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.

 Dr. Delorean wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
He's making wild assumptions based on nothing but blind optimism.

'Assumption' implies that I believe these things to be true, when what I'm actually doing is positing a scenario that may come to be, whether it is likely or not.

But you don't really care about that, do you? You just want to be salty on the internet.

I could care less obviously. If I did, I would have put more effort into reading your mind as to whether you actually believed what you wrote (assumed) or was just making things up to spark conversation. I obviously credited you with more belief than you actually possessed based upon the effort you put into your post. Apologies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
It'd sure be a thing to see if there isn't, I can't think of a tabletop game like 40K/Warhammer (not counting games designed like Tomorrow's War) that doesn't have slots, or detachments, etc. Even with points involved too. Dropzone Commander, Epic, whatever.

It may end up being the mother of all GW hand-waving.

Or they're completely reworking unit characteristics so that a unit of spearmen has a shot against a single bloodthirster. (Spears of stabbiness have a +1 to wound vs monsters).... Nah.

 agnosto wrote:

 Dr. Delorean wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
He's making wild assumptions based on nothing but blind optimism.

'Assumption' implies that I believe these things to be true, when what I'm actually doing is positing a scenario that may come to be, whether it is likely or not.

But you don't really care about that, do you? You just want to be salty on the internet.

I could care less obviously. If I did, I would have put more effort into reading your mind as to whether you actually believed what you wrote (assumed) or was just making things up to spark conversation. I obviously credited you with more belief than you actually possessed based upon the effort you put into your post. Apologies.

Apology cheerfully accepted!

 agnosto wrote:


I could care less obviously.

That means you do care.

 agnosto wrote:
And not supported by what we've seen of all 4 pages of the rules...

Oh! We have every single rules page COMPLETELY spoiled so far? Awesome! Toss a link so we can check it out!

 rybackstun wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
And not supported by what we've seen of all 4 pages of the rules...

Oh! We have every single rules page COMPLETELY spoiled so far? Awesome! Toss a link so we can check it out!

Remedial reader? "What we've seen"..... Try again captain sarcasm.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Vash108 wrote:

 agnosto wrote:


I could care less obviously.

That means you do care.

What can I say, I'm a caring individual who helps old ladies across the street.

 agnosto wrote:

 rybackstun wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
And not supported by what we've seen of all 4 pages of the rules...

Oh! We have every single rules page COMPLETELY spoiled so far? Awesome! Toss a link so we can check it out!

Remedial reader? "What we've seen"..... Try again captain sarcasm.

I read what you said and understood it completely. What flew over your head (apparently) was my point that we haven't seen everything, therefore we don't know what the build restrictions will or won't be. Any speculation at this point is just as viable.

But thanks for playing!

 Dr. Delorean wrote:

Units will be classified according to battlefield role, but the size of those units will be fixed to their specific Warscroll. .

The word from earlier in the thread was that the minimum unit size is set by what comes in the box, but that there is no maximum unit size.

 rybackstun wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

 rybackstun wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
And not supported by what we've seen of all 4 pages of the rules...

Oh! We have every single rules page COMPLETELY spoiled so far? Awesome! Toss a link so we can check it out!

Remedial reader? "What we've seen"..... Try again captain sarcasm.

I read what you said and understood it completely. What flew over your head (apparently) was my point that we haven't seen everything, therefore we don't know what the build restrictions will or won't be. Any speculation at this point is just as viable.

But thanks for playing!

And I clearly had already admitted as much so I suppose you were just trolling since you completely understood the entire sentence that I wrote. Yay!

Now would be a really good time for both of you to knock it off

 insaniak wrote:

 Dr. Delorean wrote:

Units will be classified according to battlefield role, but the size of those units will be fixed to their specific Warscroll. .

The word from earlier in the thread was that the minimum unit size is set by what comes in the box, but that there is no maximum unit size.

Wonder how that is going to work then. 10 spearmen per scroll so a 30-man unit would be 3 scrolls?

/blind conjecture

Edit:

At first blush that doesn't sound terrible. Replace points with the number of scrolls so you could have a 10 scroll battle for example.

I'm still pumped up for this, even after the reveal of... suspect rules.

I'm eager to see how it plays out, living document sounds interesting.

It's all blind conjecture at this point, which is my favourite kind of conjecture.

Their intention clearly is to make a game you can play, otherwise why write rules at all? Why not just say "Hey, here are the models we make, go play with them however you like!",

Having no limit to unit sizes and thus allowing the equating of a single goblin with a bloodthirster works directly against that intention.

What I'm essentially saying is that -some- structure is necessary, whatever it turns out to be, and I think even GW would realize that.

Inb4 people saying 'lol GW probably wouldn't realize that they're idiots etc'

That's always a possibility, but I prefer to remain optimistic, and risk being bitterly disappointed.

 agnosto wrote:

 rybackstun wrote:

 agnosto wrote:

 rybackstun wrote:

 agnosto wrote:
And not supported by what we've seen of all 4 pages of the rules...

Oh! We have every single rules page COMPLETELY spoiled so far? Awesome! Toss a link so we can check it out!

Remedial reader? "What we've seen"..... Try again captain sarcasm.

I read what you said and understood it completely. What flew over your head (apparently) was my point that we haven't seen everything, therefore we don't know what the build restrictions will or won't be. Any speculation at this point is just as viable.

But thanks for playing!

And I clearly had already admitted as much so I suppose you were just trolling since you completely understood the entire sentence that I wrote. Yay!

You structured that sentence in an imperfect and misleading way, knowingly or not.

The inclusion of the word "all" is gratuitous, because we don't know all of anything yet. It invites misreadings of your meaning.

"And not supported by what we've seen of the 4 pages of rules" would have been a better way to say your piece without begging to be criticized.

Personally I am going to wait and see what are the model rules then make a judgement.

But based on what is being said and leaked my hopes are very small.

 Dr. Delorean wrote:

Their intention clearly is to make a game you can play, otherwise why write rules at all? Why not just say "Hey, here are the models we make, go play with them however you like!"

Well that does seem to be GWs mentality towards the game these days....

On the posed scenario of "could 10 spearmen take a bloodthirster"...

one odd mechanic is that you have rolls to hit and would, not just stats. An example i was given was Chaos warriors hit on 3+, wound on 4+. All the time, against everyone, unless the model has a specific rule like "tough: models have a -1 to would this model ".

So maybe spearmen hit on 4+, wound on 5+, all the time? Better than normal odds of killing a bloodthirster than they used to have. .

One other mechanic was break tests (with some fancy name). You add up the number of wounds done, subtract your bravery, and then lose that many more wounds.

 mikhaila wrote:
Then we hear about no points values. We realize we don't know how to run tournaments, or leagues, or even tell two 12 year olds how to start a game.

"Just put out what models you want to play with"

 Dr. Delorean wrote:
What I'm essentially saying is that -some- structure is necessary, whatever it turns out to be, and I think even GW would realize that.

I dunno, maybe that's why the rules are allegedly free, because even GW couldn't find it in themselves to charge $85 for a book that might as well literally tell you to make the gak up as you go along.

Maybe some games can pull off not having points costs, but I have no confidence whatsoever in GW to pull it off and release a game that's at all playable. Maybe if they outsourced the rules, but their own design team? No. We'll see on Saturday, I guess, but right now it doesn't look very good in my opinion.

God, 8th Fantasy was $75. The past two versions of 40k were $85. They're all garbage. What the hell monster could they have produced that even GW has to say "Nah man, we can't sell that to people."? It's almost scary to think about. I'm imagining a game with the same tactical depth as fething Snakes and Ladders if that's the case.

Talk about super-dumbed down.

And that break test rule is bull gak.

Nocturnus wrote:
There are miniature games that don't have a points system. Tomorrow's War and Force on Force are two off the top of my head. They are fun to play. I think the problem is that anything GW makes. people want to use it for tournament play. I don't have an issue with that, but GW has been actively moving away from organized play for years. Maybe this is their solution?

Such games are completely unable to handle pick-up games, though. They're fine if you want to design scenarios for literally every single meet-up. But they don't work when two random people who just happen to both have armies show up at the game store at the same time.

Friday nights in the local GW sound hilarious now.

So Fantasy is now a game in the same vein as Inquisitor with no points values? I have to see it in action to believe it...

 agnosto wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 Dr. Delorean wrote:

Units will be classified according to battlefield role, but the size of those units will be fixed to their specific Warscroll. .

The word from earlier in the thread was that the minimum unit size is set by what comes in the box, but that there is no maximum unit size.

Wonder how that is going to work then. 10 spearmen per scroll so a 30-man unit would be 3 scrolls?

/blind conjecture

Edit:

At first blush that doesn't sound terrible. Replace points with the number of scrolls so you could have a 10 scroll battle for example.

It just sounds like points by another name "rounded off". I mean, every unit is 1 point. So side A takes 10 bloodthirsters, side B takes 100 spearmen. But you need to take distinct units, so you can take the 10 spearmen, or 20 spearmen, but not 12 spearmen.

This also indicates to that AoS is much less configuration-centric. Obviously, listbuilding is still important in terms of what units you take, because of synergies, spells, force multipliers and all that (take 10 units of healers, and you might have a legit army, you can't kill anything). But you won't be configuring your units with weapon A/B/C, or relic A/B/C. Or if you do, they'll all be the same cost, so presumably similar effectiveness.

And there will be a rank-up system. And probably one army = one faction.

We know that it will be a very different game than WHFB. Will it be fun? I have no idea I've barely read the leaked rules (though I will read it on the WD when I pick it up tomorrow or the next day), and those don't even tell us what a unit looks like.

I mean, this is really no different than, "Codex: Space Marines SUCKS!!! It's just a reprint. Devastators are the same! Assault Marines are the same! It's a cash grab!!!" But then, nobody who actually bought the codex thought so, because the devil's in the details, and actually, it wasn't even close to being a reprint. Just the few leaks were totally inconsequential, so there were folks who jumped all over the conclusion that it MUST suck.

By the way, just so you don't read it the wrong way, agnosto, it's in no way directed at you. I'm just speaking generally; I agree with you, and wonder the same thing as you. I'm cautiously hopeful that it will be a relatively simple, easy to play, and enjoyable game.

/blind conjecture!

 Sidstyler wrote:

 Dr. Delorean wrote:
What I'm essentially saying is that -some- structure is necessary, whatever it turns out to be, and I think even GW would realize that.

I dunno, maybe that's why the rules are allegedly free, because even GW couldn't find it in themselves to charge $85 for a book that might as well literally tell you to make the gak up as you go along.

Maybe some games can pull off not having points costs, but I have no confidence whatsoever in GW to pull it off and release a game that's at all playable. Maybe if they outsourced the rules, but their own design team? No. We'll see on Saturday, I guess, but right now it doesn't look very good in my opinion.

God, 8th Fantasy was $75. The past two versions of 40k were $85. They're all garbage. What the hell monster could they have produced that even GW has to say "Nah man, we can't sell that to people."? It's almost scary to think about. I'm imagining a game with the same tactical depth as fething Snakes and Ladders if that's the case.

Its going to be 4 pages of hard-core full-throttle hold-on-to-your-seats awesome. You can't put a price on that, the awesome would just burn it away!

 Dr. Delorean wrote:
It's all blind conjecture at this point, which is my favourite kind of conjecture.

Their intention clearly is to make a game you can play, otherwise why write rules at all? Why not just say "Hey, here are the models we make, go play with them however you like!",

Having no limit to unit sizes and thus allowing the equating of a single goblin with a bloodthirster works directly against that intention.

What I'm essentially saying is that -some- structure is necessary, whatever it turns out to be, and I think even GW would realize that.

Inb4 people saying 'lol GW probably wouldn't realize that they're idiots etc'

That's always a possibility, but I prefer to remain optimistic, and risk being bitterly disappointed.

Well, yeah

I can't imagine that the rules say "take a number of models in this unit". Because then like, I will field 5000 goblins to fight your bloodthirster, bwahnahahaha, thankyouverymuch

(whips out airbrush and green primer...)

There must be some structure; I think it's just dumbed down, as I mentioned, to make it so that basically 1 unit = 1 point. There must be some what of constraining the unit; otherwise, people will field as many as they have models for.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Torga_DW wrote:
Its going to be 4 pages of hard-core full-throttle hold-on-to-your-seats awesome. You can't put a price on that, the awesome would just burn it away!

I think it'll be 4 pages of core "rules" and then 96 pages of lists, since there are entries for every single current WHFB -- which is numbers in the hundreds, right? It's just rules by another name.

I'm still willing to give it it's fair chance once I can get the downloads.

What interests me is how every unit is still supported when they all died on the old planet.

 Eldarain wrote:
I'm still willing to give it it's fair chance once I can get the downloads.

What interests me is how every unit is still supported when they all died on the old planet.

Survivors!! They were the ones not voted off the island.

 Talys wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:
Its going to be 4 pages of hard-core full-throttle hold-on-to-your-seats awesome. You can't put a price on that, the awesome would just burn it away!

I think it'll be 4 pages of core "rules" and then 96 pages of lists, since there are entries for every single current WHFB -- which is numbers in the hundreds, right? It's just rules by another name.

awesome!!!

No point values? Unlimited unit sizes? Warscrolls as a limiting factor (which is no limiting factor when you have unlimited unit sizes). Unsure why others think GW will create "good rules" to go along with these terrible ideas.. What kind of evidence do we have that proves they can accomplish such a task? None.

I guess my WFB stuff will go in a box never to be seen again.. or perhaps an alternate reality bubble.

I love how the idea of "Wait and See" is nearly impossible for some people to comprehend.

 rybackstun wrote:
I love how the idea of "Wait and See" is nearly impossible for some people to comprehend.

Well you know what, let's just lock the fething thread then until Saturday. No one's allowed to discuss what we know anymore until we have the full story!

Seriously, the lengths some people will go to in order to silence dissent. I sometimes wonder if people aren't getting paid by GW themselves to come here and talk everyone down.

What I've seen is... well, maybe not promising, but interesting at least. The new hit, wound type rolls are the sort of thing I approve of. Use whatever you want is something I approve of.

Dunno how it will be balanced without points but thats not an automatic dealbreaker either - as is, when I play my opponents I care less about points and more about "are you fine if I use this? I would prefer you toned down that" etc etc. Superheavies in 40k do that to you - its way less about points and more about "if your opponent can handle it". So likewise, if I take a Bloodthirster, and its too much for my opponents army, they can just take more next time until we balance ourselves out in some sorta equilibrium

Will really wreck pick up games though I gotta say