Is it really the end of Warhammer Fantasy?

[kturock]

pretre, I agree that it's the best solution, but strongly believe that the house rules aren't an excuse for a bad original design, since the more you do, the more you're making your own game*, and that it doesn't really address how poorly thought out the rules are. My criticism was about their design philosophy, not whether or not it could be salvaged.

*I remember someone on BGG who basically argued "Look, if just I jangle these keys in front of a baby, it can create hours of fun! It only took a little house-ruling to turn it into a good game!"

What rules do you consider poor?
To me, all of the complaints; about the silly rules; are from people who forgot it's a game, and take it too seriously.

Tournaments & competitions are gone because not enough people played. The system changed to try to bring more people to play the game.
Either change/adapt and survive or not.
Not much of a choice.

[spiralingcadaver]

I find the silly rules poor form, because it's not like most players don't already joke around if they want to, so it means that players who joke around normally need to, umm, adhere to GW's idea of what's fun to do, and people who normally wouldn't need to do so.

An example: shout "for the lady!" when your grail knights fight.

Case 1: pre-AoS, you might get in to the game and joke around with shouting for the lady! before you charge, IDK, a traditional enemy or it's the first charge of the game, or maybe you're just inspired to joke around. Or you might take the game more seriously, or might joke about something else, or whatever.
Case 2: Post-AoS, you're required to do it. Silly and maybe a little self-conscious the first or every once in a while, okay fun. Maybe it's even more fun, since you're bad at improvising so you like that the game recommended it.
Case 3: Well, this is your sixth game this month with three grail knight units (you really like their aesthetic, rules, or maybe they're just the models you collected last edition and you're using the same pieces, or whatever). Say on average a GK unit survives 6 player turns in melee, each game. That's around a hundred "for the lady!"s you need to shout in a heroic voice in order for the unit to get their buff. Seems like that would get extremely old and forced. And the other half of it, maybe you forget and don't shout it, but pick up the dice to re-roll, but you can't, because you weren't having enough proscribed fun.

That sort of stuff should what a GM rewards, not what you're required do rote.

I make up all sorts of *edit*, with backstories and fun or funny names, and stuff in-universe-character and stuff completely out of character that's still fun. Stuff that's amusing survives between games or becomes in-jokes, or whatever, while some doesn't. Being required to repeat a phrase each time you activate a unit is just stupid IMHO.

edit: typo

[kturock]

So your for fun, but not when it's mandatory. Ok.

[spiralingcadaver]

No, I don't consider "mandatory fun" to be fun. I consider those rules to be a misunderstanding of the spontaneity involved in fun.

I still remember one of those horrible camp "getting to know each other games": at some point, I bailed because it was forced, and ended up talking with someone else who also thought it was unpleasant. We became friends and have stayed such for a long time, while I don't remember anything about anyone I met in the game. One of those things was forced and the other organically occurred.

[kturock]

So I guess you only play 'serious' armies and not Orcs, Goblins or Skaven, or at least only new Skaven and not when they could kill themselves faster than the opponent could.

BTW, I left Skaven when they dropped the Doomwheel and have O&G currently.

[spiralingcadaver]

I play a whole mix from serious/dry stuff to goofy/random, including Malifaux gremlins, who, for example, have a random effect every time they shoot.

I think you're missing the point I'm trying to make. There's a big difference between your models having silly or random rules as mechanics, vs. you as a player being expected to goof around as a mechanic.

[kturock]

No, I'm just trying to find out if you look at this too seriously.
Thus why I'm asking questions.

[3eland]

Any of you think this new App they are going to release will help push AoS in the direction it needs to go?

[pretre]

Hard to tell without seeing it. It's just a nice thought right now.

[spiralingcadaver]

No, I'm just trying to find out if you look at this too seriously.

Balanced and well-written rules make both competitive and casual play better, while lazy rules make competitive and casual play more open to dispute. This game seems designed by a marketing team rather game designers.

IDK, I like close games (because it's more exciting) with clear rules (so it doesn't slow down the game), clever rules (that make you think and/or are entertaining), and a good story/design (I've never found myself drawn to a boring world/aesthetic).

I think tournaments range from a joke (if trying to make a casual game competitive) to obnoxious (with people being real jerks about stuff that isn't a matter of skill), or sometimes just plain stressful (time limit and all) with very few that are actually fun (league play is where you tend to get a group that's less serious while still ready to win), but think that anything that makes a game more competitive without sacrificing liveliness of a game is good for casual play as much as it is for competitive.

[kturock]

Well written rules? Excuse me, have you read any GW rules before?
The 7th ed 40k are about the best they've written, as far as less holes than usual, and pretty well explained; but they still have problems.

Did you read any of the old specialist games rules,;especially Gorka Morka? They didn't have any 'silly' rules, but they were written in an 'Orkish' tongue.

The 1st time we played Bolt Action, we found an unexplained situation and had to house rule it. With a few words, it could have been written better and not needed.
DZC, DW need FAQ's. DW actually uses reference sheets made by a player, because they couldn't explain it.

It still sounds to me that you're mad, disappointed, unhappy, that GW decided to make this a fun & silly game.

The serious one died or was dying.

[kturock]

Very well stated. Points don't make the game and lack of them doesn't break it.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/07/ ... oints.html

[spiralingcadaver]

Man, I don't care about WHFB and haven't had an interest past kinda' liking the models in close to a decade. My investment in WHFB prior to this rules release consisted of a handful of old models I never managed to trade off and a cautious interest in what they were going to do with the new edition. I think that the rules design is abysmal and lazy.

And actually no, I wasn't referring to GW's rules in reference to well-written (which I consider decently entertaining and poorly balanced, at best).

[Doctari]

I'm loving the new rules. We're not currently playing with any of the "OMG CHANGE THEM BEFORE WE EVEN PLAY WITH THEM FOR A MONTH" house rules. I've played 9 different armies in probably 20 games and after you get over whether or not you're playing 9th edition (you're not) they work very well. Games tend to last about an hour (even better for those of us who don't want to spend 6 hours on a single game on our only gaming day of the week) and after you *gasp* talk to your opponet you can have fun.

Are these rules good for tournaments? Don't know. I'll have a better idea in a week or so, we're planning our first tournament. My gut reaction is that maybe the underdog win condition needs to be loosened up just a little.

Most of the BR I'm seeing online are trying to change the rules instead of playing them as written. I (personally) think that is what's making them seem so clunky. These rules require to you talk with the person you're playing and both of you try to make sure that the other person is having fun. A weird concept I know, but there it is.

[spiralingcadaver]

Short game time is nice, and I agree with the idea of playing as written (hate the mentality of patching games), but I still haven't gotten my head around how you actually manage to approximately balance a game without using a meter other than how many sets of things you put down (unless 1 character = 1 artillery = 1 giant character = 1 unit of 10 elite guys = 1 unit of 20 grunts = 1 unit of 50 grunts).

I'm not talking about 40k's unnecessarily granular "3 point wargear in 2,000 point games when some options are clearly well above or below the curve", but I mean a big thing about points is an approximate meter of how valuable/powerful something is, so do you go in with the mentality of "well, we have about the same model count, we'll see if one side is completely outclassed by the other" or "well, you took a unit I perceive as strong so now I will" or what?