think there is something to more simple rulesets and avoiding Mastery so much. I feel like the game Warmachine was a major player in the American tournament scene but the mastery required made every loss feel like you were "Gotcha'd" by some combo that the game felt really unfun, so casual players left. Every time a new edition came and changed those combo pieces, the experienced players lost all their skills and knowledge, and left the game as well. I've certainly experienced being on the giving end of these gotcha combos in 40k and WFB, explaining to a good player that just retreated a charge from Dark Elf spearmen who were barely in range that the Harpies just remove them from the board is rough... But when you do it to 4 units on the same turn and pick up half their army without rolling a die, some people get VERY salty, and IMHO theres something to be said about avoiding really negative play experiences being built into the game. Obviously, at tournament we might be playing to win, and there is something to these interactions being something an opponent could or even should know, but Warhammer is also a very expensive and time intensive game to play. I might be happy to utterly smash someone in 5 minutes in Magic the Gathering, but we can just rerack and play again. In fact, I've been happy to rerack and play a fuller game that doesn't count for anything so my opponent can do well in the rest of the event of a card game because I care about their strength of schedule. Warhammer means there's often an hour between set up and early moves, and the need to play out the rest of a losing game for the points, so that negative experience just sort of festers. Re dice: I think its entirely possible to shift what die is used, for instance, rolling a pile of d10s so there can be a bit more fine tuning between stats, or how powerful of an effect a Magic Item or spell has, that seems fine. I also think using cards sort of but not exactly like Malifaux means that you have that unknown and potential for randomness, but you aren't left feeling like you just lost because of dice. I've had games of 40k where my opponents just accused me of having hot dice and completed disregarded the fact that I outplayed them, or gave them very few opportunities to roll (An army of Eldar Tanks with rerollable cover saves can afford to take the 4 lascannon shots I gave) and that feels kind of , well almost insulting to hear. But then I've also had games of Underworlds where I feel i made every action optimally, but literally did not succeed on a single attack or defense roll during the entire game. That's fine for a beer and pretzels game with friends, but at a tournament you've traveled to and bought a hotel room for that event specifically, that's absolutely devastating. While it may be a memorable experience, I would not say it is good, or fun, or encouraging me to continue the game or convert my friends to play. I do think there's something to the idea of playing a game that can reward optimal play mechanically through bonuses to die if something other than a d6 is used, or cards are used instead. Maybe it only makes sense to do that for skirmish games, maybe it could possibly work for bigger battle games if the core systems were different.. But it's probably irrelevant as Games Workshop is sort of set on Rolling buckets of d6s which sort of shrink as rolling to hit and then wounds etc happens. I really wonder how different the discussion would be if instead of a game that costs like $1000 to get into, if it was a a box set board game with cardboard tokens, the rules were always free, and an entire Grand Alliance set was like $50 of cardboard that came in a box the size of an Underworlds season. Its interesting as I feel these games have for a very long time been stated to be fun casual games but they're simply too expensive and time consuming to actually be a beer and pretzels game. So there's a real disconnect between the beer and pretzel casual gamer, the hobby focused high skill painter, and the competetive tournament player, despite all 3 sharing the same hobby. But as we said "its not *the* hobby, it's *their* hobby" Great discussion, and I mostly agree. I think the book "Playing to Win" by David Sirlen is also a great resource re any competitive discussion, though the examples he uses are Chess, Street Fighter, Poker and Starcraft. FWIW I'm a former GW staffer from America of 5 years, have multiple Golden Daemons, have podiumed in the Adepticon 40k team event, and basically agree with everything you said.
This is one of the best videos I have seen on this subject. When you started talking about musicians, athletes and painters I was thinking, "well yeah. That's their job. " But you make the point well, that for many players, this is something they really enjoy and are good at and are dedicated to excellence. They are the professionals of the gaming world. Many of the people who are the best at what they do are generous with those who engage with it casually. You have made me excited to get back into AoS (But not until next year. This year I am making a custom White Scars army! Huzzah)!
Love the level headed, and well articulated points. I like Miniac, and I agree with some of his takes on AoS, not all but a few. This is a nice response to some of those critiques. It's not a video meant to bash, but to engage in a healthy discussion about the game we love/hate/love-hate. One comment though about dice, and using things other than dice. As a Malifuax player, using cards can be a lot of fun too! 😉
i like this video - arrived here after seeing you on the Painting Phase. I’m a self avowed filthy casual, so wouldn’t normally end up here. I think there’s a few interacting things going on - 1 - as you said yourself, getting to know the game well takes A LOT of work. You need to study to learn the rules and their interaction. 2 - getting an army ready for a game is a big commitment, and games take a comparatively long time 3 - there’s a huge disparity in the level between a casual player and a competitive player 4 - for plenty of people, their potential player pool locally is small - if you’re playing pick up games, you don’t necessarily know what end of the scale your opponent is at I play a few different game systems, and I’m lucky if I get to play each of them once in a good month. I’m never going to have any level of system mastery. I’ll never beat a good player in a competitive game. I’m fine with all of these things. At this point, 40K and AOS are almost a waste of time for me - I’ll never remember everything from month to month, and I won’t get enough use out of any books I spend a huge pile of cash on before I need to buy something else. But if people in your area play mostly GW, and playing pick up games at a shop is your best option, so you don’t know what your opponent expects before a game, then you just unpack your stuff and it becomes obvious on turn 2 you’re wasting your time because you’re getting steamrollered, it can be un-fun. Contrast with chess - similar system mastery difference, but getting ready for the game takers 30seconds. If I somehow end up across the table from a grandmaster, he’s gonna take care of me in 5 minutes and very little of anyone’s time or effort is lost. I’ll probably feel bad for wasting their time. The best competitive players I’m sure are great at making your their opponent has fun anyway. But there’s plenty of ‘that guys’/best player in their local store/etc who will just set up, take satisfaction in stomping someone and then go home, because it validates their idea that they’re list building/system mastery is paying off. Anecdotally, those people are playing more pick up games, because people aren’t prearranging games against them since they’re no fun. The people they’re playing against are often new players who don’t have the local play group to prearrange games with. That becomes people’s first and overriding interaction with the competitive play scene. Note - I’m not saying all competitive gamers are unfun. But you’re more likely to encounter the ones who are if you’re in paying random pick up games because chances are the other competitive gamers getting prepped for tournies don’t want to play them either. I’m rambling now - I’ll stop…,
I think Scotts perspective is from a newer player trying to get into the game. He's not playing 2k points games and many of his issues are from the difficulty of getting into the game. AOS games under 2k points are horrible, but it's more digestible for a newer players so the current ask is suffering through how many lower point games so you can play a 2k game. I enjoyed the video and I feel like it's fair.
something heywoah pointed out in his response video was that miniac seems to be playing smaller, 1000 point games. This is a problem because AoS /does not/ scale down as well as it claims to. In particular, it's hard to play around the possibility of a double turn by, for example, positioning a second wave to counterattack if you're out of points after grabbing your first wave units. This means priority rolls are much more likely to outright decide a game at 1k points than at 2k. The same goes for Miniac's complaint of units being too deadly / not durable enough. At k2 games, that killiness can lead to an exciting back and forth while also preventing games from getting bogged down with anvils grinding against anvils and getting nowhere. But at 1k there is no back and forth, because the first player to have one of their key units smashed is kind of out of the game. AoS pretends 1k - even smaller - is a valid game size, and in fact new players are encouraged to start there. But it really does put the game's worst foot forward.
I have followed your content closely for years, and for me this was one of your best vids. It made me rethink aspects of how I approach the game. It made me appreciate more the things I like, and how to better deal with aspects I may find frustrating. Ultimately it made me consider how to be a better player for myself and my opponent. Thanks!
Rob - I play AoS competitively, sort of, I listen to all your videos, even introductory ones. I agreed with so many, if not all, of your points and I think you brought them forth in a very civil manner. Major probs to you tbh and thank you for also adressing the entire power gamer thing, it's been a major issue in one of my clubs actually, and that was the thing that was toxic, not the playing or anything else. You're a babe.
I disagree about complexity and greater options. The best example I can think of are The Rampant games (lion/dragon/xenos) rules themselves ate dead simple but I can literally field and stat ANYTHING off my shelf with enough options to put as much fluff as I like behind my army. The game however is simple in essence but takes time to master. There aren’t 62 different dice rolls per hit that get affected by bloated obscure mechanics.
Really good video that helped me to see some things in a different light. There is just one thing I'd like to add: there is often the trap that you focus on the wrong things and eventually get driven by fear - e.g. we might pick the wrong faction / list and this will result in a terrible experience. And we conclude horrible balance / game mechanics are the underlying reason. As such we start with a negative attitude before we've even played our first game. In reality there are fair chances you'll be playing with more experienced players and they'll help you with the rules and give you tips along your first matches. They feel passionate about the game and want you to become part of their community and have fun. As such you have fun in your first games. If your opponents abuse their advantage and give you a miserable time it wouldn't have been a more enjoyable time if you'd been playing any other game - luckily these players make up a really really small part of the community. In conclusion: we're often too much driven by fear - fear of missing out, doing , loosing, wasting time, buying not the 'best' or doing any other 'mistake'. Unfortunately fear works terribly good and ads make use of it all the time (how many vids have a 'Don't do this' slogan). But at the same time fear stops us from doing things and eventually enjoying them. When people start becoming overly protective about their favourite game / product and trash things, there is a fair chance they 'fear' having made a mistake / might loose players for their favourite game... And it's a human thing. However understanding that might help you understanding them better and even help them. At the very least try not getting caught in it yourself.
Just wanted to comment and say how appreciative I was of this response. I was watching another response vid and the overall vibe of it and the tone in the comments was a real put off. Kept reading and thinking why would I want to play with these cats ya know ahAh. Appreciate the thoughtful responses here. I enjoyed Scott’s vid and relate to a decent portion of it but knew there was some things he was missing ahAh. While I’m not completely put off on AOS it kind of took a backseat to other interests…but no longer ahAh. Currently awaiting some Kharadron Overlords.
The whole section on mastery was perfect! As someone who has mastered the lore based approach to list building, but is a journeyman with rules and painting, it explains the whole “your models your hobby” comments that get thrown around a lot, for me I enjoy building a lore based list, if it does well that’s a bonus, I just want something that fits the stories I’ve spent years reading. Thanks
I watched scotts video, and whilst i can empathise with how he feels, his major point of double turn is bad seemed... uninformed. he clearly stated how first turn works but wrong with things like "who ever wins the roll goes first" also he only seems to play like 750-1250pt games. if you dont know how to plan around double turns, and indeed. dont understand how priority works i can see why double turn would be bad. double turns at such low points is the end of the game. I would highly recommend he plays some full sized games and speaks to some more grizzled veterans about the double turn. I often give my opponents the double if I think its the right move to score more points delaying my own potential double for round 3. Its not this "unkowable random" its a known factor that we can interact with and use to our own advantage. ofc there is some luck involved... but its a dice game. the only other thing i took a HARD stance against was him saying "make rules less wordy" implying rules should all be RaI. and we all know how that goes in this game.... id rather strong, definable RaW with 0 room for jimmy to try and make a case that his ungor when off the table pick up intercontinental ballistic missiles instead of their bows.
I have more experience with D&D than AoS so I’ll just add this point; I’ve been playing D&D for 23 years now and I think Matt Mercer is an amazing DM. He knows the rules really well, but is flexible enough to know when to relax them a little for the sake of the moment. Mostly though, he’s an incredible storyteller and that’s what makes him a great DM. Other D&D players may not agree, but that’s my take anyway. I can’t contribute much to the conversation, but I thought I could contribute that. Fantastic video, thanks Rob 🙌
Thing is you won‘t get the hang of AoS if you are involved in 20 things at the same time, like playing 7 different game systems, building and painting tons of models, running a youtube channel and so on.. There is much (much!) more to this game than you may grasp in your first few 750 to 1500 pts games with an usually bad or mediocre list. I absolutely got wiped off the board in my first games before i even noticed what happened. Even with a superior list to my seasoned opponents, they would have smashed me relatively easy in the beginning. You really have to get a feeling for how this game flows (and roughly what your opponent can do!) and then it will start to shine. This may not be the best or most refined tabletop ruleset out there, but i have an insane amount of fun playing it. All the different armies with really fleshed out and completely unique mechanics, it‘s always exciting!
I’m probably what’s called a casual gamer, mainly because I haven’t been to big event. But I spend a lot of time painting, to a reasonable standard, building, and making lists, all to game with friends. I used to just turn up and roll dice to have fun, but when I was get stomped/beaten/ tabled every game it becomes un-fun,not for me but my opponents. They almost always know they would win playing me. So I learnt the game, got better and now games are more even, I win an equal amount of times vs my regular opponents. I’m also going to my first AoS event at warhammer world in June. I’ll probably lose but it’ll be fun and I’ll know what I’m doing while I lose. In regards to AoS it’s a great game, I love the double turn/priority roll, it wouldn’t be the same game without it. Yes it would be great if the rules were free, but that doesn’t stop me playing. I don’t have loads of time to play games, once a month, sometimes twice if I’m lucky, but I enjoy the amount of rules and complexity. I have three armies, and figuring out different lists and understanding different ways to play is part of the enjoyment of this hobby. It’s a hobby for me, and I’m probably a casual player but I spend a lot of my spare time doing all aspects of it, so am i really as casual player in that sense? Probably not, but I enjoy this game.
Best advice! Celebrating the close calls (armour saves of 6+s) or a couple of goblins taking the last wound off an ork megaboss with arrows (5+/5+) rather than getting salty over a 2+ save rolling a 1. I used to be in that boat but when I think back to those close ass games where 4 players are closing in around a spinning dice to decide the last wound on a model to end a game is just the most fun I’ve ever had. Some of those have been at tournaments. I would probably fall into the casual gamer side of things but I’ve met some great people @ tournaments too. Big love to ya all
AoS list building…… My parents handed me down a part finished gang roster for Necromunda and, having kitted out another two gangers, I will hand it down to my children.
Regarding the point addressed at around 10:45 - Solid point, but one thing that is profoundly frustrating about Wargaming in general is that the rules are interpreted differently by other players, and it's rarely fun or worthwhile to try and discuss rules nuance and meaning with people. Most people don't like it when you bring up a rule that they aren't familiar with because they will think that you're trying to be WAAC (I'm guilty of this myself whenever I flub a rule and it's pointed out to me). If the games rules wording was less complicated or more clear/succinct, more time would be spent playing the damn game and less time spent reading and debating/discussing. GW should put more care into its rules introduction from a macro-level, so that there no need for rules be scattered about in places like white dwarf articles, FAQs/Erratas. I know asking GW to slow down its releases is a cardinal sin because they really want gross profits, ~45% net profits on their plastic and publications, but for me as a consumer of the product, I just want to play the damn game, and not have to re-hash and debate rules. Poorly worded rules in the most popular wargame just increases the rate at which gamers have bad experiences.
Learning to play fighting games is really opened my eyes to how fun it is to learn a game. They also taught me that the first step to improving is to admit that you suck ass.
I think one of the reasons why people who know the rules really well get a bad rep is because when they play against more casual players they pull tricks the casual didn't know were possible so it feels like a 'gotcha' (which isn't fun to experience), or the guy who knows the rules well is the guy who ruins your beautiful plan by pointing out you're actually not allowed to do that. It also doesn't help that 'learning the rules' basically just means playing a lot. I don't know about you, but I can't just read a rulebook and understand the rules: I have to actually play the game to understand. and a game can be 2/3 hours. That's a lot of time investment, and I have other shit to do besides this. And then GW brings out a new edition every 3 years, which makes you feel... why do I even bother learning this stuff?
I play quite a few wargames... I think a game is great when it manages to translate its core fantasy to solid gameplay on the tabletop. Blood bowl is a great fantasy football simulator, as it can really capture epic moves done by your team. I love Dystopian Wars, as it really simulates brutal naval combat well where moving your ships well is key to victory. I love MCP where a bunch of heroes duke it out and smash each other into the terrain itself while doing insane stuff through super powers. The rules really help to reflect the core fantasy. And I'll be blunt, there's an issue there with AoS' core gameplay. It sells itself as two mighty armies clashing, but far too often... victory is tied to standing on an objective as the most important thing, rather than bashing an opponents toy soldiers. It looks super naff to have entire block of infantry just camping in a spot because there is a fear that a teleporting unit can screw you over. And the latest (seasonal now) general handbooks even leans into this extra hard by creating different unit types that are "even better at standing on objectives" seemingly. I've just not been feeling it lately for that reason.
That's ok. I think wargaming is very emotive but it is a wargame and not DND etc. I agree fighting should be a thing. Pure battle is kinda lame imo but that's ok. We just have different views on it
@@TheHonestWargamer Oh, purely battle is also not something I want to advocate too much. I think AoS' earliest iterations (prior to GHB especially), just devolved into a brawl in the center all the time without anything meaningful going on otherwise. I'm just saying that I hope they have a look at how objectives are scored/held a bit more in a next edition... As I'm really not a fan of the current Gally vets and/or champs are now even better at standing on objectives than other units. It sort over-emphasizes a gameplay element that I personally already feel, is a bit "gamey" about AoS. Board control and locking down key objectives is important, but having two close combat units locked in an epic staredown on objectives, rather than a clash, just feels a bit off.
@@TheHonestWargamer Off the top of my head, I think controlling entire board quarters and keeping them free of enemies probably fits the "larger armies clashing" core fantasy more, instead of pin points on a board. Taking control of terrain elements/watchtowers/walls also falls into that category. Heck, I like the idea of monsters destroying elements of the battlefleet belonging to the opposing side, or infantry destroying enemy encampments. Maybe even have terrain with a wounds and save/ward save stat that your army is required to destroy while unengaged friendly models can repair it... Those sorts of mechanics in the future, rather than just "standing in the correct spot" if you get what I mean.
Great response and video. Thanks. I’ll admit, when I started gaming, those bad dice rolls really annoyed me. I was really unlucky, in that I would always roll below average results. Those 3” charges would never work, those 2+ saves would always fail. My dice rolls haven’t improved, but I’ve become more accepting of them. I really enjoy the game, and the company from it, so that’s my focus. I think this is better, even when those well planned and orchestrated actions don’t work out!
This video helped me realize that what I want out my wargaming experience is having fun playing the game. Which may have also led to my cripplingly large mountain of gray to overcome with my models because there's so many armies I want to play with. Thank goodness for slap chop.
The differences in wargaming: -The test itself is fun -You get to take the test over and over -You get better at the test over time -You discover new questions that you didn’t even know were on the test -You make new friends while taking the test
I love reading rules... It's fun. But I don't like to have to get into minutia. I don't like list building much. I want to slap chop my minis and the. Play a 1-2 hours of high action fun.
@@Rave.- oh no... I don't touch age of sigmar. The minis are bad(bit that is okay, you can always just by others that are better) the rules were a mess, last time I read them
My god, I love that chart showing the impact of the priority roll on turn sequencing! As a 40k player slowly getting into AoS, the priority roll looks a little daunting. But you make a really good case for why it's actually *interesting*.
Ah the age old debate in the same hobby Painters versus players with gamers in between. vieuwpoints of each group: 1. painter: Painting is where it is at. I do not acknowledge your mini's / army unless it has 18+ colors and all the basses are flocked. That your army is legal to play is not important, iy jusy needs to be looking cool. Also, if you have ZERO WINS in the chrystal brush, golden demon or have a golden demon sword, do not initiate a conversation with me. 2. random gamer: Most models are painted 4+ colors, some bases are flocked, mostly matching paintscheme. Is out there for a fun game, willing to abide by the codex rules, mistakes happen by accident, not design. Will ocasionaly enter a tournament. 3. the player: Rules define the game, if need be, models that will be used for tournament get 4 paint, that is it. If I like the army, I'll outsource the paintjob to someone who actualy paints for a living. Me winning, or at least going final 8 on a 100+ people tournament is where the game realy comes to life. I love miniac, great painter, his video's helped me in that departement. But when it comes to actualy playing the game... sigh He is one of the folks promoting to give everybody a cardboard medal for showing up. Now, let's NOT play and paint our models and the best painter, not me, miniac takes home the prize. Hell, if you wana paint, paint, but I am here to play a game. I do not care that the models you bought last week are painted. Sure as hell not to golden demon standerd. I want to play the game BY THE RULES. Gamers are the group that can float everywhere, painters versus players not so much.
Hello Rob this is the first video of yours I've seen I've come over from your interview on the painting phase and I'm now binging your content. Listening to this has inspired me to learn the rules more and get involved in becoming a better player (I play blood bowl but used to play AoS 2.0) I think this is great because alot of your points especially differentiating between casual and competitive gamers. Thankyou for the content!
That's so beautiful. Yeah we mist learn to accept that for any field we can just stay casual and have fun, like slapshopping, playing casually, learn just tidbits of lores. Or learn to become better and put the effort and well have fun too ! Paint extremelly well, be competitive, read every book. We must be accepting of how people enjoy their hobby, with different mindsets and expectations.
i think one of the things that people conflate is rules enthusiasts and people who don't have social skills. We all know those mr miagis who can drop sage advice like nothing. But we've all had those games against someone who seems to interrupt you constantly with "well actually". A gotcha tactic is aall about delivery.
This is a great video. I love the tone. Great job. I am just getting into 40k as my first wargame. As a new player, it is completely overwhelming. The worst part is losing a game (or round) and not even really understanding what the hell just happened. And it's hard to piece it together unless you buy the other army's codex or use an illegal site like Wahapedia. There are a lot of "gotcha" traps for a new player to fall into - which sucks when you've spent a ton of money and time just to get to the table and then your unit/army can't do the thing it's supposed to do. I don't expect to win any games and I can have fun even if I lose, but sometimes the dense and complex nature of the game just doesn't feel good. I understand that those "traps" are really part of the rock-paper-scissors of the game, which allows for deeper game play. And the game absolutely NEEDS to support and enable its best players to have nuanced and complex games where system mastery is rewarded. There should be room in the game for newer and/or casual players as well as competitive players. Casuals calling competitive players pedants and competitives telling casuals to git gud doesn't help anyone. (I will say that the discourse here is excellent). Regardless, this was a great video and I learned a lot.
Roleplaying is not a ludological competitive medium it's a collaborative narrative medium and early warhammer and GW miniature games had more of that, encouraging you making up system mechanisms even on the fly as you play, while being much closer to the miniature wargaming medium that the hobbies both grew from (at least dungeons and dragons) that narrative, if in a confrontation, was always there and it has become less so and the warhammer miniature game play hobby have become more competitive and less narrative and the system mechanisms have reflected that. In a RPG the mastery (be it the role of GM or Player alike) is aimed at obtaining the goal - being the mutual entertainment of all its participants, to be creative and indulging every participant. There's no win or lose, only entertaining. That's not the case when the system mechanisms, the ludology, is about the win, when the creation of the system mechanisms called the rules, is not written with the intent to arm each and every participant with as many tools as possible to entertain their fellow participants (to be fair as a RPG D&D is rather poor at this and more moder, 1980+, systems are better at it). Yes GW have more narrative mediums, occasionally support campaign mechanisms and breath life in old nostalgic ideas and ways to play that's less competitive. Now a days if you come up with some system mechanisms for some amazing conversions, or a scenario, a lot of people will not indulge you, unless it's published material they won't entertain you, because in their eyes it's generally seen as cheating (this erroneous notion also appears in the RPG hobby, only to illustrate that the people claiming that you can cheat in a RPG do not understand the medium and are unfortunately missing out on its essential core concepts). PS. RPGs don't actually have rules (aside from the one) they have system mechanism (which are just tools to apply as you see fit and are only as good as the entertainment they bring).
AoS is a great game, but can it be a casual game?
You have to casually assemble and paint 40+ detailed plastic miniatures.
You have to casually familiarize yourself with the main rules, faction rules and season rules.
Then you're setup for 2-3 hours of "casual" non-stop tactical and strategic challenges.
Love it!
No its not
I think a "casual" mindset is more about what a player wants out of a game, not in the time or money they put into it. You could play golf casually every day of the week even if you spent a ton of money on equipment and learning the game.
Warcry is the way to play a casual game in AOS's setting, with AOS minis. It helps that Warcry is also pretty fun.
@@willschoonover8654 casual golf probably will cost less that casual AoS or WH40K
@@YuriGualeri no lol
This is HANDS DOWN your best video yet!
You masterlyfully explained how I feel about the game but cannot always sum up into words in the moment.
This is some S tier content.
You nailed it.
Appreciate you a lot thankyou
Rob.
I'm extremely time poor.
My very limited hobby time is spent building, collecting and painting models.
Gaming is something I haven't done in years.
I have too many other commitments.
Since your appearence on the painting phase I have been watching your channel and I have to say...
I want to start playing games again!
Your knowledge and enthusiasm are infectious.
Thank you for the content.
Thank you for rekindling the long dead ember of wanting to play wargames in me.
You don't even have to play them well. You can just have a laugh!!
I think this is your best video I’ve seen, perhaps the best AoS video I’ve ever seen. You absolutely nailed what’s important about the game and I appreciate the passion you put into this
Wow, thank you! That's high praise thanks
Rob, I really appreciated this take. After watching HeyWoah’s reaction video, it felt like there was a divisive reactionary vibe in the community.
I think you come from a really good place in that you gave his argument charity before you criticized it, and tried to understand where he was coming from.
My friends and I have gotten into issues when learning new systems or games, because we try to come at it with the same “want to win” attitude while we don’t know the rules well. This was especially frustrating with Horus Heresy where the writing sucks terribly, but I think you hit the nail on the head. It takes time to learn the game and you have to develop a different attitude until you hit that expert level of understanding. Everything is a creative process, and you aren’t gonna be amazing at it on the first try, same as painting.
If I expected my models to look like Miniac’s on the first try, he’d likely call me arrogant. I think for anyone to come into a new rule set expecting to know everything and not get frustrated when someone else knows it better is the same thing, arrogance. We can all be better learners and have fewer expectations during the process.
Thanks for understanding the core point so well. That's exactly how I feel
This is such a great level headed essay. You show a careful intellectual approach to what could have been just a knee jerk reaction.
Appreciated
Most of all, I want to thank you for adressing the stigma around competitive players. I'm just getting back into the hobby, but I was a very active player and traveling to events and tournaments as well as organizing them myself for various systems (WHFB, 40k, Warmachine mk2). Noone in my area took an interest in higher level play, and that's ok, but I was constantly stigmatized as the tournament player. I endured the complaining about everything (rules, dice or whatever came to mind) just to have games at all. Meanwhile the "competitive sweaty tournament players" I met were without exception friendly and awesome people, just having joy with eachother and being respectful to each other, and such it felt completely different than playing with the local casual gamers which felt way more obsessed with winning, and were overall more angry and less respectful. That was overall why I quit the hobby about 8 years ago, since playing in my local group just was not fun on any level anymore and I did not feel respected or welcomed.
I'm absolutely loving how you're approaching destigmatizing competitive play. I feel like so much of the stigma comes from people not having experienced being the more knowledgeable/skilled player/painter/whatever very often. When you understand your craft at a high level and get paired with someone around your level, the game is always euphoric. When you're playing casually and think you are higher level than you are, the ego gets crushed when you get caught by something you hadn't fully realized. In that moment you either
1. learn from it
2. protect your ego through denial and scrubquotes
Or 3. Take a very relaxed view of "I wasn't aware of that because I'm not invested that deeply, but I should expect to get got due to my detached relationship with the game and enjoy where I'm at"
And hopefully people can learn to avoid the 2nd option
Very very clear analysis and I'm board with 100%
In principle true. In practice though one is often dependent on who plays locally. AoS isn't a small game, both rules and army project wise. A lot of us are 'stuck' having to go to stores to get games in, a place usually dominated by people who play competitively or are simply neck deep in the rules and setting. Which is all well before we make it to the actual 'toxic' opponents, a seemingly unavoidable segment of the competitive side of the hobby.
Those are often the minority, but I have yet to find a store or club where GW products, AoS and 40K in specific, are dominant where there isn't at least 'that one players' that will go out of their way to crush whomever they are playing against using their meta knowledge and list building. Add a messy system like AoS and you have a recipe for disaster / turning of new players.
A problem that doesn't even need massively competitive play or challenging opponents, the lack of balanced factions is enough to disappoint people. GW's edition dev pipeline is an utter mess, which is something only those with experience or the time/energy to keep up with everything will know. A new player can easily stumble into picking up a faction they love the look of that leaves them utterly unable to survive even half a game against the majority of players. Some of them don't even need competent opponents to get crushed. Imagine spending months building and painting your first army, which is quite a daunting experience while you also slowly learn the rules. Only to find out your faction generally doesn't stand a chance.......I've seen people give up on both AoS and 40K after accidentally picking an effective dead faction/army. Same goes with GW's sales approach of scattering rules all over the place, they killed any interest my friends had in Underworlds because folks felt they had to keep buying stuff to keep up.
@@hephesto555666 True. However, you can just refuse to play the neckbeard.
If you have an underpowered army and it’s agreed that it is weak, try to get house rule buffs for it to even things out a bit.
Speaking to the example 24:45, as a competitive fighting game player AND competitive wargamer, this is spot on. It's bad etiquette to complain about dice... because both players are rolling dice. Just liking in fighting games, you are both effected by good and bad character matchups, the venue being cold, what you ate for breakfast etc etc. Take some responsibility for the results of the game. It takes a bit of maturity but it makes the good results more rewarding and turns the bad results into a learning experience. A win-win really.
Coming from a martial arts back ground these are my thoughts too
Yeah, but the difference is that if you're doing something else competitive, usually those things aren't deliberately set up so that a decisive advantage is supposed to occur randomly.
Both martial arts and fighting games strive to create an arena that's as fair as possible. A boxing match doesn't involve one boxer getting a couple of free swings in on the other as a result of a coin flip, for example.
I’m new to AOS I’ve been looking at buying a army for about 2 years and finally got the orruks. I also somehow got my dad into AOS and this video was nice for both of us just to listen about the game. Thanks
i think most of this discussion comes down to accessibility:
-the game feels flat until you are an expert
-the list building is complex until you are an expert
-having fun is difficult until you learn how to do it
I mean... how the hell are beginners supposed to ENJOY the game? I feel most of them will drop it before they have the chance to become experts
I don't think you need an expert to enjoy the game, but there is definitely a learning curve to Warhammer. It isn't a perfectly accessible game. I don't wargaming in general can be. It is simply enjoying the process of growing in skill.
I spent my first 4 months of WH Fantasy just reading the army book and theorizing cool armies I could build. I had more fun doing that and never playing a single game than I have had with other hobbies.
Does it require a certain type of person to enjoy that? Sure. Will eveeryone enjoy that? Almost certainly not, and that's ok.
The main criticism that I saw from Scott’s video was that AoS is not a great game below 2000 points. I think this is a valid critique and I am not sure there is an easy way to balance AOS for smaller game sizes like Boarding Actions seems to be doing in 40K but it would be nice if there was something more manageable in terms of size and complexity for newer players.
if you want to play a more skrimish game they have both underworlds and warcry so i see no point in telling people that there is a problem with the game when you can play 2 different games with lesser models and points.
@@adamardback i have not played those games and should have mentioned those in my comment. Your response is valid. I had understood that they have their own unique rules and are not simply a different way to play AoS unlike Boarding Actions which is a simplified version of 40K.
@@adamardback I don't disagree, but the game *should* work at any points level, otherwise they need to say it doesn't. Also, people who do play AoS at the "correct" point level do sometimes want to play smaller games to suit time/space considerations (me for one) - i shouldn't have to buy another game to do that if it's well designed.
I haven't tried Boarding Action yet. How good is it and can it become competitive?
@@kosmosfantasias7545 I don't think it can be competitive, but it does give a small point collections (like two boxes of a troop, an HQ, and 1 "cool" unit) a way to play where you still have the basics of the game and can find a direction for your collection to grow. Crusade or path to glory were the previous recommended methods but they layer on special rules, upgrades, and list building that do not translate to 40k proper, whereas Boarding Actions do.
I see a Man that is 100% exited about everything he talks about. Passionate about something you and i both love. The absolute best Video about competitive wargaming i have seen so far. Much love from germany man. Made my day
Awh thanks dude
Jesus....what a video.
I've honestly not heard of a better promotion of Age of Sigmar.
I've been thinking about getting into it for a while, i'm finally going to do it.
Thanks Rob.
Have a great time
As a new comer to war gaming and specifically starting with Orks (painting em up as I watch this). Is 40k a bit easier to get into than AoS?
I agree! I've been waffling for a while about whether to intentionally get into AoS or just stick with painting/collecting/skirmish games like I've been doing so far. Between this and HeyWoah's video I'm feeling really excited about starting AoS for real. It just sounds like my kind of thing!
Well here’s my opinion I have collected 40k for 10 years plus and never played a game because of how hard it seems I’ve been collecting AoS for about a year and have played multiple games
You can't really play untill you spend hundreds of Dollars and many hours building and painting and then only when you have 2k can you really "play".
I like your point about accepting the roll of the dice being a matter of mindset. When I got back into the hobby I made a conscious decision to be the guy who high fives his opponent when he rolled well, or celebrate their victory. I think that's an excellent expression of sportsmanship in our hobby, and gives you the peace of mind to realise that, at the end of the day, you're both there to roll drive and have some fun 😊
I watched a game recently from Battleshock Wargaming where one of them rolled really well, and his opponent celebrated for him because it was a hype moment (but certainly not a hype moment as the enemy).
It absolutely blew me away. My mind had a moment of, "wait... you can do that?" before it just clicked into place and it's the healthiest thing I've ever seen in a competitive environment.
I have done the same, I try my best to be like Nick from Playon, it makes for a much better experience.
I like Scott's video.
I like this response video.
I like this dialogue, the tone, everything about it. Good game!
Talking about games is fun.
No, no, this isn't how the internet works, people can't agree and be civil. Anything else is the path to madness haha
Good video - something I learned - The opposite of complexity isn't simplicity it's transparency ... so maybe the issue is the delivery or ease of which you can find the information you need in a way that makes sense. Just my thoughts around that :)
Great points
I've only watched the first 13 minutes and you've gotten my sub. I really appreciate your tone, insights, and respectful approach to the dialogue. Fantastic.
I appreciate that! I can be spicy but try to be fair always
Well here’s my opinion I have collected 40k for 10 years plus and never played a game because of how hard it seems I’ve been collecting AoS for about a year and have played multiple games
Glad you are having fun bud
Very thorough & well articulated rebuttal Rob! Glad we have you as a pillar for our community!
You too bud xx
No, thats Jordan
As a new tabletop player, just 4 games in, but a hell of a lot of hours tinkering with lists, talking to my friends, painting with my son, meeting new people and lost 3 out of my 4 games, I absolutely love the complexity of AOS! I'm just now starting to play around with complex lists, denying my opponent a deploy zone behind me, buffing units and all that. I have played a lot of pvp where gear and attribute complexity matters a lot, movement, placement, looking for weaknesses, this is right up my alley, but I can also see where, for someone who is not as excited about these aspects, would fall short and burn out before finishing the core rules.
Great video, and all glory to Sigmar 😝
If you're already considering movement denial 4 games in you're well ahead of the curve when it comes to learning to play competitively. Similarly once I was burned out on more competitive styled video games, tabletop wargames have become an outlet for that sort of engagement only something with complex PvP could offer before. Couple that with getting to hang out with people, and no flaming in game chat, it's a dream
@@kolari8971 well, I might be "ahead of the curve" but I'm only 4 games in, there's still so much to keep track of and I like that. The complexity is drawing me in, not pushing me away. My very first game I got served a big plate of "lock out your opponent or loose" and that was great, because I took it in.
I would dispute that rules complexity is a necessity of depth. There are other games out there that manage to have depth of interactions and yet have relatively straightforward rules. The core rulebook for Guild Ball, for example, was pretty brief but the depth of the interactions was huge. Conversely, you can have layers and layers of rules that don't really grant meaningful choice. For example, the distinctions between hitting and wounding in AoS are a rules layer that doesn't really add any real choices or depth to the game, it's just a mechanical layer with few interactions. I think AOS is ok overall but it doesn't use its wordcount or the time required to play a game particularly efficiently.
Precisely, it's a fundamentally flawed argument. Chess has simple rules, but the depth is immense. Conversely, in the wargaming space, Kings of War is far less rules heavy, but I feel more tactically interesting than AoS.
I really appreciate the time and effort you both took in talking about AoS and wargaming. I feel I discovered something about the hobby newly
I'm glad. Have a good day
Great points!!! I'm a huge fan of the new Path to Glory rules. I think it is a great way to introduce new players slowly. Won't cost as much as putting together a tournament build.
Thank you for your perspective. As a casual wargamer for the last 20 years (off and on,) I think the games workshop games have always suffered from the sales cycle. Each new army must be the new Meta so they can sell models and books. This isn't fun, it's sales. This leaves those of us who buy in at various points out in the cold a few months down the line when the new hotness arrives. Maybe the internal balance you describe happens at a top tier, but I simply haven't seen that on a casual level where the constraints of real life (time, money, family) create an unequal playing field. Complexity as you outline can be good but I do think it's unreasonable to expect casual players to master the skills to play competitively (read: not get trashed by every rules lawyer out there). In your analogy comparing skill mastery in wargaming to professional sports or artists, I think you miss the mark. In both those cases the "rules" of the game or system are approachable and intuitive to everyone involved. You don't have to read 300+ pages of rules books to understand a football game or an interesting paint scheme. The mastery of that player shows through precisely because the rules are simple or intuitive enough for all of us casual fans to understand and enjoy. When you play with or against a top tier player in a wargame you are creating an inherently unlevel playing field because the top tier player simply isn't playing by the same rule set you understand. This creates a constant stream of "gotcha" moments that makes your multi-hour time investment feel like a waste because you lose due to rules lawyering rather than a bad strategy. Thanks for reading my hot-take.
You have bad strategy cause you don't the game state well. Not cause someone lawyered you.
Follow up painters and footballers put in a lot of effort on strategy, skill and talent to be good at what they do. I doesn't just happen that's why we don't that as well
@@TheHonestWargamer hmm. In re-reading my comment above, I suspect I didn't articulate the notion well. Trying here again. I don't have to read 300 pages of rules to understand the refs calls on the football game on TV or appreciate a spectacular paint job. The players themselves have a deeper knowledge without doubt from long experience, but the basics are understood by all. In the case of rules heavy wargames, this simply is not the case for casual players in my experience. When I'm hit with some faction specific rule deep in a white dwarf magazine or rule supplement that changes the game state is off-putting as a player. This is what I mean about uneven knowledge of the core game rules. I don't see it as a personal failing on my part, but a structural failing of an overwrought system that expects too much time and monetary investment from it's players. It's part of the reason I have entirely given up on 40k/AOS in favor of skirmish games and simpler systems like OnePageRules. Anywho, It was interesting to listen to an opposing perspective. Thanks for the video.
@@nwood8175 I completely agree there is a structural failing with most complex and arguably too complex games.
I think I cant jazz well till I learn but I'm not sure that's jazz's fault and definitely not jazz musicians.
I'm glad you've found a place to go and be happy in wargames but there are people playing AOS right now competitively and having a great time
Mature well articulated take. Great video. Love the silly twitch streams and videos like this.
Much appreciated! This is the ying to my stream Yang I guess
I’ve only cannonballed into the hobby just recently but I’ve already learned an important lesson: acceptance.
As a painter, I have to accept my limitations, and accept the fact that I will have to put in the work if I want to get better. As a gamer, I have to, accept that I am, as you say, time poor. And I may not be able to get in as many games as I want, nor will I be able to dive as deeply into the rules as I like. I also have to accept the fact that I have compromised executive function, and it has always made being Very technical with games difficult for me. I hate it, but I have to accept it. I think we can all learn to accept lots of things in life. But especially in the hobby space, we can learn that some games just are not for us.
This is beautiful to read. You sound very mentally healthy. I wish you loads of love on your journey
@@TheHonestWargamer Aw thanks good buddy 🤝 I’ve also found that wargaming is full of amazing people like you. I’m blown away by the earnestness of so many content creators. I find myself crying like “I thought we were just painting orks??”
Thank you for putting so much love and care into this. You illuminated quite a bit, and even your points I disagreed with, I appreciated the compelling way you made them.
My brother and I jumped into AoS at the start of this year after over a decade of grinding Warmachine games. At the height of its power, Warmachine fully embraced the competitive nature that its ruleset was balanced around. Players were proud to be competitive and it wasn't used as a negative term. The player base understood that for a game to be fun at a casual level, it needs to be balanced at a competitive level.
That's been the biggest adjustment when coming to AoS, it seems like a majority of the player base use the word competitive as a derogatory term. It doesn't mean that you're some try hard jerk who wants to nitpick over minutiae and bore your opponent into dust, it just means you have put the time and effort in to understanding the rules, practicing them, and finding the most effective ways of implementing them.
You do an incredible job of outlining this, especially in this video when you compare it to competitive painting. They should absolutely be celebrated in the same way.
Love your work and keep doing what you do
Appreciate you. It's a uniquely Warhammer problem
Fantastic video and points about mindset, game design, the learning curve, and fun as a primary factor in games. Keep this type of content coming, you're very very good at it, and make your points eloquently!
Thanks, will do!
I will shout Ed Ball of the middle earth tournament scene. He is not only great at all the rules for the game but is also a great guy who would love nothing more than to know the person he is playing against is also having a great time.
Great shout. Exactly the right type of person
honestly, the only issue I have with GW systems is the amount of money you have to keep spending on rule books. Just feels bad. Why can't they can update and balance on the go? its the money I know.
Same. But I don't buy rulebooks
@@TheHonestWargamer shhh don't say it too loud they are always listening
when scott talks about a more complex rulebook i think he's referring to something like what happens in magic: the gathering, there is an easy to understand rulebook for everyone, then also available is the comprehensive 278 page document of rules for people who are interested in high level play, and i agree, warhammer like a lot of games would benefit from 1. not changing editions just because some arbitrary time passed and 2. have a document like MTG has for people who want/need it
also the idea of artifacts costing points is something i have put forward for 40k, you could have the CP cost or free relics and warlord traits for playing power level games, but for people who want to go in depth with points based list building we're normally using apps like battlescribe so it really is no more effort to add up a points cost for a relic
Who didn't love it when the Changeling put himself on top of the balewind vortex and hand of dust'ed Nagash. A great story. Thanks for the great video 👍
My pleasure
My only gripe with this video is that every gripe Scott has with AoS can be stated about 40k tenfold.
And most gw games.
I liked Miniac's video and thought he raised some valid points (even if I didn't fully agree with a few of his opinion) - this is an ace video as well (as ususal). I don't mind the priority roll - I wouldn't be devvoed if it didn't exist, but I can appreciate what it adds to the game if approached in the right frame of mind (and it's not like you can't just ignore it in narrative or even competitive play at home/within your group). I personally really like alternating activation type systems (whether that's as in Bolt Action with random chit pull or just alternating unit activations) and I think it could be good (or at least interesting to try) in AoS. I really like AoS but there again I like a ton of games (including most of the one's Scott likes) - I think it's all about finding what you want and going for it. Thankfully it's a bit of a golden age system/ruleset wise right now.
Loved your appearance on the painting phase btw - keep on being a lovely human being matey.
Watched this right before heading out to a tournament, it got so freaking hyped! Love you Rob, great video
I also watched Scott's video, and I can relate. I don't play much AoS, and it can be confusing with all the rules, building and whatnot (don't get me started on 40k).
I do, however, agree that the all the rules and "fluff" allow that mastery to come into play, which is cool to watch.
What I think would be the solution, is 1. Release the rules for free, and 2, develop "newb" rules to ease people in, going over just enough to get a simple game in. Then maybe have a progressively more involved game, by adding in certain rules. Then after a few games, new players can enjoy the complexity of the game, and maybe a better understanding as well.
I loved this video. I love Scott, but I disagreed with everything he said, and yet was struggling to articulate why... this summarised that so nicely!
Also; if you want a (almost!) perfectly balanced, relatively simple (rules-wise), cheap and accessible game with no dice rolls to spoil it, then play chess! 🤷♂️
But I'll be over here having a blast with my ridiculous giant punching the stuffing out of goblins before it gets eaten by a giant cabbage ridden by a furious mushroom in armour!
I'm in to play with you
Sounds like a lot of it comes down to casual vs mastery and your painting analogy makes sense.
Running with that analogy, casual painters have slapchop, but casual games don't really have much place in AoS for a positive play experience, especially if the majority of available people in your group go for pro play and you just have to sit back and get whopped by a new tournament list they're trying.
Big steps could be made to simplify the play experience for casuals by getting in the simplified rule set (non ghb) out!
I say this in the video and agree with you. Not sure it's aos though. Like just some simple one page rules maybe
@The Honest Wargamer Perhaps a (free) beginner friendly battle pack which scales down some of the rules bloat is a good start. It's not a silver bullet for addressing beginner NPE but a start.
The basic rules are simple enough to start... the problem is that no one plays that way, and if you don't play matched games with the current season rules you can't find a gaming group. I'm the definition of casual gamer who wants to try new things in aos, but i constantly get stomped by meta lists copied from the internet in my "casual "friendly" gamea. So tired of seeing hundreds of the flavour of the game unit spammed in every game. There's no real space for testing lists with a reasonable chance of winning.
Sorry for the Essay but I think it's worthwhile based on both video's
Without sounding like I'm going on a "fix the world" Bono tangent, Scotts video highlights an attitude that many people have across esports/tsports/TCG's and it's this welfare/entitlement attitude that everyone seems to have is extremely tiresome and I've watched Scotts video to confirm I'm not misunderstanding his points.
Scotts Points
Web App/List building - Has he been under a rock? pretty much everyone has complained about the rules/app/shorthand rules however you want to dress this up GW are out of touch with their digitally minded userbase/customers (unless Big Kev has come in dickswinging telling everyone these nerds need to keep buying army books then we'll see books until it no longer becomes commercially viable for GW to print them)
Game Bloat - Core Rules should be written for normal people? and the 1%ers can deal with extra reading.
- What are we defining as a normal player? Billy Bob Thornton who plays one game a week at his local club whilst having a cheeky beer with his mates but only 1 incase the Mrs finds out? is that too casual? do we use hours played (like the mastery metric) to confirm who is casual and who isn't? most casual players know they are casual and they play funhammer or narratively and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, most narrative players I know go back to the core of the hobby and make house rules or change things to fit their narrative games like the hobby of yesteryear.
What about Gigachad Roberto First of His Name who is going to stomp some losers at the next GT? he's not casual by the hours he's invested in mastering his craft but he may not play more than a few hours a week because of commitments? where does he fit on the welfare rules aka "I'm taking my ball home" because he's not a casual by Miniacs metric so he should get lumped in with the 1%ers or is he somewhere in between?
Then lastly what if your job is to turbostomp people at tournaments as in your career/earnings are directly tied to your ability to win/compete based on you being a coach, a content creator who focusses on top level gameplay and makes a living from this.
Why should they suffer when they are willing to sacrifice to master their craft and in turn mess you up, sorry there's a skill gap here but that's life, hurdur git gud.
*TLDR - people want to compete with the bigger boys but in reality they don't want to put in the time and effort as the bigger boys do*
In ICT there is something called continual service improvement where past successes and failures are used to improve something, however most people don't want to do any critical reflection on their ability to play a game, most video games/esports titles have the ability to watch your gameplay back and look at what you did wrong, imagine if you made a note at the end of your turn what you did and if you find yourself making the same mistake then fix it, just because someone doesn't want to invest time getting better I don't think the rest of the community should be punished.
Heck we even have a some loser (Love you babe) called Rob who casts games and you can see what's happening on the table and where units are moving, imagine if you got one of your games on stream and you lost, you have free footage (unless you are forced to pay by Robs mate shilly) of your mistake to fix it.
Widespread Rules - I'm onboard with this, making better digitally accessible items would make this better but I think half of the time it's to force white dwarf sales.
Internal Balance - Balance is a unique issue that you cant discuss in the best part of 3 minutes, there's vacuums, knock on effects, allies - this is a monster topic that requires serious £££££ investment from GW to do and I sadly don't think we'll ever see them plough cash into it, other than fake news metawatch
Flat Gameplay - I dont like this, it's a really bad example, some more elite armies are going to always have a worse board presence than the horde armies? so what Scott is advocating for is a gotcha mechanic because he's chosen an army that has superior quality of troops but no quantity and vice versa, this feeds into both Needless Risk, Internal Balance & Game Bloat - it's near impossible to fix this without giving someone a cheesy mechanic to win with because of their army "strength"
Needless Risk - Removing a dice roll for a units ability and making it baked in with no dice roll and chucking a few points on top then creates another huge balance issue and Scotts example is a very poor one, because you suddenly have to look at every unit that has a similar effect and do a cross faction/cross points cost benefit analysis into what is best based on someone saying they dont want to risk rolling a 1? - wait a second your ket fueled goblin spinning a huge spiked ball and chain does 6 mortal wounds for free and my twilight horsey only does 3? well that's what you wanted.
I like your example of Golden Demon - I don't paint as much as everyone but I want my Golden Demon using shortcuts and spending less time than Richard Gray.
What do you mean Magnus Carlsen is better than me at chess? make chess rules easier for me to understand and make the game easier.
I know it comes across badly this way, but in reality the hobby needs all types of gamers and labelling people who want to win as Pedants is a bit shit.
I better get more than a desmond for this dissertation in the comments and good work as always on the video Rob.
Fantastic analysis. This was my thinking but i had to work out the tone of how to express that to people who don't want to hear it.
I found this video wildly challenging to make
@@TheHonestWargamer it's your best content to date imo, nothing harder than discussing the split amongst gamers (of all types)
I only play 40k but i still heard the entire video.. Very good constructive arguments indeed 👏🏻
Lots of love
Pretty excited to start playing. Working on both maggotkin and.... kruleboyz (start a kruleboyz army, rob.) We're dipping our toes in with a slow grow league and kind of learning together. I'm wondering whether to play with nurgle or kruleboyz for a year (as per your advice). In regards to the video, I'm not letting miniac's video deter from having a good time and learning the rules in my own pace. Thanks for the well thought out video, Rob. You're the best guide out there for a noob such as myself.
Fantastic Video. Glad to hear your philosophy of Wargaming, especially AoS. I've been building up an army for a few months now and have yet to actually play my first game, but when I do I will keep this video in my mind.
Just have fun. If you haven't played much you'll just be searching around in the dark so take time to enjoy any element.of it
Crackin good video, Rob. Very eloquent response to a well thought out video. You both did great work and raised fair and valid points. I intend to point alot of people to this video as a great intro to AoS and what it could mean for them. Having always been a casual player, I really identify with everything you said. Practice it the key, AoS is a toolbox and using the tools correctly is harder than it seems on the surface. That said, I think you can still play 'casually' or 'Narratively' and have a great time.
One thing to mention about the latest record setting LVO tournament. Take a gander at how smoothly the event ran, maybe talk to Scott (the TO) and get his take on the flow of the tournament. 300+ players, having a blast and hardly any drama, arguments or rule/game breaking situations. Just a bunch of great games with people just like you and me. Watching that event unfold was amazing (as was the scramble to get even more tables set up as there were so FEW drops from the event!).
Let's face it, AoS has an expensive curve to growth, but it's not horrible. The state of the game , IMHO, is as good as it ever has been. Your video captures that perfectly and a hearty "Well Done"!
Now, to find some time to "git good, newb!!!!" :)
I really enjoyed this video, thanks for making it!
As someone new to playing the game, I feel a bit lost in where to begin. My wife and I painted through the pandemic and now want to play but sometimes run into uncertainty in the rules. I think we just need to get to a games workshop and have them school us!
Ill have a blog up and hopefully new videos soon to help with this
As a huge jazz fan, I'm glad you could break this down in ways that I can understand
Jazzy baby
Excellent video. Agree with everything you mentioned. I’m a casual player, enjoy more painting my armies than playing them. When I do play, I play for fun - win or lose.
You are perfect. Hope we get to play sometime
I like your comment about the mindset of dice rolls, it really resonated as my dice rolls have been hilariously terrible.
To give two examples would be:
Kragnos failing 4, 7" charges in a game
A maw krusha failing to kill 10 chainrasps.
It genuinely put me off playing AoS as I just had the feeling "my army did nothing because of dice" and I still haven't played since.
The thing I liked most in this vid is changing the mindset of having 'bad dice', it really sucks when a huge model I've spent ages working on, gets on the table, and does nothing.
But celebrating rolling a 6 sounds great, I adore the Kruleboyz sculpts but never played, but I can imagine unexpectedly rolling 5s and 6s to be more exciting and positive, instead of focusing on the 1s.
So maybe I'll finish painting the models and give AoS another go, and this time if the dice didn't work...well that's just clearly part of the killabosses morky plan innit, cheers rob 👍
All salient points, and well made, for sure. I like most of the complexity of AoS (and like Necromunda), and I think it's a great game. I know we recently discussed this a lot on Twitter, but, for me, my main hang-up is that, while I'd like to be a more active and better player, I'm not at a place in my life that I have the time to. I'm a single dad with three kids, a full-time job, and other commitments. I love the hobby and will build and paint models when I have 15-20 mins to spend, but that also means it's rare that I have time to go our and play a full game. When I do play, I HATE the thought that my opponent has to dumb things down for me and isn't getting the experience THEY want from the game. I know lots of players are gracious and willing to do that, but I think because my time is so precious, I hate feeling like I'm wasting theirs.
As my kids get older, I do hope to engage a but more, but where I am now means I'm really relegated to the lower end of the competitive scale, which is fine, and so I focus more on models and stories I like best. And I have a feeling I'll always lean more that way even when/if I get more into the competitive side of the game.
Yeah this is true with life right. We have to manage what is normally a very obsessive hobby with actual things
As someone who proactively seek out newer players and the "time poor" group, I never felt like dumbing down or toning down my list as something I hate doing. If anything, it allows me to bring out my other models that don't see play, and I LOVE that. I also enjoy playing with people in general. To see their excitement in bringing their army and roll some dice.
I'm sure I'm not alone in this and I hope you find those you can play with, who shares this sentiment.
Re a few points:
I think Internal Balance is more important than you're giving it credit for. When AOS first came out, I tried out Kings of War from Mantic as I was looking for a rank and flank game. The first edition of that game had amazing *external* balance between the different armies, but notoriously terrible *internal* balance between the different units of those armies. This lead to a lot of frustration as people would buy, build and paint armies that looked like they did in the book, or how they imagined the army should be as a rank and flank game. However there would be about a 50% chance of them having built a solid B+ to A- tournament list on their very first go, but about half the time they would end up with a D- or F tier and had wasted money, time and had a terrible unwinnable time at their first event. Thats all been fixed now, but it turned a lot of people off of a very solid core system because the balance wasn't there. I don't think GW internal (or external) balance is quite that bad, but they've put out Leagues of Voltann and Gloomspite Gitz, and as someone who's dabbled in AOS, I certainly felt like I had been left with very sour experiences buying an army I thought was cool, only to find out I've built and painted a pile of garbage (Namarti Thrall heavy Deepkin, Slaanesh Hedonite Mortals, and Kruelboy spear phalanx). My understanding is those armies are now slightly better, but its a really frustrating point to drop hundreds of dollars and spend hundreds of hours building and painting to the quality I want, only to discover I picked the worst unit in the book because I liked the models.
I think there is something to more simple rulesets and avoiding Mastery so much. I feel like the game Warmachine was a major player in the American tournament scene but the mastery required made every loss feel like you were "Gotcha'd" by some combo that the game felt really unfun, so casual players left. Every time a new edition came and changed those combo pieces, the experienced players lost all their skills and knowledge, and left the game as well. I've certainly experienced being on the giving end of these gotcha combos in 40k and WFB, explaining to a good player that just retreated a charge from Dark Elf spearmen who were barely in range that the Harpies just remove them from the board is rough... But when you do it to 4 units on the same turn and pick up half their army without rolling a die, some people get VERY salty, and IMHO theres something to be said about avoiding really negative play experiences being built into the game. Obviously, at tournament we might be playing to win, and there is something to these interactions being something an opponent could or even should know, but Warhammer is also a very expensive and time intensive game to play. I might be happy to utterly smash someone in 5 minutes in Magic the Gathering, but we can just rerack and play again. In fact, I've been happy to rerack and play a fuller game that doesn't count for anything so my opponent can do well in the rest of the event of a card game because I care about their strength of schedule. Warhammer means there's often an hour between set up and early moves, and the need to play out the rest of a losing game for the points, so that negative experience just sort of festers.
Re dice: I think its entirely possible to shift what die is used, for instance, rolling a pile of d10s so there can be a bit more fine tuning between stats, or how powerful of an effect a Magic Item or spell has, that seems fine. I also think using cards sort of but not exactly like Malifaux means that you have that unknown and potential for randomness, but you aren't left feeling like you just lost because of dice. I've had games of 40k where my opponents just accused me of having hot dice and completed disregarded the fact that I outplayed them, or gave them very few opportunities to roll (An army of Eldar Tanks with rerollable cover saves can afford to take the 4 lascannon shots I gave) and that feels kind of , well almost insulting to hear. But then I've also had games of Underworlds where I feel i made every action optimally, but literally did not succeed on a single attack or defense roll during the entire game. That's fine for a beer and pretzels game with friends, but at a tournament you've traveled to and bought a hotel room for that event specifically, that's absolutely devastating. While it may be a memorable experience, I would not say it is good, or fun, or encouraging me to continue the game or convert my friends to play. I do think there's something to the idea of playing a game that can reward optimal play mechanically through bonuses to die if something other than a d6 is used, or cards are used instead. Maybe it only makes sense to do that for skirmish games, maybe it could possibly work for bigger battle games if the core systems were different.. But it's probably irrelevant as Games Workshop is sort of set on Rolling buckets of d6s which sort of shrink as rolling to hit and then wounds etc happens.
I really wonder how different the discussion would be if instead of a game that costs like $1000 to get into, if it was a a box set board game with cardboard tokens, the rules were always free, and an entire Grand Alliance set was like $50 of cardboard that came in a box the size of an Underworlds season. Its interesting as I feel these games have for a very long time been stated to be fun casual games but they're simply too expensive and time consuming to actually be a beer and pretzels game. So there's a real disconnect between the beer and pretzel casual gamer, the hobby focused high skill painter, and the competetive tournament player, despite all 3 sharing the same hobby. But as we said "its not *the* hobby, it's *their* hobby"
Great discussion, and I mostly agree. I think the book "Playing to Win" by David Sirlen is also a great resource re any competitive discussion, though the examples he uses are Chess, Street Fighter, Poker and Starcraft. FWIW I'm a former GW staffer from America of 5 years, have multiple Golden Daemons, have podiumed in the Adepticon 40k team event, and basically agree with everything you said.
The playing to win pdf us something I talk about in my last video. Thanks for the comment
@@TheHonestWargamer oh I missed that! Glad it's something that's been mentioned elsewhere!
This is one of the best videos I have seen on this subject. When you started talking about musicians, athletes and painters I was thinking, "well yeah. That's their job. " But you make the point well, that for many players, this is something they really enjoy and are good at and are dedicated to excellence. They are the professionals of the gaming world. Many of the people who are the best at what they do are generous with those who engage with it casually. You have made me excited to get back into AoS (But not until next year. This year I am making a custom White Scars army! Huzzah)!
Love the level headed, and well articulated points. I like Miniac, and I agree with some of his takes on AoS, not all but a few. This is a nice response to some of those critiques. It's not a video meant to bash, but to engage in a healthy discussion about the game we love/hate/love-hate.
One comment though about dice, and using things other than dice. As a Malifuax player, using cards can be a lot of fun too! 😉
Great vid as ever, didn’t sound preachy and I love the priority roll possibilities graph!
THANKS CUTIE
i like this video - arrived here after seeing you on the Painting Phase. I’m a self avowed filthy casual, so wouldn’t normally end up here.
I think there’s a few interacting things going on -
1 - as you said yourself, getting to know the game well takes A LOT of work. You need to study to learn the rules and their interaction.
2 - getting an army ready for a game is a big commitment, and games take a comparatively long time
3 - there’s a huge disparity in the level between a casual player and a competitive player
4 - for plenty of people, their potential player pool locally is small - if you’re playing pick up games, you don’t necessarily know what end of the scale your opponent is at
I play a few different game systems, and I’m lucky if I get to play each of them once in a good month. I’m never going to have any level of system mastery. I’ll never beat a good player in a competitive game. I’m fine with all of these things. At this point, 40K and AOS are almost a waste of time for me - I’ll never remember everything from month to month, and I won’t get enough use out of any books I spend a huge pile of cash on before I need to buy something else.
But if people in your area play mostly GW, and playing pick up games at a shop is your best option, so you don’t know what your opponent expects before a game, then you just unpack your stuff and it becomes obvious on turn 2 you’re wasting your time because you’re getting steamrollered, it can be un-fun.
Contrast with chess - similar system mastery difference, but getting ready for the game takers 30seconds. If I somehow end up across the table from a grandmaster, he’s gonna take care of me in 5 minutes and very little of anyone’s time or effort is lost. I’ll probably feel bad for wasting their time.
The best competitive players I’m sure are great at making your their opponent has fun anyway. But there’s plenty of ‘that guys’/best player in their local store/etc who will just set up, take satisfaction in stomping someone and then go home, because it validates their idea that they’re list building/system mastery is paying off. Anecdotally, those people are playing more pick up games, because people aren’t prearranging games against them since they’re no fun. The people they’re playing against are often new players who don’t have the local play group to prearrange games with. That becomes people’s first and overriding interaction with the competitive play scene.
Note - I’m not saying all competitive gamers are unfun. But you’re more likely to encounter the ones who are if you’re in paying random pick up games because chances are the other competitive gamers getting prepped for tournies don’t want to play them either.
I’m rambling now - I’ll stop…,
I think Scotts perspective is from a newer player trying to get into the game. He's not playing 2k points games and many of his issues are from the difficulty of getting into the game. AOS games under 2k points are horrible, but it's more digestible for a newer players so the current ask is suffering through how many lower point games so you can play a 2k game. I enjoyed the video and I feel like it's fair.
something heywoah pointed out in his response video was that miniac seems to be playing smaller, 1000 point games. This is a problem because AoS /does not/ scale down as well as it claims to. In particular, it's hard to play around the possibility of a double turn by, for example, positioning a second wave to counterattack if you're out of points after grabbing your first wave units. This means priority rolls are much more likely to outright decide a game at 1k points than at 2k. The same goes for Miniac's complaint of units being too deadly / not durable enough. At k2 games, that killiness can lead to an exciting back and forth while also preventing games from getting bogged down with anvils grinding against anvils and getting nowhere. But at 1k there is no back and forth, because the first player to have one of their key units smashed is kind of out of the game.
AoS pretends 1k - even smaller - is a valid game size, and in fact new players are encouraged to start there. But it really does put the game's worst foot forward.
I have followed your content closely for years, and for me this was one of your best vids. It made me rethink aspects of how I approach the game. It made me appreciate more the things I like, and how to better deal with aspects I may find frustrating. Ultimately it made me consider how to be a better player for myself and my opponent. Thanks!
Dice rolling is a big disparity for people who play, say, board games vs people who play card games.
Rob - I play AoS competitively, sort of, I listen to all your videos, even introductory ones.
I agreed with so many, if not all, of your points and I think you brought them forth in a very civil manner.
Major probs to you tbh and thank you for also adressing the entire power gamer thing, it's been a major issue in one of my clubs actually, and that was the thing that was toxic, not the playing or anything else.
You're a babe.
It's odd people hate gamers but there it is
I disagree about complexity and greater options.
The best example I can think of are The Rampant games (lion/dragon/xenos) rules themselves ate dead simple but I can literally field and stat ANYTHING off my shelf with enough options to put as much fluff as I like behind my army. The game however is simple in essence but takes time to master. There aren’t 62 different dice rolls per hit that get affected by bloated obscure mechanics.
Another great video Ron! Painting-comparison is an analogy even Nathan should appreciate ;). Definitely going to take some 'Jazz' classes!
Thanks philosobro
Really good video that helped me to see some things in a different light.
There is just one thing I'd like to add: there is often the trap that you focus on the wrong things and eventually get driven by fear - e.g. we might pick the wrong faction / list and this will result in a terrible experience. And we conclude horrible balance / game mechanics are the underlying reason. As such we start with a negative attitude before we've even played our first game.
In reality there are fair chances you'll be playing with more experienced players and they'll help you with the rules and give you tips along your first matches. They feel passionate about the game and want you to become part of their community and have fun. As such you have fun in your first games. If your opponents abuse their advantage and give you a miserable time it wouldn't have been a more enjoyable time if you'd been playing any other game - luckily these players make up a really really small part of the community.
In conclusion: we're often too much driven by fear - fear of missing out, doing , loosing, wasting time, buying not the 'best' or doing any other 'mistake'. Unfortunately fear works terribly good and ads make use of it all the time (how many vids have a 'Don't do this' slogan). But at the same time fear stops us from doing things and eventually enjoying them. When people start becoming overly protective about their favourite game / product and trash things, there is a fair chance they 'fear' having made a mistake / might loose players for their favourite game... And it's a human thing. However understanding that might help you understanding them better and even help them. At the very least try not getting caught in it yourself.
Just wanted to comment and say how appreciative I was of this response. I was watching another response vid and the overall vibe of it and the tone in the comments was a real put off. Kept reading and thinking why would I want to play with these cats ya know ahAh. Appreciate the thoughtful responses here. I enjoyed Scott’s vid and relate to a decent portion of it but knew there was some things he was missing ahAh. While I’m not completely put off on AOS it kind of took a backseat to other interests…but no longer ahAh. Currently awaiting some Kharadron Overlords.
The whole section on mastery was perfect! As someone who has mastered the lore based approach to list building, but is a journeyman with rules and painting, it explains the whole “your models your hobby” comments that get thrown around a lot, for me I enjoy building a lore based list, if it does well that’s a bonus, I just want something that fits the stories I’ve spent years reading. Thanks
I watched scotts video, and whilst i can empathise with how he feels, his major point of double turn is bad seemed... uninformed. he clearly stated how first turn works but wrong with things like "who ever wins the roll goes first" also he only seems to play like 750-1250pt games. if you dont know how to plan around double turns, and indeed. dont understand how priority works i can see why double turn would be bad. double turns at such low points is the end of the game. I would highly recommend he plays some full sized games and speaks to some more grizzled veterans about the double turn. I often give my opponents the double if I think its the right move to score more points delaying my own potential double for round 3. Its not this "unkowable random" its a known factor that we can interact with and use to our own advantage. ofc there is some luck involved... but its a dice game. the only other thing i took a HARD stance against was him saying "make rules less wordy" implying rules should all be RaI. and we all know how that goes in this game.... id rather strong, definable RaW with 0 room for jimmy to try and make a case that his ungor when off the table pick up intercontinental ballistic missiles instead of their bows.
For better of for worse the game is balanced at 2000 points.
I dunno, double turns is my biggest issue with the game. It doesn't really add any fun to the game, and it often adds an unfun element to the game.
I have more experience with D&D than AoS so I’ll just add this point;
I’ve been playing D&D for 23 years now and I think Matt Mercer is an amazing DM. He knows the rules really well, but is flexible enough to know when to relax them a little for the sake of the moment. Mostly though, he’s an incredible storyteller and that’s what makes him a great DM.
Other D&D players may not agree, but that’s my take anyway.
I can’t contribute much to the conversation, but I thought I could contribute that.
Fantastic video, thanks Rob 🙌
That helps me loads and means a lot to me thanks
@@TheHonestWargamer no worries, happy to help
Thanks for all of the awesome content, have a good one dude
Absolutely great video, as a “painter of minis” who doesn’t play much this was great!! I do fully intend to get more into playing soon
Glad it was helpful! And have fun
I recommend everyone who watched this video to also watch HeyWoahs reaction to Miniacs video. HeyWoah is very insightful
I haven't watched it yet as I didn't want to disturb my thoughts but it's on my list
Thing is you won‘t get the hang of AoS if you are involved in 20 things at the same time, like playing 7 different game systems, building and painting tons of models, running a youtube channel and so on..
There is much (much!) more to this game than you may grasp in your first few 750 to 1500 pts games with an usually bad or mediocre list.
I absolutely got wiped off the board in my first games before i even noticed what happened. Even with a superior list to my seasoned opponents, they would have smashed me relatively easy in the beginning.
You really have to get a feeling for how this game flows (and roughly what your opponent can do!) and then it will start to shine.
This may not be the best or most refined tabletop ruleset out there, but i have an insane amount of fun playing it.
All the different armies with really fleshed out and completely unique mechanics, it‘s always exciting!
I’m probably what’s called a casual gamer, mainly because I haven’t been to big event. But I spend a lot of time painting, to a reasonable standard, building, and making lists, all to game with friends. I used to just turn up and roll dice to have fun, but when I was get stomped/beaten/ tabled every game it becomes un-fun,not for me but my opponents. They almost always know they would win playing me. So I learnt the game, got better and now games are more even, I win an equal amount of times vs my regular opponents. I’m also going to my first AoS event at warhammer world in June. I’ll probably lose but it’ll be fun and I’ll know what I’m doing while I lose. In regards to AoS it’s a great game, I love the double turn/priority roll, it wouldn’t be the same game without it. Yes it would be great if the rules were free, but that doesn’t stop me playing. I don’t have loads of time to play games, once a month, sometimes twice if I’m lucky, but I enjoy the amount of rules and complexity. I have three armies, and figuring out different lists and understanding different ways to play is part of the enjoyment of this hobby. It’s a hobby for me, and I’m probably a casual player but I spend a lot of my spare time doing all aspects of it, so am i really as casual player in that sense? Probably not, but I enjoy this game.
Man you sound like a treasure, I hope I play you at WHW
Best advice! Celebrating the close calls (armour saves of 6+s) or a couple of goblins taking the last wound off an ork megaboss with arrows (5+/5+) rather than getting salty over a 2+ save rolling a 1. I used to be in that boat but when I think back to those close ass games where 4 players are closing in around a spinning dice to decide the last wound on a model to end a game is just the most fun I’ve ever had. Some of those have been at tournaments.
I would probably fall into the casual gamer side of things but I’ve met some great people @ tournaments too.
Big love to ya all
By Jove, This video makes me want to twirl my mustache, raise my goblet and scream "For the Lady" in a heroic voice! Well done!
FOR THE LADY
Love you and your attitude to AOS dude. Can't wait for a tournament game one day. Badger (Sigmars pilgrims)
Excellent defense of the priority roll, Rob! Well done!
I rolled a 6!
@@TheHonestWargamer most definitely. I'm also a sucker for graphs :)
AoS list building…… My parents handed me down a part finished gang roster for Necromunda and, having kitted out another two gangers, I will hand it down to my children.
Where they shall add a bounty hunter
Hahaha, love that the skaven vs gargant fight got another reference... truly nailed the point mate, keep up the good work 🙌
Glad you liked it
Regarding the point addressed at around 10:45 - Solid point, but one thing that is profoundly frustrating about Wargaming in general is that the rules are interpreted differently by other players, and it's rarely fun or worthwhile to try and discuss rules nuance and meaning with people. Most people don't like it when you bring up a rule that they aren't familiar with because they will think that you're trying to be WAAC (I'm guilty of this myself whenever I flub a rule and it's pointed out to me).
If the games rules wording was less complicated or more clear/succinct, more time would be spent playing the damn game and less time spent reading and debating/discussing. GW should put more care into its rules introduction from a macro-level, so that there no need for rules be scattered about in places like white dwarf articles, FAQs/Erratas.
I know asking GW to slow down its releases is a cardinal sin because they really want gross profits, ~45% net profits on their plastic and publications, but for me as a consumer of the product, I just want to play the damn game, and not have to re-hash and debate rules. Poorly worded rules in the most popular wargame just increases the rate at which gamers have bad experiences.
I usually worry when I roll well... something bad is coming my way xD
That's how I feel all the time. THE DREAD
I love everything about Age of Sigmar; the game, the models, the lore.
But people are free to like or not like it. And that is fine.
Based and hydrated
Learning to play fighting games is really opened my eyes to how fun it is to learn a game. They also taught me that the first step to improving is to admit that you suck ass.
Sucking ass is always great fun
I think one of the reasons why people who know the rules really well get a bad rep is because when they play against more casual players they pull tricks the casual didn't know were possible so it feels like a 'gotcha' (which isn't fun to experience), or the guy who knows the rules well is the guy who ruins your beautiful plan by pointing out you're actually not allowed to do that.
It also doesn't help that 'learning the rules' basically just means playing a lot. I don't know about you, but I can't just read a rulebook and understand the rules: I have to actually play the game to understand. and a game can be 2/3 hours. That's a lot of time investment, and I have other shit to do besides this. And then GW brings out a new edition every 3 years, which makes you feel... why do I even bother learning this stuff?
Perfect answer and great video! I 100% agree on everything you said :)
Glad you enjoyed! Appreciate it
Incredibly articulate and well composed. Bravo.
Thanks cutie xxx
Rob i love your content. I just wanted you to know.
Also i love that Nathan might have some gobbos in his pockets as i type this.
He probably does. Thanks babe xx
I play quite a few wargames... I think a game is great when it manages to translate its core fantasy to solid gameplay on the tabletop. Blood bowl is a great fantasy football simulator, as it can really capture epic moves done by your team. I love Dystopian Wars, as it really simulates brutal naval combat well where moving your ships well is key to victory. I love MCP where a bunch of heroes duke it out and smash each other into the terrain itself while doing insane stuff through super powers. The rules really help to reflect the core fantasy.
And I'll be blunt, there's an issue there with AoS' core gameplay. It sells itself as two mighty armies clashing, but far too often... victory is tied to standing on an objective as the most important thing, rather than bashing an opponents toy soldiers. It looks super naff to have entire block of infantry just camping in a spot because there is a fear that a teleporting unit can screw you over. And the latest (seasonal now) general handbooks even leans into this extra hard by creating different unit types that are "even better at standing on objectives" seemingly. I've just not been feeling it lately for that reason.
That's ok. I think wargaming is very emotive but it is a wargame and not DND etc. I agree fighting should be a thing. Pure battle is kinda lame imo but that's ok. We just have different views on it
@@TheHonestWargamer Oh, purely battle is also not something I want to advocate too much. I think AoS' earliest iterations (prior to GHB especially), just devolved into a brawl in the center all the time without anything meaningful going on otherwise.
I'm just saying that I hope they have a look at how objectives are scored/held a bit more in a next edition... As I'm really not a fan of the current Gally vets and/or champs are now even better at standing on objectives than other units. It sort over-emphasizes a gameplay element that I personally already feel, is a bit "gamey" about AoS. Board control and locking down key objectives is important, but having two close combat units locked in an epic staredown on objectives, rather than a clash, just feels a bit off.
@@speeddemonpainting7050 where else would they battle?
@@TheHonestWargamer Off the top of my head, I think controlling entire board quarters and keeping them free of enemies probably fits the "larger armies clashing" core fantasy more, instead of pin points on a board.
Taking control of terrain elements/watchtowers/walls also falls into that category.
Heck, I like the idea of monsters destroying elements of the battlefleet belonging to the opposing side, or infantry destroying enemy encampments. Maybe even have terrain with a wounds and save/ward save stat that your army is required to destroy while unengaged friendly models can repair it... Those sorts of mechanics in the future, rather than just "standing in the correct spot" if you get what I mean.
Great response and video. Thanks. I’ll admit, when I started gaming, those bad dice rolls really annoyed me. I was really unlucky, in that I would always roll below average results. Those 3” charges would never work, those 2+ saves would always fail. My dice rolls haven’t improved, but I’ve become more accepting of them. I really enjoy the game, and the company from it, so that’s my focus. I think this is better, even when those well planned and orchestrated actions don’t work out!
People are the best bit
This video helped me realize that what I want out my wargaming experience is having fun playing the game. Which may have also led to my cripplingly large mountain of gray to overcome with my models because there's so many armies I want to play with. Thank goodness for slap chop.
Learning how to play any wargame feels like studying for a college exam.
It does but playing well feels like jazz man
The differences in wargaming:
-The test itself is fun
-You get to take the test over and over
-You get better at the test over time
-You discover new questions that you didn’t even know were on the test
-You make new friends while taking the test
I love reading rules... It's fun. But I don't like to have to get into minutia.
I don't like list building much.
I want to slap chop my minis and the. Play a 1-2 hours of high action fun.
@@greystorm9974 See I'm the exact opposite. And yet this is a game we both play. I'd say that's an accomplishment.
@@Rave.- oh no... I don't touch age of sigmar. The minis are bad(bit that is okay, you can always just by others that are better) the rules were a mess, last time I read them
Oh Rob, you were so nice and polite in this video.
Thankyou. Please subscribe
My god, I love that chart showing the impact of the priority roll on turn sequencing!
As a 40k player slowly getting into AoS, the priority roll looks a little daunting. But you make a really good case for why it's actually *interesting*.
Glad you enjoyed!
Yep, getting double-turned sucks and depending on who you're playing against and which scenario, in my experience it cost me the game.
A perfect, grounded and level headed video which not only applies to AOS but all games in our opinion. Top stuff Rob!
Ah the age old debate in the same hobby Painters versus players with gamers in between.
vieuwpoints of each group:
1. painter: Painting is where it is at. I do not acknowledge your mini's / army unless it has 18+ colors and all the basses are flocked. That your army is legal to play is not important, iy jusy needs to be looking cool. Also, if you have ZERO WINS in the chrystal brush, golden demon or have a golden demon sword, do not initiate a conversation with me.
2. random gamer: Most models are painted 4+ colors, some bases are flocked, mostly matching paintscheme. Is out there for a fun game, willing to abide by the codex rules, mistakes happen by accident, not design. Will ocasionaly enter a tournament.
3. the player: Rules define the game, if need be, models that will be used for tournament get 4 paint, that is it. If I like the army, I'll outsource the paintjob to someone who actualy paints for a living. Me winning, or at least going final 8 on a 100+ people tournament is where the game realy comes to life.
I love miniac, great painter, his video's helped me in that departement. But when it comes to actualy playing the game... sigh He is one of the folks promoting to give everybody a cardboard medal for showing up. Now, let's NOT play and paint our models and the best painter, not me, miniac takes home the prize.
Hell, if you wana paint, paint, but I am here to play a game. I do not care that the models you bought last week are painted. Sure as hell not to golden demon standerd. I want to play the game BY THE RULES.
Gamers are the group that can float everywhere, painters versus players not so much.
Hello Rob this is the first video of yours I've seen I've come over from your interview on the painting phase and I'm now binging your content.
Listening to this has inspired me to learn the rules more and get involved in becoming a better player (I play blood bowl but used to play AoS 2.0)
I think this is great because alot of your points especially differentiating between casual and competitive gamers.
Thankyou for the content!
Love the response, calmly pointed out all the flaws in his argument, while still conceeding on mutually agreed points
That's so beautiful. Yeah we mist learn to accept that for any field we can just stay casual and have fun, like slapshopping, playing casually, learn just tidbits of lores. Or learn to become better and put the effort and well have fun too ! Paint extremelly well, be competitive, read every book. We must be accepting of how people enjoy their hobby, with different mindsets and expectations.
Absolutely!!
i think one of the things that people conflate is rules enthusiasts and people who don't have social skills.
We all know those mr miagis who can drop sage advice like nothing. But we've all had those games against someone who seems to interrupt you constantly with "well actually". A gotcha tactic is aall about delivery.
This is a great video. I love the tone. Great job.
I am just getting into 40k as my first wargame. As a new player, it is completely overwhelming. The worst part is losing a game (or round) and not even really understanding what the hell just happened. And it's hard to piece it together unless you buy the other army's codex or use an illegal site like Wahapedia. There are a lot of "gotcha" traps for a new player to fall into - which sucks when you've spent a ton of money and time just to get to the table and then your unit/army can't do the thing it's supposed to do. I don't expect to win any games and I can have fun even if I lose, but sometimes the dense and complex nature of the game just doesn't feel good.
I understand that those "traps" are really part of the rock-paper-scissors of the game, which allows for deeper game play. And the game absolutely NEEDS to support and enable its best players to have nuanced and complex games where system mastery is rewarded.
There should be room in the game for newer and/or casual players as well as competitive players. Casuals calling competitive players pedants and competitives telling casuals to git gud doesn't help anyone. (I will say that the discourse here is excellent).
Regardless, this was a great video and I learned a lot.
Roleplaying is not a ludological competitive medium it's a collaborative narrative medium and early warhammer and GW miniature games had more of that, encouraging you making up system mechanisms even on the fly as you play, while being much closer to the miniature wargaming medium that the hobbies both grew from (at least dungeons and dragons) that narrative, if in a confrontation, was always there and it has become less so and the warhammer miniature game play hobby have become more competitive and less narrative and the system mechanisms have reflected that.
In a RPG the mastery (be it the role of GM or Player alike) is aimed at obtaining the goal - being the mutual entertainment of all its participants, to be creative and indulging every participant. There's no win or lose, only entertaining.
That's not the case when the system mechanisms, the ludology, is about the win, when the creation of the system mechanisms called the rules, is not written with the intent to arm each and every participant with as many tools as possible to entertain their fellow participants (to be fair as a RPG D&D is rather poor at this and more moder, 1980+, systems are better at it).
Yes GW have more narrative mediums, occasionally support campaign mechanisms and breath life in old nostalgic ideas and ways to play that's less competitive.
Now a days if you come up with some system mechanisms for some amazing conversions, or a scenario, a lot of people will not indulge you, unless it's published material they won't entertain you, because in their eyes it's generally seen as cheating (this erroneous notion also appears in the RPG hobby, only to illustrate that the people claiming that you can cheat in a RPG do not understand the medium and are unfortunately missing out on its essential core concepts).
PS. RPGs don't actually have rules (aside from the one) they have system mechanism (which are just tools to apply as you see fit and are only as good as the entertainment they bring).
Oh boy