Is Miniac TRASH at the Game? [react andy stream vod]
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 лип 2024
- Leave a tip: www.paypal.com/ncp/payment/MU...
/ heywoah
/ discord
Now streaming on youtube live as well as twitch
Shirts/Hats: streamlabs.com/heywoah/merch
Chat forced me to watch Miniac anti-age of sigmar clickbait video on stream so I might as well upload the reaction. Please Enjoy
Timestamps:
00:00 TLDR
00:20 React Andy Begin
04:03 List Writing
10:49 Bloat
12:36 Rules
16:40 Books
20:23 Internal Balance
25:32 Huge Tangent I Should've Deleted
28:44 Flat Gameplay Meme
38:20 Dice Game
43:16 Skill Issue
53:49 So-So Pro Meme
54:53 But Seriously, Charitable Recap - Ігри
![Ogor Mawtribes Review - Faction Focus Guide [Age of Sigmar]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zumwYOgZJoI/mqdefault.jpg)
Literal Clickbait
Content For The Content Gods
The algorithm cares not from whence the engagement flows, only that it flows.
Dude, I like some of miniacs stuff but my response to that video was it’s total click bait. Thank you for calling a spade a spade.
God this is so bad, I knew Mianiac was in the wrong but you just put his feet to the fire.
I like how you predicted what he might have done wrong even earlier than I predicted the plottwist of forspoken; now that's saying something
@@kyokyodisaster4842 He’s not entirely wrong, he does make some legitimate points. Also, if that’s genuinely how he feels about the game then that also isn’t wrong.
I just shove cool looking minis onto battlescribe until the red warning icon goes away
This is the way.
Gigachad
This is the only correct way to build lists in AOS. If you want to tryhard, play 40k, speaking from experience.
Same pretty much
Same here, infact my only gripe with battlescribe is being unable to preview the model without looking it up first
The game not working at lower point costs is a real kick in the balls. Like tell a new player that, "it's fine, just spend a few hundred more dollars and then it's fun" is a really tough sell.
this would have been such a strong point in miniacs favor if he had the experience to point this out instead of trashing the whole game without playing 2k. AoS really needs a dedicated lower points version of the game for new players- probably without the double turn as it only works well at 2k imo
Not to mention that the difference between time investment and mental load at 2k vs 1k or lower is huuuuge. Even if the new player spends the cash to get into 2k, God help them if their first game of AOS is a 2k matched play game with an army like Sylvaneth, Tzeentch, Lumineth, or Skaven. I've been playing for a while and I still come away from some big games feeling like my brain is a scrambled egg
It is brutal and better balance would make for a better game, but come on, it's a GW wargame. I sympathize with people just getting started but there's no way to make it cheap.
@@hades_deathgod9496 True but I'm trying to be understanding to their point of view. You can still make a 2k BCR list for under $200 if you can find those start collecting boxes still. And that's retail. I've gotten huge Stormcast and kruleboyz armies for a couple hundred used. Sadly, often because sometimes people are strapped for cash.
@@Jerm-ct5jf it’s called warcry.
The priority roll mistake isn't really a mistake. The Core Rules battlepack tells you to roll off. The GHB tells you that the player with lower drops chooses. There's nothing anywhere that tells a new player that the CORE RULES are not the normal way to play AOS.
The biggest issue I had starting out was not knowing what I didn't know. (ie: I knew I didn't know all the rules - but I was under the mistaken impression that I knew where all the rules were). The books do an abysmal job of telling a player what they need to have to have a complete picture. Learning from a friend is essential because your friend tells you things like "open play is a meme". "Everyone plays 2k points". "Lower drops chooses priority". "You need a GHB". "Your army has a Tome Celestial". "Wahpedia exists". "FAQs and errata exist". "There's an app". "Path to Glory is a separate part of the game" etc.
It's very difficult to put yourself in the shoes of a brand new player to not only see what they don't know but to realize that they don't even know that they don't know it. Many of Miniac's complaints are fair complaints for a new player to have. GW appears to start from the place of a veteran player and tries to work backwards by adding things like "open play" to ease players into the game. Instead of easing them in, it bloats the rules and adds confusion. As a veteran you know to ignore a lot of the rules and you know exactly where to look for the rules you need - but new players don't know this.
@@hades_deathgod9496 yeah, you're not wrong. The bit I'm talking about is the bit that says "At the start of each battle round, the players must roll off. This is called the priority roll". In the Matched Play battlepacks they do have a rule that tells you that the person with lower drops gets priority in the first round and missing that is the what HeyWoah described as the "critical piece of information that explodes, probably, everything that he's going to say right here." so that's why I've picked it out. You're right that saying that the person with priority MUST go first is definitely a mistake.
GW will tell you that the GHB is DLC and an addon but the actual truth is that it is the correct way to play AOS. It's the way most people play it. It's the way tournaments play it. It's the game that 90% the content creators are talking about. At the very least, a Matched Play battlepack is correct AOS - but the GHB is AOS's version of the Standard format in MTG. It's called standard because it's the standard format.
The problem is not that the rules are misleading exactly. It's that they're in multiple places so it's easy to wind up playing with the wrong rules. For example, if you've forgotten how priority works (because you're new to the game) and you open up your rule book, you'll find rule 4.1 that tells you to roll off. This is an easy mistake to make.
Rule one of board game design is that your rules need to be written in a way that someone can pick them up with no prior experience and play the game completely correctly. Half of the wrong rules people play with are rules they picked up from their friends who also play the rule wrong. The fact that friends are essential to learning the game is a problem with the game and is a worthy complaint. You shouldn't design your game in a way where you need veterans to tell you how to read the rulebooks and where to find information.
Disclaimer, I love AOS. I think it's a great game with good rules. I just think the new player experience is like walking around in a dark room filled with shin high furniture.
I checked in the core rulebook (the big one) and it is the same as the GHB.
- The core rules tell you to roll for priority each battle round, winner chooses who goes first that battle round.
- The matched play section towards the back has the 'stealing initiative' addition that overrides the core rule in the first battle round, on the page next to the army points/construction rules. So that part isn't purely a GHB thing.
I was a brand new player about 2 years ago who didn't have any friends who played to guide me. So, I did what I always do when I'm presented with something new - there's a subreddit for everything, there are youtube video guides for new people, and most importantly I went to my local game store, the employee told me about their discord, I asked when people played AoS and if someone would help me learn and they were more than willing to do so.
Yeah, it's convoluted the way GW spreads their rules out. Yes GW is misleading in the way they market the game as playable in "Open Play" and at any points limit other than 2k. Welcome to the conversation. What I do not understand is why are new people not 1) googling the wealth of information on the internet and 2) finding someone to play with who knows what they're doing? I'm not accepting pity-party socially awkward axcuses for #2 because there is a huge community of TTS players that can be found with basic info gathering and if you're that socially awkward what part of this game is attractive to you? It's a game you play in-person with other humans why would you sign up for that if you're afraid to talk to other humans? It's not even like talking to complete strangers normally because you're guaranteed to have at least one big topic to talk about and bond over.
I've seen so many variations on the same new player take since this miniac thing and the common thread I'm seeing is these people actually want to play a video game, but they do not realize it yet. The appeal of tabletop games is the tactile, real-world experience with other humans. Game rulesets are dead-easy to code. If they are well-written, then they are already logical pseudo-code that just needs to be translated. It's why every successful board game gets a viddeo game now. It's that easy. Tabletop games give you the opportunity to do that stuff on your own instead of letting a computer do it. You're supposed to enjoy the process of strategizing about how to build your list, micro-managing all the rule triggers, moving around physical models instead of 3d rendered ones, etc. That's the fun part. It's also difficult. If that doesn't sound fun, then you don't actually want to play the game.
@@keithrogers6876 yep. That's what I said.
@@NapGod my local game store told me I needed to buy a copy of the rulebook.
You're not understanding the problem. It's not that you can't find stuff out. It's that it's very easy to find out the wrong stuff and to not know that there's more stuff to find out.
If you think you're playing the game correctly, you don't go and search the subreddit for a solution to the problem you're not having. You just think the game sucks and you move on - which is the response Miniac is having.
If you can't see how that can happen because your individual experience was different, that's fine. I can see how it happens to people.
1:01:24 100% accurate. Speaking as a 40k player, no one hates 40k more than us.
Our local games shop AoS league literally exploded like 3x in size because all the 40k players started playing an escalation league and had fun so it's like swelled in size "until 10th drops" lol.
@@AltoStratusX1 haha, good old crawlin' back for more in the new edition. Classic.
So, please allow me ask with full respect, I just don't understand why people stick with official awful rulesets?
@@leeedward2574 childhood nostalgia and Stockholm syndrome
@@leeedward2574 I don’t think they’re entirely awful. Definitely bloated, but still enjoyable enough to play.
HeyWoah! Appreciate you lending your thoughts on my video and the game. It's good that people get a varied opinion.
Bro, some of these comments are brutal lol. Hopefully you don't take too many of them to heart.
@@ZachC-130 wcyd
In my personal experience anytime I've said anything bad about aos within an AOS sphere the lash out has been worse
Great video created another great video. Content ftw gents. ✨️ 👏
How is an opinion when he is explaining "here is why your wrong"
I returned to the wargaming hobby after a 20 year break, and your channel, take on things and vibe swayed me from 40k to AoS easily.
This exactly
As someone who’s gotten into AoS recently I can kinda understand what he’s saying when it comes to building your first list I think it’s a fair complaint. When you’re starting out you just don’t know what you don’t know. so you might not even know the ghb is an integral part of list construction. I learned about list construction just from screwing around with the app but even then I had no idea what the difference between pitched battles and the other types of play were. It’s also easy to say “just play 2k points” like that isn’t dozens of hours of painting and hundreds of dollars in miniatures. People like to play the game they’re spending a money on while they build up to a 2k list.
I agree with your closing remark. For people invested enough in the game to hate-watch the video, they mostly sound like silly complaints. But stuff like the game not working so well at lower points values (emphasising low quality games of I charge-I attack-I won) means he's making good points from a player's-first-impressions point of view, which is important to think about. "Dice rolls are too impactful" while beginning the video indicating he enjoyed Blood Bowl more than AoS is a powerful take, but probably just a sign of differing expectations from a game affecting your thresholds for certain things (e.g. expecting a larger scale game to have more survivable units and more graceful/less dicey systems)
I think that's a fair comment about Bloodbowl v.s. AoS. IMO, BB leans super hard into the randomness of the game - way more than AoS. It's easy to play that game and let everything go just because how crazy the ruleset is. AoS for me is in this awkward middle ground where it feels like it doesn't know what it wants to be. There's a healthy and vibrant competitive community, but for me personally, if I played this game at a tournament it would feel like the level of RNG in AoS would undermine strategy and not represent who the best player is in any given 1v1. That's just the way it feels - not saying this is truth FWIW. Just like the video, it's just my impressions.
Bloodbowl is just a random fest, the only "strategy" is get a cage around the ball and hope you don't fumnble. There's no granularity when most games have 1 or 2 goals, it's just a clobberfest and certain teams aren't designed to have a winning chance
@@Miniac Or try actually reading the rules, might help lol
@@Miniac You *are* saying that's the truth. You didn't say "this game isn't for me" you said "this game is trash."
I already want to hit people with a brick every time they say "Age of Shitmar" and you just threw another log on that fire.
This game has a consistent competitive roster in which the better player almost always wins. You not understanding how to play it doesn't mean it's random. Understanding and accounting for randomness *is* the skill in the game. This is why there's such a thing as professional poker players.
@@skullz291 bro, literally watch the video. The resolution is this game isn't for me. Skip to the end and watch it.
The General's Handbook is 50 bucks. It is definitely the book you need to play. If your new though and you buy this when you start by the time you get your army done. The book will almost be out of date and then what you're playing with might not be great in the next season. I'm saying it is a lot to deal with for a new player.
Quite right. It takes awhile to start from zero, so chilling on GHB early is a good strat.
Traditional gaming is not video gaming. It's a social experience.
Getting into a wargame without talking to someone who plays it and having them help you is like signing a year lease on an apartment you haven't seen with roommates you haven't met.
It is definitely difficult for a new player but it just isn't true that you need to buy the ghb to get started. Even if you were gonna jump feet first into competitive wargaming, anyone in the community would absolutely lend you their ghb and maybe even their army for your first few games.
And given how much the armies deviate between Timmy Johnny and Spike archetypes, you definitely would want to try at least one of them before committing to 2k.
100%. The game is also designed on layers. First you try a 750-1k game to see if you like it. Core rules and warscrolls. Great you like it. Next step is a 2k game core rules and your army book. Next step is GHB. The game is designed to where you can throw your battletome and GHB out the window and still have a playable game.
@@HeyWoah it take a while also because GW have stopped to do models storage,Forcing shop to do it for them or left without model to sell for months...I'm a new player and i'm trying to start Gitz because i received a Squigglance stampede box as gift and i can't buy anything cause it's 2 months that all jkit are sold out (local store,gw site,3rd part sellers).
Waaaahaaaapeeeeediiiiiiiaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
HeyWoah PLEASE make a video about how to make an army list. I'm a new player and am very confused, and you're a lot better at explaining things than GW.
The Age of Sigmar app (the red one) is great at teaching the basics atleast
What exactly is confusing?
You need a grand strat, a general and 3 battleline. That's it.
It is admittedly an easy to learn, difficult to master system. But if you're just trying to put models on the table and throw dice, that's all you need to do.
Everything else is just what you think will make your army stronger or cooler. If you're using the app, it yells at you when you're wrong and tells you exactly why.
@@skullz291 It's easy to just throw stuff together and play. Which is also fine if you just want to play a first few games and field cool looking models. What I miss in almost any Tabletop guide ever is a top level view: How is the game played, and how does that affect my listbuilding? Do I intend to throw chaff at the opponent to keep him occupied, do I place a deathstar in the middle of the board? Hammer & Anvil? Teleporting around? Why do these work in the game (or why won't they), and what would a sample list build around these strategies look like? How are the rules actually implemented into a viable gameplan, and how would that be executed?
BattleScribe is a good app that’s decently updated for AOS that I use regularly
@@youtousim That's not a rulebook, that's a strategy guide.
This is not a video game. If you want to know the answers to those questions, *ask someone.*
Literally the whole point of these games is to have a fun social experience and talk to people. And in every wargaming community I've ever been in, the difficulty isn't getting people to answer these kinds of questions, it's getting them to shut up about it.
Yeah, I imagine it's you're running a content farm, alienated from the actual community, it would be pretty difficult to understand and enjoy the game. Which is why you shouldn't do that.
On List Building - I'm a tournament gamer, and I *have* played a lot of other army-scale games and the slew of faction and subfaction rules was really weird. I also thinks the books are generally laid out in a terrible way. Now that I've played the game quite a bit it all makes sense, but how you actually build lists is actually a synthesis between the core rules, your army book, the battle pack, and how you want to handle other army types, so I wouldn't say it's simple.
When I picked up AoS I felt right at home making armies from decades of table top RPGs like D&D. Open up a few books and find the combos was familiar to me to such a degree that I probably missed this common complaint entirely.
@@HeyWoah He’s not wrong about how the books are laid out though, some of them are awful. I think the most commonly cited being the Skaven book.
@@HeyWoah I never played games like this but things like moba, mmos and real life sports.
It is really unintentional to build lists as a newbie. You see the combos in the warscrolls and battletomes and things.
But how should one actually know what is good and what is not?
I dont know if move in your hero phase is really that good or if having better dmg is better. These tactic things are what comes from experience and playing these kind of games.
Its like if you would play football/soccer.
How would you know if a team comp with 1 striker and 5 midfielders is good? Or do I need 4?
You cant know that as a newbie
And that is what is hard in list building.
The combos and coalition and basic shit is really not the problem
@@olafolafsson2755 the real beef that I feel Miniac is trying to say, is that so many things feel unnecessary to add to an army list.
Most of the games ask you to just pick units at the army creation level.
A grand strategy ( main objective for most other games) is picked at the table.
And to be fair, if people only know GW games, they will have a hard time understanding how slick other game systems are in comparison. Thus any point can suddenly feel moot.
Opinion about intro and outro volumes was the most important point of the whole video.
I think his main point is that it can be confusing for totally new players. New players don't know wahapedia exists until they dig for knowledge from the community. also games like infinity make all this super easily available and not hard to find why can't GW modernize its army building. Also if a book is going to be called a Core book wouldn't every thing that is core to the game be in it like how to list build? i think even casual players would want fast access to it.
It is difficult for a new player for sure, but that is the nature of a physical game.
They're not like video games where you can just sit down and figure it out. They are a social experience in which more experienced players do have to teach you.
Only very very simple games can you just sit down, read the rules for ten minutes, and be ready to play. GW can absolutely do a better job, but no matter how well they do, your first 5-10 games are going to be full of new stuff you didn't realize, and at least your first game against every faction you've not played before will be the same.
@@hades_deathgod9496 If I was to boil your point down though, it becomes ‘this game is bad for new players because they need experienced players to not have a bad experience’. It isn’t a good game for new players and GW have positioned it very badly for new players who aren’t already in their ecosystem.
@@hades_deathgod9496 Your advice to a new player, as an experienced player, is to ignore huge swathes of material to make it a better/playable game. Therefore, it’s not a game well designed for new players to pick up because the game itself doesn’t guide them to do that.
@@hades_deathgod9496 AoS’s getting started slowgrow approach (PtG) does none of the things you suggest, hence it is bad. I’m not sure why you’re talking about professional sports or doing well, I’m talking about whether the game works and is fun - it doesn’t work at the proposed points level.
@@hades_deathgod9496 I want to start 40k while havin AoS as the main game... Just playing the game wont give me any results. I want to know exactly how I need to build a list in order to paint and built the right miniatures first, I want to understand how u actually strategize to get points and all that.
Just walking on the points and then getting counter charged or shot for 10 games doesnt give me any improvement, just frustration and timewaste.
I don't know how its done and watching batreps wont give me good results because I still know nothin about the game.
So a tutorial that is not basic af would be the greatest thing to have. I dont need to learn how to read basic rules or how to make a charge roll.
I need to learn, when, why, how, I need to make a charge.
I need to learn how my troups need to function in the game in order create a list that fulfills the recriements.
This also applies to AoS. Just buying some models, thenbuilding and painting them and play 20 games without actually knowing what u are doing wont make u a better player.
You will learn a lot of wrong things, will paint the wrong models first. Most of us dont have 24/7 to warhammer.
So for example ending up with a 25 Liberators, 10 Sequitors, 5 judicator, 6 aetherwings, 1 chariot and a Knight Draconis List and just run everything into the enemy and getting killed on turn 2 or turn 3, because you dont know anything is just a bad expierence for a new player.
I also cant just work on my new job. I need to know exactly where, when, how I need to push these buttons. Whom to ask, how to talk to someone.. I cant just walk in there and then hope for the best.
Also we need to consider that a game takes a long time to set up and play, especially if u need to double check and read rules or warscrolls as a newb.
Its not a computer game were u can play the tutorial 5 times or restart your game vs the AI after 10min and just try again.
Newbs will play 4, 5, 6 hours and accomplish nothing.
My first AoS 2k games with my 1st main opponent always took the whole day. We were so bad... There werent any good batreps. Noone knew how to play it right in our local group.
In late 2nd edition we finally got it... so it took like 2 or 3 years to finally understand how the game works.
We also couldnt play like every weekend. It was more once a month or even once every 3 month.. work, life, family, kids you name it.
Also you need to consider that some people dont play any board games or strategy games... Some just come from painting or from MMOs or from shooter games. They dont know wargaming strategies just outta nowhere.
to be fair to one of his points about a needless amount of dice rolling, I do think there are a lot of spells and abilities that go off on a 2+ that should just always go off. The single most frustrating of a game like AOS isn't losing, it's losing and knowing there was nothing you could have done differently and nothing you should have done differently. You went in with every possible correct decision and still lost due to luck.
I mean AOS is a dice game, by removing the dice aspect (no matter how miniscule) it kind of turns into a different game. Dice rulling as a mechanic exists because it represents the chaotic nature of battle. Your soldiers make mistakes, things can go wrong, etc
@@Arisawa_Heavy_Ind if you want a pure luck dice game go to a casino not a warhammer tournament. As hey whoah says several times in the video the game is largely about removing as much randomness as possible in list building and tactics so you get blown out by dice less often.
While that is a very bad feeling, it is extremely rare.
I can say about very very few games that I was solely blown out by bad rolling alone and not by bad decision making.
@@21526 in an actual war, unforseen things go wrong. Equipment malfunctions. Soldiers freeze in panic. Bad decisions get made in the moment. Are you sure you want a wargame? Maybe try chess if you want 0 variance.
@@skullz291 not that rare. I have perilsed every single game i played and my faction has rerolls for all spell cast attempts. In one game i had my windmage cathaller and sentinals blow themselves up with perils in the first casting phase alone (rerolling double ones into double ones)
And getting a 7 on 2 dice is a rare occurrence for me ( im zaitrec so its not as much of a problem since +1 to cast) and i have never gotten my windmages teleport off on first attempt even with rerolls and bonuses to cast
Ive also had a blob of 20 wardens wiff all attacks multiple times
13:22 I am also from a Magic background and that line just sent me. Everything you say about RAI not existing in a well written ruleset is entirely correct and my main issue with 40k. The step from AoS 2 to 3 was massive because of the verbosity of the ruleset. Everything is explained to you. Sometimes that can be exhaustive but that's a good issue to have.
Yeah that point was insane. Rules should be half arsed and the actual proper rules should be hidden somewhere online, is just the worst idea.
If anything, it's not specific enough.
There was that two month period last year where the "sequential buff" core rule faq blew up the fucking game until they thankfully got rid of it.
So have you guys learned MTG by reading the 300 page comprehensive rules or have you learned by following the simpler instruction booklets and guides? What Miniac tries to say has it's merits. There really is no good rules summary by GW themselves that has playability in mind. The GHB is a surrogate but not the same.
@@Fritz_Foyer Basically every tabletop game ever is taught, that's the nature of them.
The idea that you would like read the rules and then come totally prepared, understanding perfectly how to play, is silly.
If you want an atomized experience where you don't need other people to understand the game, play a video game.
@@skullz291 I guess i disagree? Navigating the Core rulebook can feel incredibly frustrating. Especially as a beginner. I picked up Malifaux: The other side as my first Wargame and was able to learn and unterstand the core rules by myself. The same is true for Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 1st edition.
I would actually really enjoy a how to build an army. I have no idea about synergies, what units do what well with others, or a flavor way of making an army. I think what I am looking for is like a template or a blue print that I can build from. That says something like "Hey, these three units there called the [insert name] and these three units work super well together..etc" Sorta like the Warscroll battalions from 2nd edition where its like a flavoring of units that work well together.
Why not just read your books and figure it out for yourself?
@@LoRdInTeRwEbS because im a potato brain when it comes to this stuff and wont notice a synergy unless its explictly spelled out for me... thankfully my faction does that and all synergies are explained directly
I think the fact that the CORE BOOK of the game is an unnecessary purchase and instead you should buy something not labeled as a rules book is a problem with the game for sure
I know you glossed over this, but the "age of Sigmar core book" being basically a 70 dollar lore/hobby book thats not really how you get into playing is I think a legitimate complaint. GW should call it something else.
Playing a game that has dice rolling in it means that you're not actually playing that game you're playing a sub-game of trying to guarantee you're good stuff and limit the bad stuff.
THIS IS HOW ITS ALWAYS BEEN
as a seasoned blood bowl player I know how devastating dice can be but the skill is playing around the randomness. You should never be running up like yeah my entire game plan relies on a 3+ with no re-roll "this is gonna work for sure" cause you're gonna roll a 1 every time nuffle be praised
Is it common knowledge that GW designs models first, then gives them to the game designers to come up with rules? I was told this years ago by a couple of GW guys during a small room Q&A at Adepticon. Idk if things have changed since then, but the impression I got was the model design studio captains the helm. Something like, "we are first and foremost a miniatures company" I think he said.
Great video watched it all the way through
I read this comment before clicking thumbs up
Video was published 18 minutes ago and your comment was written 15 minutes ago. Video Length over one hour.....
@@TheBod76 I think it's a solid meme
when teaching folks AoS you gotta make sure they know that matched play first drop goes first cause most new people will only read the core rules in depth and in there turn one is a roll off, so it can mess with folks understanding of the double turn
As a new player, I had no idea that the game didn't play so well at lower points costs, nor that I needed a GHB to learn how to build lists.
I'm currently building and painting the starter set figures so I've a little way to go before expanding. I want to build armies slowly over time, playing narrative games where balance is less important.
But it seems, from what is said in this video, that this method isn't optimal for how AoS plays. I can see how it's frustrating learning how (and which resources are needed) to play the game as it's apparently intended.
It's not optimal for someone who wants to play like a Spike, like Miniac. Plenty of people enjoy narrative games and low points and that's fun for them, and if you're having fun then there is no problem.
@@HeyWoah I'm really looking forward to starting gaming - so far I'm working my way through the painting. I refuse to play with unpainted models!
I had no idea wahapedia existed 🤷🏻♂️
Please make the video on why AoS replaced WHFB from a Gameplay perspective. That would we really interesting.
I haven't done this because while I've looked into it and think I have a pretty good grasp of the situation, I didn't play WHFB back in the day and I feel a dedicated video on it should come from a source with direct context of both fantasy and current AoS.
@@HeyWoah Yea, thats pretty fair. Would be cool to see a veterans player perspective with experience in both games though. Maybe you can motivate someone in the AoS Sphere?
On the internal balance point, it feels like a "Why print bad cards?" but for Warhammer instead of MtG
I can defend that in magic, mostly because of Limited. In warhammer I don't think there's an excuse.
@@HeyWoah I think that there might be a bit of wiggle room because of how rules writing works. For at least 40k, army books are written by either small teams or individuals, and if they tried to write the warscrolls/datasheets and army rules to all be interesting and competitive with each other, powercreep would quickly take over. When writing each rule, the writers would have to make sure that rule is comparable to the previous rule, and the first ideas are likely the really cool and powerful ones, so you end up with a book full of interesting but overtuned stuff.
I'm not overly familiar with the competitive history of AoS, but in 40k there was an army book for the dark elf faction that was released a couple years ago that was incredibly balanced internally. The problem was that everything was really good, and the army was so strong that it took GW at least 4-5 rounds of nerfs plus near edition level changes to the game to finally push them off the top after over 9 months. It seems that the only way to make a highly internally balanced book is to either make them really good, or really boring by making every unit have similar stats and abilities so that nothing is standout.
A concession though, GW could be doing a lot better than they are, and greater internal balance does seem reasonably possible without releasing SSS+ tier gigabusted armies. In conclusion, I think that there is some excuse for bad units/rules, but not enough to cover the amount of bad units/rules that are currently in the game.
This is great!!! All spot on, concise and non-personalized points. Sorry I missed it at launch. I’ll check back in on your twitch streams!
In regards to the release schedule and internal balance, they should really keep core rules, a baby shoes battle pack, and warscrolls for free on the app. And have the aos+ as a subscription service, monthly or by the season, annual whatever, and maybe instead of updating one faction at a time, each year/season they can write a new subfaction update for each faction. Maybe centered on new thematic mechanics tied to the story... Like a certain tcg company does
for soulblight he also has to deal w/ a white dwarf update, & that's just a lot of rule sources to juggle. corr rules, ghb (constantly changing), battletome, random issue of a magazine, pdf faqs for any or all of that online, plus the online balance patch & points updates (also constantly changing). It does make army building and playing a pain. wahapedia helps a lot, but even then if you're trying to reference a rule mid game you might have to look through half a dozen different text cascades of web pages to do so, & if you're trying to convince a skeptical opponent or judge mid game you may need to pull out original sources anyway.
40k is admittedly worse for this, but most other games are better.
To add to your suspicions that Miniac loves skirmish games. A wise man once told me rank and flank games are just skirmish games where your HP is tracked with models.
Miniacs favourite game was WFB, a rank and flank game, his most current baby is ASOIAF, a rank and flank game.
I maintain he loves the look of large armies, but the gameplay of Skirmish.
Interesting video. Really taken by your point about AoS not functioning at points values below 2000. I generally play at 100(ish) because we struggle to finish a full game at club allowing for setup and tear down time but I'm definitely gonna go away and maybe try and get some full size games in to see if I like the game more.
Now I have something to send as a response to all my friends sending me the original Miniac video.
Pure gold and BIG too.
I don't agree with all of Scott's points (I don't even think he agrees with all of them) but I think the overall point of army-building and finding an entry point being unnecessarily obfuscated to be EXTREMELY correct. Even moving over from 40K at the start of 3rd it took me a good few weeks of reading the core rulebook and battletome (a $120 investment between them) to really get the hang of it. And if you're trying to get started on building and painting an army you are vibing with, which I think most new players do, you end up just kind of buying what looks cool and ending up with models you can't actually use in a lot of cases. Many of the vanguard or starter boxes do not give you a force that functions in the matched play rules, although it has been getting better since the Start Collecting days.
The GHB being a one-stop-shop for getting started is a very bad system for new players because of the short rotation cycle we are on and the fact that the core rulebook is still for sale, advertised as the starting point, and very expensive. If GW really wanted to help new players get the hang of the game quickly and minimize bad experiences the Core Rulebook would a) be a necessary item to play the game at all levels and give you what you actually need to do so and b) start with a step-by-step guide to building a basic army and playing a basic game from PAGE ONE. Wizards of the Coast nailed this with their 5E D&D books, which hold your hand through every step of the process until you get your sea legs under you.
Unfortunately if GW actually did take that approach I think they would make less money from players buying models based on vibes instead of game rules before they know what they're doing.
Also the double turn is good
Hey Mr. Woah, you might wanna check on that popcorn in the other room. Love the vids, wish you would post more, even if it's on the stream channel just as an archive.
Randomness is supposed to represent the fog of war that is a fundamental part of any war game. It could be represented better but it is a relatively good way to do that. Also as it is pointed out in the video you can plan for dealing with the randomness that is exactly what a good general should do.
I also don't like the double turn. Yeah, it isn't as game ending at 2k as it is at 1k, and yeah you can kind of manipulate and play around it - though the ability to do so varies wildly between factions. Mostly, though, even with the slightly increased interactivity in 3e, there's still just not enough to do in the enemy turn, especially against more skirmishy, shooty opponents, so an opponents double turn can end up being a lot of sitting around not doing too much. Greatly prefer the lotr game, where both players move, shoot and fight all in a single shared turn. you still roll for priority, which still determines who moves & shoots first, and who divides up the combat, so that's still a big deal roll, but it's never going to result in one player moving or shooting twice in a row.
I also kinda disagree with HeyWoah's point on the game being too deterministic to exist without it. Maybe he can predict every single outcome of a game outside of a double turn (I doubt it) but most players couldn't. Also if that were true then it would highlight a massive design flaw in that the game and all its effects and dicerolling is that solved already that you need something as game warping as a double turn to add some extra layer to the game. I'd also argue it more pseudo-depth and obtuse than adding any sort of secondary complex layer to the game. Its a rule you need to play around just like any other rule or effect in the game, its more a case of knowing about it than outright skill.
It's a constant pain point for new players like Miniac who point out how jarring it is, and I'd argue that now he knows it'll just warp the way he plays rather than teach him anything. Its not complex nor is it interesting. Personally would be glad for it to go. If the game cannot function without it then the game itself is flawed, AoS should be a tabletop wargame not a "Do I know about doubleturns" wargame
It might just be my experience but in a lot of 40 battle reports I've watched the game ends on turn three or the top of four when both players look at the board and decide who wins. They know who can move where and take what so they don't need to play the final turns. That might just be a 40k thing, but the double turn can mess with that math enough that you can't just stop at turn 3.
I played a game on tabletop Sim with a friend and we tried out both 40k and AoS. We were hoping to have a lot of fun with 40k only to find out that AoS was more fun simply because of how simple their rules were in comparison.
11:01 Honestly I'd be pretty down for a video talking about the transition from wh fantasy to AoS from the perspective of a longtime player who was around for it. As a player who only came to AoS in 3rd ed it's pretty obscure and I like wargame history and seeing the changes from edition to edition.
I hope you produce content more consistently, you've got great content man. Your strat reviews and breakdowns are also S tier.
There's a lot of valid criticism of AOS (and some of it is discussed in Miniac's video) but a meme reaction clickbait video from the perspective of a casual player isn't the best way to criticize the game.
I like the complexity of AOS, it takes a couple of weeks, a month at most to get to learn all the games rules. Less of them it would be really boring.
I remember playing under 2k Fantasy when I got going in the 90s. It became clear very early that you need 2k if you want to have a back and forth game. You can't turn it around if you've lost 2/3rds of you army on turn 2, even without being doubled.
I thought you can’t use the downloadable Core Rules alone because there’s no Battle Pack.
I'm a bit skeptical about Miniac's opinions on GW stuff since he got booted out of the Heresy weekender for leaking pics. I mean, I'd have a hard time not having a chip on my shoulder after that.
Then I don't understand why he can't he just play other games instead of ride the coattails of a company who kicked him out.
I kinda agree with alot of his points for different reasons. And I like Age of Sigmar. Certainly way more than 40k...
* The priority system isn't un-balanced or something unfairly out of players' control, but the ergonomics are bad. There's just not enough interesting things to do on my opponent's turn other than pay command points to make less of my people die. Whether you get the first or second double turn you are probably sitting through one of them and it sucks the same. The game would almost certainly be worse without double turns, but that doesn't make this point of the game enjoyable. It just sucks less.
* For dice rolling I'm surprised he didn't mention just the regular attack flow. It is annoying to spend command point, or take a heroic action that does almost nothing because of a bad roll... but just the flow of roll to hit, roll to wound, roll to save, roll for d3 damage, roll for ward saves... It feels like they've dug themselves into a hole because of the dependency on d6's here.
All true but that's more a criticism of GW than of AoS specifically. AoS largely has pretty good rules, especially by GW standards.
But I do prefer something like Frostgrave's d20 system or Legion's d8/d6 system.
Gonna disagree on paying for rules. After moving on from AoS to MCP, Legion, and Song, having all my rules and updates being free is amazing and I can't imagine paying for rules anymore.
The only problem is that sure rules are updated for free but good luck trying to get the new cards in I play song myself and the problem is you have to be aware that pretty much now all of the cards you get in your box are out of date.
I am stil pretty new to the game and I gotta say thsi video taught me more than I had jsut from the few games I have played already.
Nah it does feel like there's sometimes needless rolling, like in my Sylvaneth army my Lady of Vines has the ability to summon a unit of dryads, but she does that on a 2+. A bloody 2+ is the biggest fuck you ever, because it's needless, it's going to work almost every time, except when you get that 16% chance of rolling a one and now screw you, you can't attempt it again.
He's right on a lot of stuff from a casual perspective, it could just be that Age of Sigmar just isn't ideal for casual players. You need a huge list for it to be balanced, a lot of rules aren't represented on the table, a few quirky rules mechanics that only experienced players can really understand, expensive books that are essential to play... and I've just described WHFB, which also wasn't really for casual players. The new 40k 10th edition "combat patrol" system is actually pretty slick. AoS needs one; a way to play small games using premade lists with the "start collecting" boxes, including specific rules and missions to balance them with each other, and removing advanced rules like priority and grand srtategies. It would be an ideal little intro to the system and casual players or players of multiple systems would eat it up.
Love me some long HeyWoah hot takes
God I hate Miniac’s framing of only ‘that guy’ pedants wanting clear rules. The vast majority of people at any AoS event I’ve been to are some of the most courteous people I’ve ever met and they sure as hell care about rules being clear and unambiguous.
My primary issue with priority role is that if someone takes a double turn, you're pretty much just sitting there watching them play the game for like an hour or so and making saves. It's kind of boring but I agree that there are ways to play around double turns and stuff.
Also I do think he is right in a more general sense that the GHB is not the right place to learn how to make a list. That should be in a video by GW or an article front and center on their website, not in a seasonal manual you probably should not get if your just getting into the game.
Also I mean in some senses of the word he definitely is a so so pro, in that hes so so at the games but he is a successful professional who made a career out of their hobby. In a literal sense hes a lot more pro than weekend warriors who dominate the local beer league his warhammer pays his mortgage and car.
As a point, outside of matched play the rules are Roll for Prio turn 1 also, that only becomes drop relevant if you go into matched play. Might just be he has never looked at matched play rules if he is playing escalation.
Some of this reminds me of conversations I see about Pathfinder 2e vs D&D 5e. Basically, the people who don't like crunchy games see PF2e as needlessly complicated while the people (like myself) who actually prefer crunchy games see the stuff they don't like as desirable features.
This is one reason why it's good to have a variety of systems available in gaming - whether wargaming, TTRPG's, or whatever. There isn't an objective amount of crunch that is the best. It's all about what you enjoy.
Note: Yeah, I know that PF2e is actually less crunchy than some other games, but I'd put it on the crunchy side of the spectrum.
other than needing to be updated quicker whats wrong with the app? ive never had any issue using the app
I have a friend who I have been trying to convince to get in to AOS (from 40k) for ages. I almost succeeded , then The miniac video released and again my friend is incredibly hesitant to play. This is because the miniac reinforced the idea that the double turn is a unfair mechanic that makes you auto lose. I'm sad to see in the comments section the video turn people of this game when it is the better games GW makes. I hope people will find their way here for a well thought out rebuttal piece especially for the double turn.
There are better games to pick from that you can both learn.
Double turns are a mistake. I will fight that until the day I die. It is actually insane that players ever have a chance of double activating their entire army. It is an element of randomness that adds nothing to the game except frustration.
Jerma and atp references
Heywoah is based
It's anything to do with army list that isn't unit, relic, warlord trait.
Like battalion, season veterans, horse traits, strategy, tactics, whatever.
Yeah it's more complicated, but it is in list building.....
This comes from a 40k geek btw
I buy the models because they look cool and I buy the battletomes because they have lore of the factions that I'm interested in. I'm just nodding at any points being talked about because I'm the "I just think they're neat" meme.
Okay so I found something I disagree with HeyWoah on.
You do not need to say a unit with the wizard keyword is a wizard. It is a completely redundant sentence.
The mechanics that interact with wizards will interact with the wizard word itself. It's not too erroneous yet but if you do this for every keyword and you do take this philosophy with every mechanic you're rule book will be 100s of pages longer than it needs to be.
I'm a magic player as well and... have you... Actually read magic the gathering rules?
They go like this:
601.2 To cast a spell is to take it from where it is (usually the hand), put it on the stack, and pay its costs, so that it will eventually resolve and have its effect. Casting a spell includes proposal of the spell (rules 601.2a-d) and determination and payment of costs (rules 601.2f-h). To cast a spell, a player follows the steps listed below, in order. A player must be legally allowed to cast the spell to begin this process (see rule 601.3). If a player is unable to comply with the requirements of a step listed below while performing that step, the casting of the spell is illegal ; the game returns to the moment before the casting of that spell was proposed (see rule 722, “Handling Illegal Actions”).
Imagine this line is AoS rule book: A player must be legally allowed to play a command protocol to begin this process (see rule 601.3).
There's no way you're not trolling here.
Making people buy rules updates is idiotic, especially when the rules are shit and then they want make you pay for rules that allegedly fix them (they don't). Rules expansions yes, rules updates no. Bit of GW simp moment, GW makes their money from miniatures. That's why their game's suck. Personally, I don't think they'll ever care about their game's enough and we need to make them ourselves. Which I am but that's another topic.
Never mind. 2 months later he proceeded to pridefully say he likes going all in on games and never plays anything "casually" (said with a little hint of elitism). I like to obsess as well, I actually find it really difficult to not fuck up my health obsessing over a new game. But its really strange to say a game is better or worse based on how complex it is.
Is warcry with the official warbands or not considered balanced? What is the balanced, low point version of AOS? I’m just getting started building an painting my first 500pt box for context.
Warcry is their official Skirmish game, kinda like killteam, but since AoS rules don't work in games that small Warcry has it's own rule system. Underworlds is a hybrid boardgame/cardgame/model game that also uses only a few models. People tell me both are fun, I haven't played either so I can't speak to balance (I'm only interested in proper wargame sized stuff).
Warcry is balanced with the bespoke warbands, but is cracked over the knee with the grand alliance units.
The official warbands strike a balance between heavy hitters and chaff, whereas if you bring like Ogors you can just bring only the strongest ones and ignore the chaff. It also can get very swingy because crits are very strong.
If you're just bringing a warband and throwing dice, it's a very balanced game though. I like it a lot.
Oh bby a whole hour, you spoil us sir
I don't know where Miniac went to school but starting with your weakest point is the best way to lose credibility. You start with your strongest point, you hide your weakest point in the middle, and you end on your second strongest point. That way the first and last impressions are your two strongest points.
the "not enough variety in battleplans" thing sounds like he wants asymetric battles, battles that revolve around particular terrain layouts like tunnel fights or seiges, major game changing scenario rules like low visibility or fog, etc. I love all that stuff, but it's not the kind of thing you can run in a bring-&-battle pick up or tournament games, because those sorts of games aren't "fair" or "balanced", & they may not play well with the same set of tactics & strategies as regular objective capture missions.
That stuff is the realm of narrative play, which, while it maybe hasn't been as rhobust or experimental as I'd like in 3e, it hasn't been absent either. But the online aos discourse tends to ignore narrative stuff (understandably so, as its much more particular to the individual players engaging with it), and many gaming communities avoid it altogether, being stuck on tournament standard games even if none of the players involved have any intent (or, frankly, capability) to compete in the tournament scene.
it feels like miniak wants it both ways though, like he has vaguely competitive ambitions and concerns over balance, but also wants narrative style missions that prioritize interesting situations over fair games.
Even the staff at my local GW store told me not to bother buying the core book hahahaha
So, if GW steers you towards 500 point games to start, How exactly is a new player supposed to know that they're not getting a good experience because of the points? Because even though I have a 2000 point army now, the GW representative said that it was too complex to start at 1,000 or 2000 and that it definitely needed to be 500. What do you recommend a new player should do?
500pts is good for showcasing the game at its basic levels.
Learning basic concepts with 3 distinct units is easier than understanding multiple heroes, units, the ruleset, special rules, and what they're good at all at once.
However that small army won't have much counterplay and maybe just one single gimmick or synergy.
Also, 500pts worth isn't as huge a financial investment to see if you don't enjoy some aspects of the game.
Probably shouldn't buy before playing though
Learning the absolute basics I think is different than only playing 1k games for years. First few games you can do a lot of stuff to learn, but 2k is where the game is good, and the goal imo.
GW doesn't steer you to 500, pitched battles start at 1k and I don't even do learning games for people under 750.
@@HeyWoah Is there enough to talk about regarding beginner tips like this to constitute its own video?
When it comes to the dice thing It sucks that once in awhile my gossamid archers just die because I rolled a 1 on zephersprites.
my only complain on rolls like that is they are 99% of the time waste of time rolling, and rolling a 1 is a stupid punishment for what, a balance to strong ability? cmon rework that ability if it is so strong or put it in the point costs of the unit
On the topic of list writing, I get that its mechanically not that hard, but as a new player all of this information feels like more than the sum of its parts. Because models can be more than one "thing", i know I've been confused about who can be what, who can go with what, what can take what, etc.
On the flat objectives, I really like that point as I would like GW to explore scenarios like from the first edition of warcry that mirror things from Halo like team oddball or VIP. There's an argument some objectives amd secondaries already achieve this to degrees but I want to see them really lean into more for the scenario at large, and a ghb would be a good place for this to test for a season or two I think.
On a lighter side note this video is the parasocial equivalent of having just played basement Hammer with a friend and your older brother-gamer guru and him get into a long debate on the game.
HE DIDNT LIKE SOMETHING I LIKE AND NOW MY CAPS LOCK IS ON
Hey there HeyWoah, Loved the video, you've consistently been my favourite wargaming content creator since i've been playing Age of Sigmar, your newest 'Faction Focus' videos in particular have ignited a strong new interest in the system after a half a year break. I've been wondering if you would consider putting something like your own test/sample lists somewhere in the videos, I really appreciate the way you group and break down units while explaining their synergies but I think seeing how that takes form in a whole army would take it to the next level. I understand if you wouldn't do this because you feel like you don't want to hand hold us through list building or if you feel it would bloat the videos too much but I just thought it would be an interesting idea to consider. Again really enjoy the content and hope to see more from you, cheers.
The main reason I don't is how quickly they become obsolete through points/changes/GHB seasonal/FAQ stuff. But then again just to give people at least an idea of how it all comes together might be good even if not copyable after a few months.
It came to me in a dream is the best ruleset to go by. And you are only allowed to use your last dream as a basis so that every game feels unique and you can not contradict your own previous statements.
I will now forever be calling Their Finest Hour, "Best Day Ever"... 😆
Glutos has to roll to activate his ward save every turn.
New to AoS so I found this pretty helpful with getting started. Also dig the Altered Beast hat \m/
I am glad this exists to watch on-demand.
"So-so pro" lmao
I mean it depends on what you mean, hes clearly not very good at AOS and his judgements are very off the cuff given his lack of experience but he is a professional youtuber and painter by many literal definitions he is a pro.
@@21526 you cannot call yourself a "pro" of a game if you've played seven games of the newest edition in the last year with the minimum requirements. that's like calling yourself a competitive smash bros player if you've played a dozen one-stock games with no time limit.
@@21526 you got me, I'm taking the bait. The adjective "professional" does not carry-over to other nouns. He was specifically using the term "so-so pro" in relation to his skill at playing wargames, not how well he paints. The actual quote: "I'm not a tournament player, but I am what I call a "so-so pro" - a hybrid, in-between, wannabe competitive player..."
I don't see anything about being paid to paint or make UA-cam videos. Case closed, don't @ me.
There's more to list building than just the literal requirements, though, right? Like, you don't have to pick your battle tactics as part of list building, but if you're building a list that you want to be able to actually play the game then while you're building that list you absolutely need to have the battlepack open, looking at the available battle tactics while selecting your units to be sure that you're /able/ to complete as many of those tactics as possible. And that does add a fair bit of hassle and complication that you don't see when you're just listed the necessary steps of list construction.
13:00 I 100% agree that clearly written rules are the heart and soul of a good game. There should NEVER need to be interpretation done at the table when you're playing any kind of competitive game. That being said, GW is not good at this AT ALL. I haven't read much of the AoS rules, but if they're anything like the 40k rules, it's a minefield of nebulous statements that sometimes just do not work as written or contradict other core rules with no clear way to decide which is correct. The fact that every single book GW releases needs day 1 FAQs just to be able to function is evidence that they don't spend enough time or resources on fixing the rules system and instead spend those resources on churning out the next book, supplement, magazine, etc.
This was the only one of Scott's takes that I thought was just flat out wrong. Everything else he brought up has a nugget of truth IMO, even if we might disagree on how much of an impact each other issue has on the game as a whole.
GW can't say the game is designed for 2k points because that would shine a spotlight on the actual buy-in cost, which would hugely deter new players.
So they have to pretend the game works at 500 or 1k or whatever.
It's not then surprising that new players encounter the issues Miniac has.
Also, as a 40k player, no shit we know our game is bad lol.
Yes. This is what I meant by "We really can blame GW for this, actually"
I had this exact experience at a GW store, I asked how many points I should bring for my first game and the employee told me 500.
This is one of my favorite videos I've seen on YT. Thank you.
Funny as to watch live while sippin that sweet Monster Zero Ultra
Love it😊 helpful for a beginner like my self to not get discouraged to try AoS after seing the other video:)
AoS games aren't really long enough for falling back & recuperating rather than finding a way to counterattack, so battle tactics supporting that wouldn't really work anyway. Also, if the battle tactics are diverse enough that there's always one you can do, then there's kind of no point to tactics at all since there will always be one to do.
I think it gets complicated when one players uses the newest ghb and the other doesn’t.
At this point it can kinda get exhausting.
But for any other reason the ghb is pretty easy.
Isn't Miniac the one that got kicked out of a GW event (Heresy weekend i believe) and taken off their influencer list because he leaked a new model on his instagram during that event and then complained afterwards that they didn't put the models he'd painted in their articles? he's probably just salty
precisely
Ngl I'd watch you talk about anything about AOS for like multiple hours
As someone who is learning AoS currently list building is SO easy to do with the app. I am debating starting Aos or 40k and Aos is so easy to list build and the as a new player pick the first models you like then fill battleline the fill battalions. Note I learned the basics of list building from the app and never played a war game before
Mate!! I love love your cap, where did you get it? Also it feels like he really should have played WarCry and not AoS 😂
I sell it on my merch store!
So what does everyone think of battle scribe? Good for making army lists or no?
I don't care for it, I'm told it's mainly a 40k tool, but some use it for AoS
I don't know why people don't like the app.. I actually like it, might be better ? I don't know, but I like it.
I bounce in and out of the game cause my works crazy and aos is getting harder and harder to keep up on. Between ghb, and everything and white dwarf and errata. I keep finger on pulse but it's been getting harder despite game being the best it's ever been
Just stick with an app. They keep them up to date. Then every 2-3 months check your army's faq to see if it's been updated. That's all you should need to stay fresh.
Not sure how anyone could disagree with the ridiculousness of having to explain that something with the Wizard keyword is a wizard. 40 doesn’t feel the need to explain that something with the Librarian keyword is a Librarian. GW is overly wordy and it makes their rule sets unnecessarily complicated
Librarians have the Psyker Key word. They have to explain what the key words themselves mean. Since a sorcerer is a wizard but doesn’t have the same name it could create a situation where a player wouldn’t know. Some heroes have the Wizard keyword but aren’t called wizards. It’s an example of funny writing but they could’ve chosen a better name like the Spell Caster Keyword
"The free market should define a wizard." Top kek
Comment for the Dark (algorythm) Gods
AoS has the Slaves to Chadness so it is a gud gaem imo
what the hell is the rumbling sound in the background? it confuses me to no end xD
As someone who plays 40k but comes for the based takes, love this. Just another example of AoS players being chill af but not about that BS. Miniac has a cool channel and makes some great points but so do you 👍
I have no problem with miniac but his content seems aimed at children and younger teens
This boy doesn't know what he's talking about. As far as the length of rules go i think a middle ground might be laying out the basic rules which all have a link to a more indepth rules page - but maybe this would just increase confusion