Will AGE OF SIGMAR Survive Miniac's TRASH Test?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 30 ก.ย. 2024
- In this video, Rob reacts to miniac's new video, Age of Sigmar.
As you may know, miniac is a well-known wargaming TH-cam channel and they recently released a new video about Age of Sigmar. In this video, Rob discusses the video and gives his thoughts. Tune in to find out if the video can withstand the trash test!
Interview with NOAH - • Jiwan Noah Singh: Winn...
Interview with MINIAC - • Interview: Miniac gets...
Blog on building armies - Coming soon
PLEASE SUPPORT ON PATREON: / thehonestwargamer
BUY COOL MERCH:
CHECK OUT OUR AWESOME WEBSITE: thehonestwarga...
JOIN THE TWITCH GANG: / thehonestwargamer
OUR PODCAST FEED: / the-honest-wargamer
Twitter - HonestWargamer
Patreon - www.patreon.com/TheHonestWargamer
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
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
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
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)
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.
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
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
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
Great video but this is the second rebuttal I've watched and the second time it's essentially concluded as "it's not trash, it's just elitist" which isn't good either. A "good" game is not one where you need a huge list for it to be balanced, has a quirky mechanics only experienced players can understand and needs expensive books that are essential to play. I just described WHFB - the game they literally killed to release this and it's suffering from similar issues.
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.
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.
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
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.
Why does he have 'hottest' in big writing behind his head? 😉
Cause he is
I consider Scott a great resource for painting. For game mechanics analysis? Nope. I can appreciate both videos, but Rob is pretty dead-on here, and I say that as an older, casual player.
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
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
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.
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.
From someone who got into wargaming. Discovered he loved painting but hates the games I played.
The rules for AOS are dumb. Double turns? Waiting around 30 minutes for your opponents turn? Bad. I don't enjoy playing it. The rules need to be fundamentally redone if I can enjoy it. Make alternating moves.
There is a ton of BLOAT considering how the rules are spread over dozens upon dozens of written works. This makes it REALLY easy for more experienced players to roll over newer players or even cheat by referencing some stupid obscure rule from White Dwarf issue 1700a2 published 3 years ago. Its stupid.
13:00 I think where new players get discouraged isn't from cool rules interactions like that Clawlord maneuver, but players pushing the limits of stuff like "pile in" and "true line of sight", or playing gotchya moments. In my tournament experience, thats really limited.
But I remember 1 out of 20 players at an event pulled a gotchya on my 13 year old. Was liberal in his measurements. It was an awful experience for my boy. It took him weeks to play against a stranger again.
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 gotta say, I've been playing tabletop games for most of my 36 years. AoS is just not a good game. It's got too many hold-overs that seem to be there solely because a rules-writer believes it should be. I don't think complexity is the issue. I think GW is. The need to release the game in pieces at a time with battletomes instead of designing it holistically will *always* hold it back. The juxtaposition between being a company that needs to sell books and new models vs being a company that wants to make a good rule system. GW will always fall on the side of selling.
To be clear- I don't think this means it can't be an enjoyable game and I don't think this means no one can achieve mastery over it. I just don't know why you'd want to when there are so many better designed games on the market. We're living in a golden age of tabletop gaming and folks are still settling for Bronze Age technology.
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).
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
Frankly I find too many "gotchas" to really enjoy the game. Those "gotchas" typically come from army book I do not have and are some obscure rules for army I do not collect.
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.
I luv ya, but I'll never defend the double turn or play with it. Sitting there for an hour while ya wait for your opponent is already annoying I can't imagine that twice.
sometimes it feels like people can win at the list building stage and i think thats a failing of the game. Sure you can lose at the list building stage but thats something you have a say in. Honestly the best game for promoting generalship over meta acquisition is MESBG.
I don't think cheesy or beardy is usually used to refer to people who know rules better than others, this is a bit dishonest. Its almost always used for someone who uses intentionally abusive lists, often against the spirit of an army. Just because something is possible doesn't mean it should be done. I'm only just getting into tabletop again after a decades break and this trend in AOS armies relying on other factions units seems along those lines.
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 rarely comment on youtube videos. But I think you got what Scott meant about system mastery, rule verbosity and 'pedantic' players completely wrong.
What Scott means is that rules have to be written with such a verbose language because otherwise there will always be players that abuse the ambiguity when rules are written simply. Very often a rule will be very clear for all players on what it wants to achieve, but because it is slightly ambiguous or just not 100% specific there will be players trying to read it another way. This is the issue. The rules become needlessly verbose and complex so that the 1% cannot twist it around in any way.
Incidentally this is also why real life laws are so complex, because you have to remove as much ambiguity as possible. You cannot simply have a law stating "Don't murder another person.", because even though everyone knows what it means, eventually someone would try to argue they didn't actually do it because X or Y.
Edit: As a side note, your content is really good, I have found myself coming to your channel more and more, keep up the good work!
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 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.
Dice rolling is a big disparity for people who play, say, board games vs people who play card games.
You can really play a basic version of AoS...now will that continue to be fun six months from now? Probably not...but start with the basics and grow from there, in a year or so some douchenozzle will be calling you a power gamer too.
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?
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.
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.
wtf balance does matter for the casual gamer aswell, it just not fun to play an army that gets stomped all the time no matter how cool it is
balance isn't just a thing for pros
The double turn mechanic is objectively the worst thing ever introduced to a wargame. I'm surprised you are speaking in favor of this mechanic.
Having priority is cool and fun, like you said, if it's introduced in a good way (see Legion). Alternating playstyle is more engaging, more challening and creates less downtime. But having it for the ENTIRE army is just stupid. It can create very frustrating moments, especially for new players. "Hey cool, my entire army can cast and shoot twice now. Have fun with that."
Ever since it was introduced to the game, GW tries to alleviate the mechanic, by making going second more attractive, but it's - to it's core - just a bad mechanic. I really hope they get rid of it in the 4th edition next year.
His entire shtick is being the only noticeable content creator who praises AoS. He can't by the definition of his shtick accept that there is ever anything wrong with AoS :) For all that it is a simplistic RNG fest with horrid internal and external balancing issues.
Long live age of sigmar
Long live gitz
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 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.
3) The Meta evolution being "fun". This is true in games like League only because, for the most part, the monetary cost is negligible. However, finding out your $500+ army is no longer tournament worthy is crippling to anyone on a budget.
That doesn't really happen as much as more
I think Rob largely misses the point here at the start of the video.
I don't think Scott meant "people who know the rules well" when he said pedants. I think he meant pedants. It's about the concept of rules as written and rules as intended. Some people think they're the same thing but I don't think so, GW can't communicate with 100% precision all the time. In fact, they never can and there'll always be some way to interpret a rule beyond what was intended. It's why the rules are so verbose, to try and catch all of that.
Warhammer fantasy had a complex system but its wording wasn't as complex as AoS. It makes AoS a headache to read while the rules are relatively simplistic.
I 100% agree with Scott here and not Rob, the rules should be worded in a sleek and efficient way and the verbose clarifications should be left for FAQs. If you want to bend and stretch a rule to squeeze out an unlikely move then you should have the effort of looking it up in secondary material, instead of filling all the standard books with it.
No one wants to bend or stretch a rule. They want clarity.
You mask off your disdain with that comment. Clarity is communication.
There should be simple rules that elegantly move you into playing but the journey when is drought with asking questions and you reference somewhere else. Also Scott's complaint. Just have it in one place
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 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.
Total war stream when Chaos Dwarves drop? Make it a multiplayer with Nathan playing greenskins?
4day stream coming to twitch
Random musings from this not saying I wanna change AoS 1) Complex rules can always be refined to be easier to grasp. 2) we are still effected by historical wargames and RPGs where you bring what is story appropriate ( armies often have shit units fielded and they end up on the board I don't have to do this in AoS).Doing a lot of intro games writing a accessible 1000 list for my opponent is HARD 3) some dumb hobgrotz rolling well and surviving dragons is a easy to understand story, I love murder ghost ratboi but to some this is just going to be a slew of mechanics happening rather then a story 4)on Scott's wants The type of dice can effect how random something feels/is there is a reason DnD has more then D6s and last the double turn seems unfair if you use the Core rules because turn1 is a role off in that, matched play is different but WHY would a new player assume the core rules weren't how the game was most commonly played is beyond me. All in All Ron is a treasure but we voted him out of anarchism
well reasoned. let me back in the club please
What other wargames did you play a couple of games of this year?
I only play 40k but i still heard the entire video.. Very good constructive arguments indeed 👏🏻
Lots of love
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
Hi The Honest Wargamer. You said you wanted player like me to talk to you in the comments about this video/discussion. I never/rarely comment but ill try to engage here. Before i start, in the case of AoS i identify as a serious gamer. What i mean by that is i play to the best of my ability and will push myself to get better and win. I will dig to find and figure out combos and "game breaking" builds or strategies. Im not a fool of myself. I know im not as good as any of the pros at this game. But i do feel like i have a very good grasp of AoS. So i dont think im a casual ? but im clearly not a pro ! And i have absolutely no interests in going to tournaments for AoS. But i do care alot about the game want it to get better.
Free rules ? I agree.
List writing ? I agree
Game bloat ? I agree
Flat Gameplay ? I agree
Internal balance ? I feel internal balance is getting much better. Some armys have better internal balance then others obviously but, if compared to 2.0 they did a very good job here and if they keep at it and still improve we should be good soon enough. I have much more of an issue with the external balance and that comes from the release of the battletomes. They are not designed at the same time and there's power creep. Also being release overs the years, it feel awful when your one of the last BT and then the next edition comes and you get fucked.
Dice rolling ? Complaining about dice rolls in a dice game feels stupid. But ability's happening on a 2+ is most of the time just creating feel bads. I understand your idea of creating cool moments but this is subjective and i don't personally find it cool or fun if you roll 1 and dont get your ability. It just feels like iv been robbed or my opponent as been robbed. You also took the example of the 12 inch charge and i agree with your point, but on the other hand missing a 3 inch charge is again not cool, fun or interesting to me. I feel like these kinds of rolls/moments should be looked at and maybe taken out of the game.
Double turn ? Ok ... this is the big one for me and i know how the community is gonna react to my post now and just say im trash and i should get good. Ill go anyway. I hate the double turn on a game design perspective. I get and agree that you can plan and play around it and it makes the game more rich and maybe more interesting to play. The double turn also creates very high highs and very low lows. You may get a crazy comeback from it or just crush you opponent because of it. Theses highs ans lows have WAY MORE chance to happen in non pros games. This is the main issue i have with it. As much as it can be fun for a pro, this is horrible to go trough for a casual. It FEELS very unfair. So if you want the game to get bigger and new player to engage with it, i dont feel like the double turn can stay. I think they should design the game away from it and find other ways to make the game rish and interesting. Maybe like alternate activations or other (brainstorming).
To anyone else reading this. Please dont tell me to play narative or open play. If you think thats the anwser for ppl like me, you just dont get ppl like me.
Im sorry for my english. I hope this was useful to you. I like your content.
If you’re crushing people or getting crushed based solely on a double, you’re not as good a player as you think.
Assuming you play with it in mind, it won’t affect your games that much.
If you’ve never been to a tournament you’re almost certainly not as good as you think.
You’re regurgitating the same skill issue arguments already debunked in the video
I've played the game just about a year now. And when listening to Miniac I do get what he feels. I only now after horrible defeats and growing pains realised how to play the game properly and it is a blast. But I think AoS players forget how fucking daunting and the sheer quantity of stuff you have to understand before you can start 'playing the game'. Even yesterday after reading the new generals handbook, they're using language that is only understandable if you understand the lore!? Like I don't know what Ghur is or Gallentian until I do another 5 minutes research
Too many people I've seen reacting to him have this initial defensive attitude like 'How is choosing 7 things to run an army list too many things'. Yes, it is for someone who has never played the game before who you are trying to get onto the game. It is not casually acceptable at all. But for those who want to invest the time it is satisfying, rich and rewarding.
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
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
Oh boy
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
Rob a question, how does someone gain 20years/10000 hours of experience when the rules CHANGE every 3 years? the data set is constantly changing.
You can gain it in strategy. I would say wargaming as a whole has a finite set of strategies and win paths.
You can master them
"Just dont care about winning"
Yeah, nothing more fun then getting clapped for 1-2 hours.
It goes down to 2 things:
- Iteration time
- Getting to do something
If you have to spend long time per each game to improve out of it and correct msitakes, it feels worse with each mistake, since it will take long time to get to that decision point again.
If you are getting completly crushed and not getting to do "That cool thing your army is great at" then it feels terrible and no "fantasy" of thatfaction is conved - you are just pushing bodies for opponent to crush.
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
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
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
When you have 2 melee armies it’s a fine game. When you get one of the shooting factions against you, it’s a shit game. A double turn when you receive 2 volleys from raptors, sentinels or snake ladies, kinda hard to counterplay an arrow even with a screen!
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
Miniac is clearly a super casual player as all his Age of Sigmar games are under 500 points.
An he butchers so many rules by grossly over simplified to the point of being wrong.
I usually worry when I roll well... something bad is coming my way xD
That's how I feel all the time. THE DREAD
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.
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??”
I'm 4 minutes, and let me stop ya there. I've somewhat followed Scott/Miniac over the years. At first, he was producing some pretty interesting how-to videos, and then his laziness kicked in, and he began more so doing 'hobby commentary'. During this time, he picked up Jon Ninas, who was a really talented painter at the time. Between the 2 of them, they created a really great podcast, which was alot of fun to listen too while painting. Then, shit went sideways for them. Scott pretty much stopped producing productive content, while riding the coattails of Trapped Under Plastic, and pretty much the popularity of Jon Ninas. That being said, I don't take anything Scott says as serious. He is just another bad part of the community, who needs to hang it up, and go back to programming, or doing whatever his thing was in IT.
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
As a new player, I will say the biggest barriers to wargaming is rules and cost. When I first started I actually thought painting and assembling minis was going to be the most time consuming part, nope learning the rules is. Get the core rules, read through them but wait there’s more now you need to get the codex/battletome for your army and possibly a General’s handbook. Although I do enjoy this hobby, reading about rules in general is like you said at the end of the video….boring.
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.
See the problem with your comparison between a DM who knows all the rules or a really skilled musician and a wargamer is that the first two are cooperative experiences. A really good DM can help guide more casual players and make their experience better. Wargaming on the other hand is completely competitive and has almost no cooperative aspect. So one person knowing the rules only benefits them to the detriment of everyone else.
Only because in the competition the other person has entered an environment they haven't trained for.
Arguing that knowing rules is bad means you literally want two uneducated people try to battle it out. It's a terrible take
@@TheHonestWargamer I get that to an extent but handicapping a new player because they only have the main rulebook and not issue 1927 of White Dwarf that has an obscure rule used to crush their army is a shitty experience for them.
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
What if people stopped using the word trash to describe things other people like
That'd be a start
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.
Long story short: get good.
Yes
I think it would behoove game companies include basic strategic concepts on how the game is intended (or actually played depending on your opinion there) to be played, not just basic rules. GW could use different names for these concepts, but without understanding the unit roles of screens, anvils, hammers, buff pieces, etc and basic deployment, pacing and movement you will not have a great time. Figuring that out by trial an error or an external source is not really a positive quality.
massive agree but i doubt they have the skill to do so
Great vid as ever, didn’t sound preachy and I love the priority roll possibilities graph!
THANKS CUTIE
I'm English so definitely nicking stuff 😆😅🤣
The empire of theft baby
Great Video, particularly how you bring to light how different audiences have fundamentally different expectations and motivations. For example, on my part you make some assertions that I fundamentally disagree with, such as learing being intrinsically 'unfun' or system mastery being diametrically opposed to 'fun'. For me, they are just as much a part of the experince that makes hobbies such as wargaming enjoyable, as painting would be for others. Without the learing and complexity, it would be a far less enjoyable experience in much the same way pre-painted models would be for painters. For me the issue is, is the complexity substantive, or just cruft to sell needless books, particularly if they fall into the pay-to-win bucket. Keep it Up!
Great points. I find them fun and I did say that but I just expect the viewer I'm trying to convince to not find it fun
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 can not agree with you more on this sentence: if you just want to play games casually, just don't care about winning that much
Making friends and having fun is a legitimate skill
@@TheHonestWargamer I can not agree more
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.
I'm in the hobby for more than 30 years and have play 4 games of warhammer fantasy and aos in total... I just find that right now the rules changed at a too much fast pace for me... but no prob ... i'm in for the painting side and also have a nice simple fun game. Warcry is my game and have 12 army for aos.
You don't need rules babe. You average one game every 7 years
Priority roll is just a non-starter for me personally. It seems like someone in charge had a terrible idea and it got set into stone. If IGOUGO is too stable of a game state, alternating activations or even the Bolt Action style seem like a better solution than two turns in a row with entire army…
Heresy !!, off with the casuals heads !!! trolololol ;)
Hahaha agreed
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!
Belonging to a club with very competitive players. Had a very frustrating experience last week as I was caught at each turn not knowing the rules enought. Frustrating but great ! I am not sure to understand how can some people find the gameplay flat when there is such rich complex layer of tactical choices to make.
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!
29:40 Funny you mention this! I'm working on a hex-grid rank/file wargame that uses alternating unit activations on individual Units based on an Initiative roll at the start of each round. Going to be testing it at a game dev con in less than 2 weeks!
Hello Obert Rhymes, thank you for your addition to the expanded Spuregue Gang universe. I find your videographical interpretation of this pressing issue informed and considered, yet verbose and melodramatic. I understand that you are new to the hobby, so I am going presuppose some of your reasoning to naivety and recency bias. It's ok, I was in your position many bad moons ago, and your response is still 'valid', for now... Even I get stuff wrong, but I know for certain that the game of Age of Sigmar is not very popular in my local area, and is therefore a dead game. I will only play with opponent who have edge highlighted every model in their force, and have proven their worth as an eavy metal painter before a single dice is rolled. This painting 'meta' might seem obtuse, but trust me, no one wants to play against mediocre artists, let alone those who practice the dark 'art' of sploshchap, and anyone who advicates its use, which is basically underpainting anyway and anyone with tenure in this hobby should know this. Futhermore, I can't comprehend more than 3 numbers in my head at once, so I don't like to roll dice generally. Instead, myself and my opponent place models onto the table until we feel like we are satisfied, then we proceed to talk each other out of the hobby, until one of us is out of models. Honestly, a great open play alternative that I strongly recommend. Thank you for your input in our hobby, I hope you gain experience in editing your work, its duly needed! With love, Cute Phil.
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.
Long term 40K player. Avoided fantasy/sigmar forever. Finally tried it this year.
The game is far superior to 40K. It’s so much more fun and thematic. That being said, you really need more comprehensive guides to teach you basic rules. For things such as list building, scoring, or phases. My experience with the “feel bad rules” is that all armies have them. And it seems it happens enough to both players that it feels relatively balanced. Double turn happens but you can attribute that to part of the strategy of the game. Plan for your opponent to have two turns. Or gamble it. Better models, better gameplay at cost of bad rules writing. I’ll take it.