Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

A simple poll to see how people feel about The Age Of Sigmar.

My personal view...I will be buying the box set. From there...we shall see.

Can't imagine they'd release a game with NO internal balance whatsoever. Really for me it will depend on how I can use the stuff I've got already.

Never played fantasy and I always wanted to start because I knew changes were coming. I think this will be a nice toe-hold into it

For me it depends on the rules for existing miniatures. I'll take a look tomorrow and then decide on whether or not the starter set is something to pick up... Might not need 2 more armies, regardless of size.

Cheers Weyrell, I have added a "possibly" option to the poll.

It's not really fantasy.
I'll give it a try.

Absent a balancing mechanic, I have zero interest. KoW will do me for now.

I'm buying in for the minis, so I might as well try the rules!

Beyond that, I do believe they have potential. Not potential to be the best game ever, but potential to be a good way to kill an evening, and for getting new players and pressganged family/friends into it. To a newcomer, I think a 4-page booklet is a lot less daunting than a 200-page tome!

They just need an approximation of balance, and up in the Proposed Rules forum a bunch of us are already throwing around ideas for that.

I have seen the proposed rules thread, and the work that you guys are already doing is greatly appreciated. The fact that you should not have to be doing it is an entirely different matter.

I'm certainly going to give it a try. I have been, and will be, passing judgement on it, so it would be remiss if I didn't at least give it a go. I won't be spending any money on it though (no starter set for me) unless it's something I enjoy and, even then, unless GW release some awesome models for Elves/Undead, I'll likely just be using the models I already have, if I can.

 Thraxas Of Turai wrote:
I have seen the proposed rules thread, and the work that you guys are already doing is greatly appreciated. The fact that you should not have to be doing it is an entirely different matter.

Thanks! Do feel free to chip in if you have any thoughts of your own, on balancing or just general fixing of the rules.

Personally, I don't mind having to house-rule stuff, but that's largely as I find game design fascinating in and of itself; if I can indulge that hobby and help others get something workable here then I've no problem!


Although I must admit I can certainly sympathise with those who (rightly) say that some semblance of balance is something GW should provide, however rough. If I were a newcomer to the hobby I'd certainly be a little put off by the lack of balancing.

I will give the rules a try, but truth be told, egads, the quickstart rules are garbage. I haven't played a game of them yet, but i've done professional mini game design in my life, and the quickstart rules are really, really rough around the edges.

And i love WHFB ; i have 3 huge armies (4 if you count dark elves and high elves separate instead of Host of the Eternity King as i play them).


I'm really hoping the rumors of "this is it for rules" in terms of core rules is wrong, and the 4 pages are like the quick start rules from other sets.

Yeah, I'm going to give it a go. Its free and I already have the army, so it isn't like I'm going to losing out


But from what I've seen of the rules. Having read the white dwarf..... I'm really not convinced that this game is very good, it seems really really dumbed down, like a game for children under the age of ten.

Its amazing how willing we are to be duped again.

I voted no because I have 2 armies for fantasy battle, plus everything I need to play. Even if the rules are free I fully intend to devote my time elsewhere.

GW is trying to emulate PP, and lock down their IP. That's great and I'm sure people will enjoy the new take on it. I didn't get into FB because I wanted a different game. I bought IoB because I wanted to play FB. That being said I will be filling that skirmish niche with Warmachine.

Yeah, seeing that the game has become a "throw models down, throw dice and see how wins" without any attempt at balancing...

Look, it's fine for a board game, or something else that you don't spend much money on. As far as a game where you're buying a rather large army with nothing codified, it seems pointless. So I suppose I might get a couple of kits I've always liked for WHFB, but I can't see myself investing any further. I'll just go to W/MH for a tactical fantasy experience.

Yeah it might be fun to try fantasy board game battle, but pay money for it?

I can write 4 pages of rules just fine and you know what? I'm gonna.

With rules like, if your younger then your opponent get this rule or when your holding beer get that rule. I don't think am going to play fantasy anywhere in the near future.

Lots of boardgames play like this- to a greater or lesser extent - so will certainly give it a try

I'm excited to give it a try. Never liked WFB's gameplay, maybe this will be fun.

Okay... I've spent 3 hours reading the pdf and I they've removed nearly everything I disliked or flat out hated about WFB. I'm an ogr.. Ogors (Damnit!) player and I love how it looks for my guys. I like the speed of the game and the character they've managed to retain within each race. I even love the cheesy humour.

The detachments/formation style forces are compelling and small enough that you could get them for around £80-£120. I might consider picking up Orruks, Empire and Duardin over the next year.

I'm not worried about the points cost debate as I think it's a red herring. This is not WFB, it's not massed combat (yet) and I think if people give it a go then they’ll be pleasantly surprised, or not... live your own lives :-P

For me, it's a fun game again.

Since the rules are free, I'll be giving the game a go. Though I won't be buying the boxset, don't like Khorne that much and don't want fantasy spess mawines either.

I suspect that if it does become a regular game amongst my gaming group it will end up being heavily house ruled as from what I'm reading some things (summoning, sudden death, no army composition rules) make absolutely no sense, are very silly or completely unbalanced.

As a simple warband based skirmish game (ie less than 50 models a side) the basic rules look good, not sure I'd want to play a mass battle game with these same rules though. Than again I went in for the KoW 2nd ed rulebook kickstarter so that will do the old mass battle game side quite nicely.

 darkcloak wrote:
Its amazing how willing we are to be duped again.

I voted no because I have 2 armies for fantasy battle, plus everything I need to play. Even if the rules are free I fully intend to devote my time elsewhere.

GW is trying to emulate PP, and lock down their IP. That's great and I'm sure people will enjoy the new take on it. I didn't get into FB because I wanted a different game. I bought IoB because I wanted to play FB. That being said I will be filling that skirmish niche with Warmachine.

This and the feel of the fluff/mechanics gone that I liked. I wont play warmachine however, not interested in that game.

Without a doubt. Tomb kings or "Mummies" Are very usable now.

Lord Corellia wrote:
Can't imagine they'd release a game with NO internal balance whatsoever. Really for me it will depend on how I can use the stuff I've got already.

GW has stated time and again they don't care about competitive play and are a models not a game company. Their mantra is "Forge the narrative" and from everything I have heard from my LGS owner, his GW rep has said the game is designed to be "very open" and "player driven" which to me sounds like code for, if you want balance do it your fething self.

It's not even a game. It's unplayable vanilla as there's no innate balance mechanism. It's utter and unusuable trash.

I don't care as much about the rules I was always about collecting, playing with good looking fantasy armies, ranks of soldiers, shields real fantasy battle kind of thing. This game looks more like someone stole Diablo 3 concept arts and made it into a generic tabletop game.

No thanks from me, the 'fantasy' aspect died long ago GW forgot their roots.

Why would I play a game designed for children?

Just run a test game, and it's actually really fun! The Command abilities and unit abilities and the synergy between them adds a lot to the gameplay, and it plays fast and smoothly.

One thing I will add for anyone giving this a go is to forget everything you know about how units used to play. I don't know about you, but before today I wouldn't have put money on a Skaven Warlord killing a mounted Elf Prince in a duel!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Why would I play a game designed for children?

Because its fun?

So board game nights with friends - on occasion small children attend with parent so the game selection is adapted to them - so no "Spartacus" and yes to "Duck Duck Go"!

Oddly enough we have fun with either type of game..........

Also if this new game brings in children and young adults - That a big and good thing as lets face it is a dying hobby without new blood - I'll be more than happy to play them - well in touch with my inner child and over 40 myself.

Lord Corellia wrote:
Can't imagine they'd release a game with NO internal balance whatsoever. Really for me it will depend on how I can use the stuff I've got already.

 Da Boss wrote:
Absent a balancing mechanic, I have zero interest.

 Paradigm wrote:

Thanks! Do feel free to chip in if you have any thoughts of your own, on balancing or just general fixing of the rules.

Although I must admit I can certainly sympathise with those who (rightly) say that some semblance of balance is something GW should provide, however rough. If I were a newcomer to the hobby I'd certainly be a little put off by the lack of balancing.

 Accolade wrote:
Yeah, seeing that the game has become a "throw models down, throw dice and see how wins" without any attempt at balancing...

 Sigvatr wrote:
It's not even a game. It's unplayable vanilla as there's no innate balance mechanism. It's utter and unusuable trash.

Sudden Death.

But whatever, good riddance if you quit!

 Weyrell wrote:
For me, it's a fun game again.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Why would I play a game designed for children?

Because its fun?

So board game nights with friends - on occasion small children attend with parent so the game selection is adapted to them - so no "Spartacus" and yes to "Duck Duck Go"!

Oddly enough we have fun with either type of game..........

Also if this new game brings in children and young adults - That a big and good thing as lets face it is a dying hobby without new blood - I'll be more than happy to play them - well in touch with my inner child and over 40 myself.

these guys get it.