flamingkillamajig wrote:So apparently Marlov is TFG.
For me i'm just insulted there are no points values. It's like instead of weighing something on a scale you guess somebody's weight or same goes for somebody's age. Sure you might get an estimate but it's not always accurate esp. for really big things. I mean imagine if people were like, "Instead of carbon dating this we're just gonna eyeball it and guess how old this fossilized tree is."
No, but I would rather play TFG than a whiney fluff-bunny that's going to complain because they lost to a decent list. It's everyone's own job to build a good army for the game they're playing. It's not my job to babysit them, or make them feel better about themselves, or be their camp counsellor.
I like point values EXACTLY because of what Talys said a page or two ago. As much as I think he's flying rodent gak crazy about so many things, he's right on there, except that I don't hide it at all. I WANT an advantage. I mean, BUILDING an advantage is part of the game: nobody faults a Magic player for building a good deck right?? If 95% of the game is coming prepared, then COME PREPARED!
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:Wow, that guy has something to prove. With tiny plastic army men and random dice rolls...
Glad to hear your idea of a good time is to make sure your oponnent doesn't.
Whether my opponent has a good time or not makes no impact on me having a good time. I really don't care, not any more than the guy I killed in BF4 or StarCraft. It's a game. You're supposed to win or lose. If you bring a crappy list, you'll probably lose. Which is just fine with me, as long as you don't complain about it after, because really what did you expect.
After a football game everyone shakes hands, right? Well and good, and I can shake hands with my opponent too. But nobody is sorry that they used whatever tricks they needed to win the game. And when Brady won the Superbowl, did he really care if the other guys had a good time? I don't even think he cared that anyone called him a cheater.
@Marlov - there is a HUGE difference between (a) playing someone that you don't know the name of, that you'll never meet, and (b) playing someone that is in front of you, that you're likely to see again.
If all you want is a hypercompetitive game, why not stick to PC games, where that's rewarded with wide recognition, and, in some cases, significant cash prizes?
The problem that you run into with playing wargames with real people is that there's no matchmaking, so sure, you might get 2/10 people who are also hypercompetitive, but you'll sometimes get 2/10 people who are new or who just want to kick back and play for fun. And 6/10 people are somewhere in between.
But anyways, what's the point of winning (or playing) if you know you're going to win because your list is vastly superior? Why not just feel good about yourself that you are awesome, declare "Mission Accomplished", go home, and save yourself the time, and the other guy the aggravation?
Edit: Oh yeah, using Tom Brady as an example of "sportsmanship" (or whatever... an ideal pro athlete?) is not a winning argument, man. That's like winning a GT because for all the rounds before the final, you had loaded dice.
......
Whatever you want to call it, it isn't a wargame. Not even close. You can't play out some vignette of a war... It's just a bunch of godly superheroes biffing it out and using magical powers.
But my brother has now convinced me that Age of Sigmar is a GOOD thing. One thing I despise about so-called "casual" players is that there is endless whining if they lose to "TFG" or whatever. Like, they refuse to learn to play the f***ing game, and then want to rage quit when they lose. So now at last there's a game for them, and they can leave serious wargamers to other games. It's great: anyone who likes Age of Sigmar I'll know I never want to play with. "Do you like Sigmar?" "Yes" (scratch off of list). That simple.
Yes, everyone is entitled to play their game, however dumb it might be.
But WARGAMING is a serious thing. A wargame REQUIRES competitive play (playing to win) and should involve it in every step from preparation to victory or defeat. If you can't prepare your army right, you deserve to LOSE. I don't play to make my opponent feel good... I think this is a ridiculous concept, but ok, if that's your thing, go for it. I want them to run away with their tail tucked between their legs because they got butthurt so bad... then come again another day to have another go at me. I feel great when I smash someone to bits and table them. I love when they feel hopelessness and despair. I feel angry with myself for being an idiot if I get tabled, but I focus that on being constructive and figure out what I need to do to win the next round.
So anyways good on GW for making a game for the people that I didn't want to play with anyways.
Whooe there sparky!
All games place an objective on the player to meet the win conditions either with or against the other players, but the aim is to have fun
If your playing for any other goal (I think the only cliche you missed was 'lamentation of their women!') then I'm afraid your being a bit of an arse.
You also used the words 'serious' and 'angry' in conjunction with a discussion about grown men playing toy soldiers, that alone should be enough to convince you that you might be doing it wrong.
There is, however, no guarantee that a game will be fair or fun.
There is no guarantee that anything will be fun but if there has been at least some effort put into balancing and structuring a game then at least there is a reasonable chance that it will be fair (dice willing), surely that is obvious?
Flames of War is much easier to balance than a game like Age of Sigmar, or Warhammer 40k. Imagine in FoW, if you introduced Martian units with lasers, and the Germans had dirigibles that could drop concussion bombs and the Brits built giant robots that dwarfed the L'Arc de Triomphe you were trying to protect. Imagine if the largest model is literally so big that an infantry unit can climb through the visor (actually, one sits inside, in the model) --
Such giant models don't belong in 15mm games (never mind 28mm) as its hard to balance something that barely fits on the tabletop. However, its entirely possible to create all kinds of weird units in most rulesets simply by the use of an appropriate statline and the judicious use of special rules. In the above Martian example, veteran infantry MG team stats with an increased AT rating and the Breakthrough gun special rule would be a a pretty good approximation without having to resort to extra special rules and the attendant rules bloat.
Things like this are simple to do and, providing that there is sufficient play testing, works well.
Why can't you understand that a game which provides a structure and reasonable limits on what you can field on the tabletop in a given game will all but certainly result in a better experience than a game where you can field anything you like? One of the key reasons why I disiked 7th ed was the extremely unbalanced nature of the game, I remember playing games where I had almost no chance of winning (in one particularly galling example by an army made up entirely of unpainted proxies);how is that in anyway fun and how will AoS prevent this from happening?
If all you want is a hypercompetitive game, why not stick to PC games,
Indeed, expecting any wargame to be hypercompetative is a fools hope. There are far too many variables and they are usually too hard to define to make something absolutely balanced (which is essential for a real competitive game, not inbuilt exploits). The fact that you are looking for exploits means that you aren't actually a competitive gamer in the true sense of the word, in the PC gamer sense you are closer to a hacker Marlov.
There are pretty well balanced historical wargames, but they don't constantly inject new special rules every time someone has a "rule of cool" idea after a particularly boozy lunch.
DBA for example has been in use for 25 years now in popular casual and tournament play, and the only real area of imbalance is that the "Blades" troop variety has a slight statistical advantage.
Even so, everyone in the world doesn't play Roman armies, which have a lot of Blades, because there is enough variation of terrain and possible enemy armies to ensure that Romans have some "Achilles Heels".
Core AOS actually does look pretty balanced in terms of the basic stat lines. It doesn't look hard to put together balanced forces of standard units. It is the Monty Haul of special rules that is liable to ruin it.
For me i'm just insulted there are no points values. It's like instead of weighing something on a scale you guess somebody's weight or same goes for somebody's age. Sure you might get an estimate but it's not always accurate esp. for really big things. I mean imagine if people were like, "Instead of carbon dating this we're just gonna eyeball it and guess how old this fossilized tree is."
Why insulted? It's not like GW has written "feth you guys and your points too" in there lol. It's just making it easier to build an army is all. I imagine for a lot of newcomers (which are mainly the target here) it can be a bit overwhelming.
Why insulted? It's not like GW has written "feth you guys and your points too" in there lol. It's just making it easier to build an army is all. I imagine for a lot of newcomers (which are mainly the target here) it can be a bit overwhelming.
I can see why he feels insulted; GW sure didn't write this but people used to the old rules can feel this as a betrayal or an insult. You know, in the past, GW designers actually said why they used points value in their systems for a reason of having "fair" armies with relevant content rather than anyone being able to take 12 canons and 1 giant if they feel like it. And here in AoS, it is exactly the opposite of what they were doing before. Hell, it's actually the situation they were trying to prevent!
Times change and priorities as well ("our customers are mainly collectors!"), but memory remains...at least for those who were there at that time and still remember to say "yeah, that existed".
Newcomers don't really have that problem. Since they don't know what was before, they can take the game as it is right now - and have plenty of fun with it. So, beginners aren't actually overwhelmed, IMHO. It is harder to swallow for old vets, however. Some will adapt, others will quit...but this situation is still new. Let's give time to us players...and see what GW will really give us in the following months (no, "weeks" aren't enough to have a "big picture" of the real future of the game).
About the rules of AoS...they don't really matter if you play with your usual friends/circle of players. However, troubles come when you play "pick up" games with people you never met before. Unclear rules are then something in the way, because interpretations can be very different from one guy to another. When you're used to play one way, arguments will unavoidably happen when you play with someone who has another.
That's why having clear rules and a way to have "fair games" by balancing armies lists (points value or whatever else) is useful; you spend less time arguing with your opponent and more time actually playing. It has nothing to do with "not having fun" and "winning at all costs".
After all, the more time you spent thinking on house rules because the main ones aren't really good or clear, the less time you spent playing a game with something that doesn't need any clarification.
But, like I said, it's fine when you play with the same people all the time. It's just when you get out of that "comfort zone" that the true flaws of GW rules can be seen on the long term.
The game is boring as watch flies smash into the window.
If would be a kickstarter from a new company, I doubt would raise more than 100k. GW is living on the glory and addict of the past. They are gonna go down, that's why they keep on raising G the model price,is the only way to keep those fat profit in their pockets.
There are way much more funny and entertaining game out there.
Or even real life.
But that can wait.
Can it?!
I think I am going to buy the starter box just for the models. I may not be a great painter, but the models in that box are amazing. I can also use them for my 40k chaos, I don't think anyone in my FLGS would mind that they don't have backpacks.
Being competitive has no bearing whatsoever on you army list. If you were actually competitive you would play someone with the exact same models and see who is the better general. What you are doing is attributing a positive trait to you ability to recognize probability ratios better than someone else. That is not competitive.
Also, how about this for balance of armies. Did you notice that the more expensive models have slightly better rules? If two players spent the same $ they would have to start playing the last edition (1/2 $80 for corebook, $35 for army book, $70 for models) you would actually have a very balanced game between the two. Negash could be defeated by any other $115 worth of models in the game, because at that point he isn't able to summon anything. If you buy things to summon, his price goes up, and your opponent needs to buy more things to stop him.
The price may just be the key factor to balance, we just didn't want to admit it out loud...
$ cost doesn't always translate into points though, with the proliferation of dual-kit boxes. It works for some things, but not enough to make the best model.
I find it odd that people can say the lack of balance is perfectly fine for WHFB, but couldn't work in 40k. It feels like the narrative is being led by 40k players who don't care if WHFB is that structured because all they wanted was a smaller game they could put a little investment in on the side from 40k.
Lack of a balancing mechanism will be fine for people in their friend groups- but then, they never needed help in the first place. Otherwise, I think the success of AOS will continue to be severely diminished beyond the new sheen glow of this first box set.
flamingkillamajig wrote:So apparently Marlov is TFG.
For me i'm just insulted there are no points values. It's like instead of weighing something on a scale you guess somebody's weight or same goes for somebody's age. Sure you might get an estimate but it's not always accurate esp. for really big things. I mean imagine if people were like, "Instead of carbon dating this we're just gonna eyeball it and guess how old this fossilized tree is."
No, but I would rather play TFG than a whiney fluff-bunny that's going to complain because they lost to a decent list. It's everyone's own job to build a good army for the game they're playing. It's not my job to babysit them, or make them feel better about themselves, or be their camp counsellor.
I like point values EXACTLY because of what Talys said a page or two ago. As much as I think he's flying rodent gak crazy about so many things, he's right on there, except that I don't hide it at all. I WANT an advantage. I mean, BUILDING an advantage is part of the game: nobody faults a Magic player for building a good deck right?? If 95% of the game is coming prepared, then COME PREPARED!
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:Wow, that guy has something to prove. With tiny plastic army men and random dice rolls...
Glad to hear your idea of a good time is to make sure your oponnent doesn't.
Whether my opponent has a good time or not makes no impact on me having a good time. I really don't care, not any more than the guy I killed in BF4 or StarCraft. It's a game. You're supposed to win or lose. If you bring a crappy list, you'll probably lose. Which is just fine with me, as long as you don't complain about it after, because really what did you expect.
After a football game everyone shakes hands, right? Well and good, and I can shake hands with my opponent too. But nobody is sorry that they used whatever tricks they needed to win the game. And when Brady won the Superbowl, did he really care if the other guys had a good time? I don't even think he cared that anyone called him a cheater.
This
Not sure if troll.
If you want to be hyper competitive, then you should choose a game with more balance (like flames of war).(though I'm not sure if your implying that its alright to cheat, which would get you beaten up at FOW tournament )
I think this Age of Sigmar is a response to this. GW were always like "it's a narrative game guys".
bob82ca wrote:Thing I don't get about AOS is that I love making the army lists. I don't think I know anybody that dislikes it.
BobtheInquisitor wrote:I hate making army lists... WHFB game outcomes seemed to be determined in the list-writing phase, which makes WHFB less a contest of tactical skill or adaptive thinking so much as a contest of who wastes more free time on that particular part of the hobby. You can have that win every time.
I also gave up on GW's core two because they were too much about listbuilding (overloaded on 'strategy', to be generous), sometimes to a ridiculously nitpicky degree, relying on the 'meta' rather than the game. This was even before the hunt for the optimal units and builds in the unbalanced mess evolved into that mathhammer thing. You won because you have an army book, a calculator, and a knowledge of basic probability. Good for you. I'm so impressed I almost slipped into a coma.
Now you don't need a calculator to win in Warhammer, just a wallet.
However...
For me, the hobby is all about the models and the fluff. Maybe I'll be generous and including thinking about how I might want to paint my minis, too.
Wait, what was all that pining for tactical skill and adaptive thinking?
Maybe if I knew more people who aren't secret d-bags, I could appreciate some of the competitive nature of a war game, but as it is I'm done playing to win.
So, JohnHwangDD, if you're still interested we should game sometime.
Ah, so it was a stealth moan about people who think wargaming is about more than giggling at the dice result. Any dice result.
I'm not sure why you two should get together to game. The chances of one of you doing better than the other are just too great - a horrifying situation to contemplate! I guess you could play a narrative scenario about BFG ships entering the warp, using rubber bands. (be careful not to notice how much further one of you might manage to send them. Best to wear blindfolds while playing)
Kilkrazy wrote:
You are making the assumption that the purpose of army lists is to create an important strategic game play function for people to write army lists to maximise their chance of winning the game.
The original purpose of army lists was to ensure that the armies deployed on table top were realistic in composition and gave a fair fight. The purpose was not to find exploits that made one list stronger than another. This concept came into GW games because GW proved incapable of maintaining balance in their lists.
Just a pity the former's what GW turned it into, then.
Da Boss wrote:I'm tired of this WAAC vs. Casual debate. I really am. I feel like especially the "casual" side uses WAAC as a sort of straw man that shapeshifts to fit the needs of the situation.
Wanting a balancing mechanism does not make you WAAC. Playing to win does not make you WAAC.
I enjoy doing themed campaigns and scenarios with my friends. We will often swap sides after a campaign and play it again, and this is very satisfying.
I also play in tournaments. When planning a tournament list, I often come up with a background or model based concept for my army, and then build it as well as I can within that context... I will then go to the tournament and try my best to win every game without cheating and while being fair and polite to my opponent - my aim is to win, but also to be happy at the end of my game to buy my opponent a drink. A close fought game where I felt I gave it my all is the pinnacle of the tournament experience. I can lose the game and still walk away happy if a game was closely fought (winning it is obviously better, though!). I can also walk away from a loss if it taught me a lesson. I dislike losing due to obvious list imbalances however, as it teaches me nothing except "Chaos Daemons are unbalanced in 7th edition" for example.
Perhaps I am projecting, but I can't help but feel that the Studio feel that people like me who enjoy tournaments are "the wrong sort" and that this is an attempt to push us out or re-educate us into the right way of doing things. This seems crazy to me.
Thank goodness you turned up! I was starting to think things were a bit crazy myself, as if liking some listbuilding; liking balance and tactical play; liking to play to win and have fun*; liking settings, themes and scenarios; liking the personal challenge all that brings; and liking models, lovingly converted and painted; all at the same time, was my individual misconception of the entire wargaming hobby.
*GW said it, and amazingly I agree: the object of the game is to win, the point of the game is to have fun.
AllSeeingSkink wrote:+1. I'm incredibly sick of it, and it gets discussed in such black and whites when in reality most people lie somewhere in between. Things that particularly get on my nerves.
Spoiler:
"it's about having fun not being competitive" as if they are mutually exclusive. I have fun BECAUSE I am playing a competitive game, not in spite of it!!!!!
"It's not about whether you win or lose it's about having fun" as if this has anything to do with the price of fish in China. Just because I'm playing competitively doesn't mean I break down and cry when I lose, am TFG when I win or that any of that has an impact on how much I'm enjoying the game.
"As long as you play with reasonable people it's fine" Yeah, because it's sooo unreasonable to want well written and balanced rules
"it's fine if you just play casually instead of competitive" as if these mutually exclusive Personally I'd say I'm an incredibly "casual" player, I don't enter tournaments, I don't keep any tally of my wins or losses, I don't care whether I win or lose, I play for the sake of meeting up with friends more than anything.... but I still want to be somewhat competitive and have some structure to what I'm doing otherwise I might as well just be sitting in a bar chewing on nachos with mates or shooting spitballs at a wall.
"It's about narrative so these things don't matter" as if forging a narrative was independent of a solid rules base or indeed as if GW wrote narrative rules in the first place!. Fact is, I like narrative gaming, but I still like to use a solid rules base to start from and a proper points system to try and arrange the scenarios, otherwise it's just meaningless "pew-pew-pew"-ing to me.
"It's fine if you're willing to adapt the rules" as if it wouldn't be better if you didn't have to bend rules to make a workable game. I'd say I'm a very adaptable player, but I still like to have a set of clear and concise rules as my base so that when I'm adapting rules it's not just to fix blatant oversights of the writers but it's actually to forge new and interesting narratives! If you first have to fix the damned rules then it just takes me one step further away from forging a good narrative game.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Being competitive has no bearing whatsoever on you army list. If you were actually competitive you would play someone with the exact same models and see who is the better general. What you are doing is attributing a positive trait to you ability to recognize probability ratios better than someone else. That is not competitive.
if someone really thinks they're a better general, and not just a better listbuilder, they should be prepared to swap sides
Kilkrazy wrote: You are making the assumption that the purpose of army lists is to create an important strategic game play function for people to write army lists to maximise their chance of winning the game.
The original purpose of army lists was to ensure that the armies deployed on table top were realistic in composition and gave a fair fight. The purpose was not to find exploits that made one list stronger than another. This concept came into GW games because GW proved incapable of maintaining balance in their lists.
Just a pity the former's what GW turned it into, then.
It's actually turned into what you make of it.
When we play 40k, we do EXACTLY what Kilkrazy says. We compose armies and quasi-scenarios (most of which are planned) which we think are pretty fair, and will give more points to one side if we think it's not, and we build armies, generally, that fit some theme of our devising.
The number of games in a year where we play a list that remotely resembles what one would see in a tournament, you can count on your the fingers. Mostly, it's to answer questions like, "Is Skyhammer any good?" or, "Is Decurion beatable?" or, "How good are scatter laser jetbikes in practice vs theory?"
This is probably why we actually enjoy 40k. And how they play it (or how their group plays it) is probably why 40k makes some people really miserable. There's nothing wrong with competitive game play, but it's not fun if that's not what you're looking for, and the games can get pretty repetitive pretty quick.
Silent Puffin? wrote: Why can't you understand that a game which provides a structure and reasonable limits on what you can field on the tabletop in a given game will all but certainly result in a better experience than a game where you can field anything you like? One of the key reasons why I disiked 7th ed was the extremely unbalanced nature of the game, I remember playing games where I had almost no chance of winning (in one particularly galling example by an army made up entirely of unpainted proxies);how is that in anyway fun and how will AoS prevent this from happening?
Of course I understand. As I've said before, I like points, I like making lists (I have thousands!), and 40k is my thing. I happen to like the giant stompy robots, tanks, jets, and infantry, by the way, even though I totally agree that balance-wise, it makes no sense to have titan size models in a 28mm game. I think it's awesome, and that's all that matters to me.
However, I'm stating, however a few things, that I hope that you can likewise understand.
1. Points are a blunt instrument to balance armies, and in the case of games like AoS, WMH, and 40k (where the number of possible models and combinations of magical powers is extremely high) they often result in the illusion of fairness, because competitive vs casual 30 points or 25 wounds or 2000 points can wildly vary in strength.
2. You can achieve better, or nearly-perfect fairness between by either playing a preplanned scenario (read: start with these units, use this table size and layout), OR by working with your opponent to create such a scenario. It's even more fair if you cointoss to see who plays which side before the game starts, or if you are willing to iterate the scenario and improve upon its fairness.
3. If you simply want to do battle with two armies in AoS, it's actually not hard to balance those two armies.
4. In tabletop gaming, my experience is that I play against people with wildly varying skills, models, and experience levels. In games with points and lists, I therefore tune what I play to match my opponent. There will be games where I try my best with my best army and lose, for sure (and I don't mind). But there will be lots of games where I purposely select a less competitive army so that I can have a good game. In a game where I have any familiarity, with a measly 30 models, I don't need points to tell me if it's going to be close. This isn't too different from Magic (well, when I played it), where I have competitive decks as well as any number of casual decks because 75% of the people I play with would have no fun against a really good deck.
5. For some people, apparently quite a few who read Dakka, winning or losing is the result of the game. The process of the playing the game, or even the food during a break, is much more important. In tabletop gaming, I clearly fall into this category, with the caveat that miniatures and models are very important to me.
If all you want is a hypercompetitive game, why not stick to PC games,
Indeed, expecting any wargame to be hypercompetative is a fools hope. There are far too many variables and they are usually too hard to define to make something absolutely balanced (which is essential for a real competitive game, not inbuilt exploits). The fact that you are looking for exploits means that you aren't actually a competitive gamer in the true sense of the word, in the PC gamer sense you are closer to a hacker Marlov.
In fact, on the PC, I am probably much more competitive than Marlov. I never exploit and never cheat in the technical sense of the word (ie break the terms of service or game rules); however, I do look to abuse the rules to the maximum extent possible. In a few extremely popular games, I've hit the #1 worldwide and/or server ladder spot. Street Fighter 2 Turbo, too I've won cash prizes that were nothing to sneeze at, too (orders of magnitude higher than what you would ever be awarded at a tabletop wargame championship).
But the PC is a different world: while you're learning, you play against equally clueless players that that might as well be AI, and matchmaking makes it so that you advance past there in no time at all. When you reach the top (which won't take long), then you're competing against a handful of people as bloodthirsty as you, with the singular goal of reaching the top 10 or 20 on a ladder that contains millions or tens of millions of people. You will never compete (the game won't let you except by direct consent) against unskilled/unequipped players.
In other words: you're not spoiling anyone's fun, and you're not "TFG" if you and your opponent are like-minded and doing the same types of things.
To me, a PC game is the perfect environment for hypercompetitiveness, because the server matches you up with like-minded hypercompetitive players. Plus, you might not say 20 words to another player in an entire game. In contrast, a tabletop game is the perfect environment for social encounters, because that's exactly what it is.
I think it's a fool's errand to try to squeeze rules a PC game out of miniatures.
Can someone be hypercompetitive in one, and totally noncompetitive in the other? Well obviously, because you're looking at someone that fits that bill
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MadMarkMagee wrote: I think this Age of Sigmar is a response to this. GW were always like "it's a narrative game guys".
Yep. That's how I see it too. The rules, at least as they exist so far, make it impossible for someone to just bushwack you with a "competitive list" when you wish to play narrative, because as soon as you identify it, you say, "Wow, that's more powerful than what I've got, wanna tone it down?" instead of thinking, "Well, nothing I can do, that's 1850".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Lord Blackscale wrote: I think I am going to buy the starter box just for the models. I may not be a great painter, but the models in that box are amazing. I can also use them for my 40k chaos, I don't think anyone in my FLGS would mind that they don't have backpacks.
We played Age of Sigmar yesterday night for the first time, using unpainted models out of the starter box.
The game was tons of fun! Having played Warmachines once, Age of Sigmar is much easier to learn, and the simplicity of the basic rules is just much easier for me. There's not much that to remember (or forget!) and all the hard stuff is in the special rules, which you only have to read for your own units.
By the way, my desire to play a "competitive" game is zero. I don't need to prove how smart I am (or validate how smart I'm not!). I just want to have fun.
I don't see the problem with playing scenarios if Games Workshop sells books with enough of them that it's not repetitive. I'm much happier playing scenarios where the company tells me what units to field than building lists. I hate building lists, anyways, because I can never put in what I want. It always ends up being, my BF tells me, "That unit really sucks" or "That weapon really sucks", so I never get to build or paint what I want. Well obviously, I can, but then I know that I'm crippling myself, and I hate that.
I also hate getting bushwacked by some bunch of models that I'm not expecting to be able to flatten me without a hope of me doing anything interesting. It's not that I mind losing. I do that plenty with a smile as long as I have a good time. I just mind not doing... anything.
Also, I don't know how anyone can say that Age of Sigmar is expensive. As far as these things go, it just isn't, and pointing to expensive accessories to say what an evil company Games Workshop is, is just being silly. That's like saying movie theatres are evil for selling expensive popcorn.
4. In tabletop gaming, my experience is that I play against people with wildly varying skills, models, and experience levels. In games with points and lists, I therefore tune what I play to match my opponent. There will be games where I try my best with my best army and lose, for sure (and I don't mind). But there will be lots of games where I purposely select a less competitive army so that I can have a good game. In a game where I have any familiarity, with a measly 30 models, I don't need points to tell me if it's going to be close. This isn't too different from Magic (well, when I played it), where I have competitive decks as well as any number of casual decks because 75% of the people I play with would have no fun against a really good deck.
If GW puts out lots of good missions and scenarios, and puts effort into some thought of how to get games with all the army's smooth. I think Age of Sigmar will be ok.
Right now it's still a mess with people not even sure where to start with the game here, at this point the list building is efectivly just done with what you choose to buy. Seems front loaded to the sale entirely.
GW going to have to work realy hard for my community to gain faith again to start the game.
Sigvatr wrote: You know, what really saddens me about this entire discussion, is that for most people, the world is black and white.
If you don't like points, you're a casual peasant, if you want points, you immediately become a TFGWAAC COMPETITIIIIIIIVE player.
Yeah, I see a lot of this. Personally, I want a game on a balanced playing field because I find it more enjoyable. Yes, I enjoy doing my best to win (an aim which I think is also best suited to an even game) and would certainly not enjoy losing a ridiculously one sided game vs 10 Nagashes or whatever, but that doesn't make me WAAC. People also seem to forget that, just because a certain game has a points system in place, doesn't mean you have to use it. Just like many players are house ruling "wounds=points" for AoS, you can easily just slap your whole 40k collection on the table against an opponent who has done the same, and completely ignore points.
Sigvatr wrote: You know, what really saddens me about this entire discussion, is that for most people, the world is black and white.
If you don't like points, you're a casual peasant, if you want points, you immediately become a TFGWAAC COMPETITIIIIIIIVE player.
Realy there is still a system that's efectivly points, just every war scroll is pointed as 1. There will still be list building and all that, and will almost certenly be TFG and WAAC people in the world.
The game is difernt, but I don't think it's realy doing much difernt from most other games on the market in the end.
I am curious what GW actuly has coming in the next 6 months, there new army's I think will have to be amazing if they want to get this game of the ground.
From personal chats the eternals are a negative for the game within my community, with a lot of players just sick of the way GW already handles space marines they are quite unwilling to jump into this game with them.
The bases thing just seems like GW is too weak willed to take the risk of telling players that the round bases will improve there games, which is odd considering the huge risk they have taken with Age of sigmar.
I think GW still got a long way to go.
I've not played WFB in years but I do still have my Dwarf army. I've not played AOS so cannot comment as to my own experiences, but I will say this. From my own local community I've not heard a single negative comment about AOS from anyone who has actually played the the game.
There have been those who have dismissed it on principal without even trying it, but of those who have approached it with an open mind and given it a go I've heard only good things.
I've been of the opinion that WFB needed to be rebuilt from the ground up for a while now and as I've always been a historical gamer at heart I've never been that interested in forces being 'balanced'. After all no real battle has ever been fought between balanced armies.
Obviously all gamers are different but personally I've never been than enamoured by battles between roughly even forces on neutral ground. I prefer to achieve fairness through scenarios rather than force composition. Obviously this makes 'pick up and play' games difficult so I understand why many gamers prefer the comfort of points, but not me.
AOS sounda like a real breath of fresh air to me and I'm keen to give it a go.
Apple fox wrote: Realy there is still a system that's efectivly points, just every war scroll is pointed as 1. There will still be list building and all that, and will almost certenly be TFG and WAAC people in the world.
This actually isn't great, because not all warscrolls are equally effective; also, some warscrolls have unlimited maximums and others are limited to 1.
A better system that people seem to have settled on is Wounds and Keywords. If the two sides have about the same number of wounds, and are restricted to a similar number of types of units (warmachines, heroes, named heroes, etc.), the game will probably be reasonable, though of course, it still bears scrutiny, as not all heroes are made the same, nor ar all weak troops.
Apple fox wrote: The game is difernt, but I don't think it's realy doing much difernt from most other games on the market in the end.
I am curious what GW actuly has coming in the next 6 months, there new army's I think will have to be amazing if they want to get this game of the ground.
From personal chats the eternals are a negative for the game within my community, with a lot of players just sick of the way GW already handles space marines they are quite unwilling to jump into this game with them.
I'm very curious as to where it goes too! The whole Space Marine meme is not going to hurt Games Workshop. An overwhelming number of GW fans like Space Marines, so a lot of people who don't like the similarity with Space Marines would never have bought Sigmar anyhow. A more general statement is that Sigmar moves Fantasy from the realm of regimented, ranked up models to superheroes, immortals, wizards, and godly beings doing battle.
Aside from the mechanics, this is just a dramatic shift. Personally, I prefer the superheroes battle than the "realism" of mortal soldiers, but this, I think, more than "Space Marines" will hinder or help Games Workshop. With this shift, they win over one sizable demographic and outright lose exclude the interest of another sizable demographic.
Personally, I don't think it's possible to make both camps happy: you can't have a game with sub-40 models that supports both normal humans and supernatural immortals with any semblance of sense.
i dont get it still lol.
this game is super competitive.
everyone cries and says that because someone can take 300 nagash models and the other guy takes 300 skaven slaves and both armies are 'legal' that the game is broken.
thats never going to happen.
the way the armies deploy keeps the game fair. put out what you think you need to play that battle the way you want to play it.
yea it's kind of dull right now playing deathmatch, but the new scenarios will fix that. its easier to get a feel for the game by a simple death match and then add in scenarios once you know the rules.
as for tournaments, it'd be a crying shame if they put points on things. what they SHOULD do is approve the collection of models someone brings to a reasonable limit. each individual game, you can play whatever you want.
hate to break it all of you whining, but this isn't a real war. it's not a simulation. furthermore, in real war, things aren't fair. the sides aren't always fair.
if i knew my opponent was running a full tank company, why wouldnt i bring anti tank weapons?
the idea of a balanced, take all comers, pointed out list is so freaking boring and bland that i've quit tournaments all together.
AoS is competitive from the second you decide to start playing the game. movement and deploying is even more important than it used to be. the game is way better than it used to be. your big cool monsters don't get obliterated by one stupid cannon ball.
you don't get smoked because one spell goes off. every model on your shelf is now usable.
40k? not competitive. if you want competitive 40k, go play starcraft.
these miniatures games were built for fun and to nerd out. i dont care who you are, what blog you read or what tournaments you play. the whole idea of competitive 40k and fantasy was all about seeing who could manipulate the rulebook to break the game the best.
the game is more fun now, its easier to play and more people at all of the stores i frequent are showing interest in the medieval, fantasy aesthetic (which i much prefer to the sci-fi side) so my review? this is awesome.
and to everyone throwing a fit, keep putting your armies on ebay, ill keep buying them at pennies on the dollar and those models will see the tabletop for many hours of fluffy and competitive fun.
on a final note of my rant, it turns out that i can still be quickly outsmarted during deployment even with the new AOS rules. i need to stop getting baited into putting too many models down lol.
For me AoS is a "Major" Mind Set Change that does affect how we play and used to play.
It is like the difference between 1st Edition D&D and 4th Edition D&D.
In 1st Edition D&D and WHFB (or 40k for that fact) it was Me (The DM) vs. the Players and there was little to suggest different. In WHFB it was You and your Opponent shows up with Pre-Made Armies and basic said "Deal With It!".
4th Edition D&D Actively and Repeatedly encouraged everyone to work together. GW is going that route, they want Both! Players to stop and talk to each other about what Both! Players want our of the game they are about to play.
I am seeing this a lot in the discussion that reminds me of when I started my first 4e D&D Game I ran. I told the players to wright down and give me 5 Items/Goals that they wanted for their Character to achieve (As suggested in the DMG). I got a lot of 'Deer In The Headlight' looks and had one player said this was the stupidest thing he had ever heard. When I started the Second Campaign though everyone showed up with their list ready to hand in to me.
Personally I like this new direction. It will encourage better games in the long run when everyone starts to get into the rhythm of the new 'Mind Set'.
@raoiley - I agree with quite a bit of what you said. A fundamental question is: Does the game start on the coin toss, or does it start before we ever see each other and we're building lists?
The philosophy of many players is that, 'I build my list for an advantage' is no different than building a deck for advantage in Magic. Obviously, building a list is part of the game; the problem arises when one person wants to play their collection and compete with that, while another person thinks the competition stars before they've bought their first model (again, you could say the sane thing about Magic, and specifically just buy the cards you want).
The part that you said about seeing how much you can break the game is absolutely true; this is also the philosophy of min-max competitive players, but keep in mind that this is where their fun is at - figuring out super duper combos (or worse, reading them off the Internet) and using them on the table.
Personally, I am very happy with the philosophy that the game should start on a coin toss or die roll, and prior to that, we should work constructively to build a game where we both have an even chance of winning - or at least go into it thinking that.
Anpu42 wrote: For me AoS is a "Major" Mind Set Change that does affect how we play and used to play.
It is like the difference between 1st Edition D&D and 4th Edition D&D.
In 1st Edition D&D and WHFB (or 40k for that fact) it was Me (The DM) vs. the Players and there was little to suggest different. In WHFB it was You and your Opponent shows up with Pre-Made Armies and basic said "Deal With It!".
4th Edition D&D Actively and Repeatedly encouraged everyone to work together. GW is going that route, they want Both! Players to stop and talk to each other about what Both! Players want our of the game they are about to play.
I am seeing this a lot in the discussion that reminds me of when I started my first 4e D&D Game I ran. I told the players to wright down and give me 5 Items/Goals that they wanted for their Character to achieve (As suggested in the DMG). I got a lot of 'Deer In The Headlight' looks and had one player said this was the stupidest thing he had ever heard. When I started the Second Campaign though everyone showed up with their list ready to hand in to me.
Personally I like this new direction. It will encourage better games in the long run when everyone starts to get into the rhythm of the new 'Mind Set'.
I...feel like you and I have a very different experience of D&D.
I do agree, though, that WHFB vs. AoS has a lot in similarity to D&D 3.5 vs. 4E. However where I think you're wrong is in how positive of a comparison that is.
3.5 was certainly bloated and overcomplicated. Revenue was falling because everyone had bought what they needed for the game, and they needed to shake things up if they wanted the product to survive. And so came 4E. They take many of the valid concerns with 3.5 (that non-wizard classes seemed boring, that 1st level players seemed really weak, that people wanted more cinematic battles) and implemented a bunch of changes meant to make that better.
The result? Combats that took an hour. Powers for every class that took players forever to design. And a game so focused on combat that a great many players completely forgot about the roleplay elements. Though many players liked the system, WotC quickly realized how problematic many elements were. They stripped it back first with Essentials, and then replaced it entirely with 5E.
5E is what GW should have been going for. A lightweight but fair system, which is both easy for new players to get into but also contains all the depth that experienced players crave. In short, its a great core of a system that you can really take off and run with. 3.5 was a bloated mess, 4E was bloated in a different way, but 5E is the goldilocks solution between the two.
Age of Sigmar, like 4E, seeks to address many of those same problems. However the method of execution is fatally flawed, and simply adds so many more issues. The "simple and elegant" balancing mechanic in sudden death / model count breaks down EXTREMELY quickly. Though the game is designed as a skirmish game, it's clearly meant to scale up to large battles (skeletons have rules for up to 40 models per unit) but moving that many models individually is ridiculously tedious. The "measure to the model" actually actively discourages people converting their models, since it changes how the model is treated in game.
It's just a mess. Yeah it can be fun, like 4E was, but this is no goldilocks and never will be. It needs a ground-up rebuild.
Sigvatr wrote: You know, what really saddens me about this entire discussion, is that for most people, the world is black and white.
If you don't like points, you're a casual peasant, if you want points, you immediately become a TFGWAAC COMPETITIIIIIIIVE player.
Can't forge a narrative with grey. Though I have to say the black and white narrative is poor, people need to learn how to be better story tellers.
It's like politics. Pander to your base for the primary votes, then drive to the center when it comes prime time.
In other words, act all crazy online, be a pretty reasonable guy at the table Must be, because the ratio of reasonable people when I actually play is like... 95%, but you'd never know it in a forum. HATE IT! LOVE IT! DIE! DIE! DIE!
This game is garbage no matter if you are competitive or casual. If it was published by Mantic or PP, the same people here that like it would eat it alive. It happened wih KoW v1 that was 100x better ruleset than Age of Shame but all the GW crowd were like where's customisation, too simple too streamlined etc, well I guess not anymore.
The worst offender here is not even the ridiculous lack of balance, it's the lack of meaningful tactics, there are some ofc but compared to whfb 8th it's weak and to whfb 7th or KoW it's like checkers to chess. It's just dumber 40k which makes it quite dumb heh, just like the aesthetic atm is less balsy 40k. Why would I ever play this when I can play 40k.
Really to reboot such a huge game and waste potential to get it right, it's just sad. Not even a question of 4 pages, simple rules can be tactical hard to master etc. To release such a boring, uninspiring point and click simpleton where there are rulesets like SW Armada or Warmachine or KoW, they have no shame. I actualy hate Warmachine to the bone, aesthetic fluff even gameplay but Axing of System is like a meaningless, badly cut down version of that.
Sigvatr wrote: You know, what really saddens me about this entire discussion, is that for most people, the world is black and white.
If you don't like points, you're a casual peasant, if you want points, you immediately become a TFGWAAC COMPETITIIIIIIIVE player.
Can't forge a narrative with grey. Though I have to say the black and white narrative is poor, people need to learn how to be better story tellers.
It's like politics. Pander to your base for the primary votes, then drive to the center when it comes prime time.
In other words, act all crazy online, be a pretty reasonable guy at the table Must be, because the ratio of reasonable people when I actually play is like... 95%, but you'd never know it in a forum. HATE IT! LOVE IT! DIE! DIE! DIE!
Well at least Dakka will never hit the low levels of comment sections for political articles.
Sigvatr wrote: You know, what really saddens me about this entire discussion, is that for most people, the world is black and white.
If you don't like points, you're a casual peasant, if you want points, you immediately become a TFGWAAC COMPETITIIIIIIIVE player.
Can't forge a narrative with grey. Though I have to say the black and white narrative is poor, people need to learn how to be better story tellers.
It's like politics. Pander to your base for the primary votes, then drive to the center when it comes prime time.
In other words, act all crazy online, be a pretty reasonable guy at the table Must be, because the ratio of reasonable people when I actually play is like... 95%, but you'd never know it in a forum. HATE IT! LOVE IT! DIE! DIE! DIE!
Well at least Dakka will never hit the low levels of comment sections for political articles.
But we could use a #CPCSigmar, though.
This just in... The Donald buys The Games Workshop, kills all paints except the golds. Blames sluggish sales on Mexican rapist immigrants, though of he assumes some are good people. Tells Tom Kirby, "you're fired!" Bans Privateer Press employees from his golf courses. And Mark Mondragon. The Imperium of Man builds a giant intergalactic wall so that xenos can't get in. Makes Eldar pay for it. Marneus Calgar knows how to defeat Chaos but he's not going to tell anyone what it is. Azyr deports all duardin and aelf. Al stairs in Azyr replaced with golden escalators.
Tells enraged players he doesn't need their money, because he's REALLY rich.
Hopefully this will serve as a useful metaphor for those of us who think the idea of playing GW games "competitively" is a bit silly.
Speed Demon: I just spent $300,000 on this brand new Rolls Royce Phantom, and I am mad as HELL that it doesn't go 200mph! How am I supposed to win drag races??
Friend: Well, that's not really what a Rolls Royce Phantom is about. It's a 3 ton tank designed for comfort and status.
Speed Demon: But I paid $300,000 for it and I want it to go fast. I want to drive competitively!
Friend: Well, that's not what it does. Maybe next time you should look at any number of other fine high-end cars that will do exactly what you're looking for.
Speed Demon: But I like how it looks! I don't like how the other cars look! I like this one! I want it to go fast! I paid good money! They owe me!
Friend: They have, in the past, made "sport" editions as a half-hearted nod to sport driving enthusiasts, but they've always still been plush leather tanks. It's been pretty obvious for the past 20 years that going fast is not what giant Rolls Royce luxury cars are about. I really think you should look elsewhere.
Speed Demon: No! I paid good money for this thing! I am going to tear around the streets like it's a sports car anyway and no one better get in my way! And when I buy the next model as soon as it comes out, it damn well better be fast! If not, I am going to howl about it to the ends of the earth!
You are not at all a jerk for wanting to go fast and even win races against other like minded drivers. But you might be a jerk for racing on surface streets with people who aren't interested in racing.
And if going fast and winning races is what you want to do, you may want to reconsider your choice of car. Now that the ultra-plush luxury 4 ton edition is the only car that Rolls seems to be making, might be time to buy a Ferrari and Drive Like You've Got a Pair(TM).
Just a thought!
(Notice to our friends with Asperger's - no need to hop on Google to research whether I have my car facts accurate. It's very likely I don't. The point of the metaphor should still be apparent)
Without going into detail, we played a 50 wound game with two character max to try it out. We did the entire set up with all the terrain and rules for the terrain. Then set up armies and we have a go. Lasted about 5 turns with the Lizardmen dominating the ogres. Even though I got hammered, still had fun.
We both believe the Lizardmen are a force to be reckoned with. Lots of attacks and the ability to ignore rend makes them pretty tough. But was really over the top was the magic. I swore I was playing against the undead. The Lizardmen have the power to summon more Lizardmen during the hero phase...that kind of blows if your playing against them. Ogres did alright, but I wouldn't brag about them. Having your ability to rend taken away makes for an uphill battle. The Ogre magic was funny though and a tad powerful. I guess this balanced out the Lizardmen Magic. They raised....sorry, summoned more troops and the ogre butcher ate them up with the power of the great maw....literally.
Impressions.....
Liked the flow of the phases as we started to get them down.
Liked the random terrain roll and the terrain effects. Liked how they played a part in the battle.
Liked the easy nature of the rolls and the stats, but also appreciated the modifiers if the weapon posed them. Speeds up the game.
Really like the fluff of AoS and where it's going. It's about time the Warhammer story changed (even if it was drastic).
Didn't like measuring from model to model. We both agreed that we should measure from the base.
Both of us felt as if there wasn't enough to the rules...like something was missing. Couldn't really put a finger on it, but felt incomplete none the less.
Enjoyed AoS though and glad it doesn't take itself too seriously. Great beer and pretzel skirmish game as long as you agree on model wounds (count). Will be playing this again soon and my buddy already bought the starter set. I may as well. Can't wait to see what they do with this. The new models coming out are looking amazing.
BobtheInquisitor wrote:I hate making army lists... WHFB game outcomes seemed to be determined in the list-writing phase, which makes WHFB less a contest of tactical skill or adaptive thinking so much as a contest of who wastes more free time on that particular part of the hobby. You can have that win every time.
I also gave up on GW's core two because they were too much about listbuilding (overloaded on 'strategy', to be generous), sometimes to a ridiculously nitpicky degree, relying on the 'meta' rather than the game. This was even before the hunt for the optimal units and builds in the unbalanced mess evolved into that mathhammer thing. You won because you have an army book, a calculator, and a knowledge of basic probability. Good for you. I'm so impressed I almost slipped into a coma.
Now you don't need a calculator to win in Warhammer, just a wallet.
However...
For me, the hobby is all about the models and the fluff. Maybe I'll be generous and including thinking about how I might want to paint my minis, too.
Wait, what was all that pining for tactical skill and adaptive thinking?
You act as if I had never been young and competitive and tried things out to find out what I like and do not like. Besides, I hardly have to play the game to observe how others do. It's easy: if or when I want a competitive game, I want it to be a fair contest of skill or quick thinking, not who spent time on the internet reading up on other people's math.
Maybe if I knew more people who aren't secret d-bags, I could appreciate some of the competitive nature of a war game, but as it is I'm done playing to win.
So, JohnHwangDD, if you're still interested we should game sometime.
Ah, so it was a stealth moan about people who think wargaming is about more than giggling at the dice result. Any dice result.
That's a bit of a stretch. I've never jumped into any discussion on wargames to complain about people using points or playing competitively. In this thread, it came up that there could possibly be a game that comes from an entirely different perspective, a game without points, and that it could be a valid form of gaming. However, this point needs to be defended because apparently a lack of points makes the game garbage, or incomplete, or the worst thing ever. Clearly it is not the same kind of game as...almost every other wargame/tabletop game. If people want to play a game with points, there are already a ton of options. Some of them even sound good to me. I'm interested in playing KoW because it seems simple, easy to learn, quick to play, and has a potentially thriving community that will keep it expanding. Granted, I still won't play it with my competitive friends, but no game is so perfect that they won't find a way to try to make victory bitter or loss humiliating.
You want a game with points, fine. Go play one. You can even homebrew points for AoS easy-peasy. Just please stop pretending points are the only way to play and that there is something wrong or lacking from people who want to enjoy a (hopefully) fun game on its own terms.
I'm not sure why you two should get together to game. The chances of one of you doing better than the other are just too great - a horrifying situation to contemplate! I guess you could play a narrative scenario about BFG ships entering the warp, using rubber bands. (be careful not to notice how much further one of you might manage to send them. Best to wear blindfolds while playing)
Weren't you the guy just complaining about the arguments being black and white?
I explained how I feel. I demonstrated that there are players (at least one ) out there who don't care about pick up games, don't care for balance, don't like list building, and don't play to win (at least not as the primary point of the game). It's like you just can't conceive of any other reason to play a game.
Besides, the real danger is that a lively conversation might break out.
Xenocidal Maniac wrote: Hopefully this will serve as a useful metaphor for those of us who think the idea of playing GW games "competitively" is a bit silly.
Speed Demon: I just spent $300,000 on this brand new Rolls Royce Phantom, and I am mad as HELL that it doesn't go 200mph! How am I supposed to win drag races??
...
What a perfect analogy for Games Workshop and AoS.
A pile of crap selling on an old name that has a ridiculous set of "features" that makes it super overpriced, but totally nonfunctional for what its primary purpose should be. And both are made for people who don't care about money!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BobtheInquisitor wrote: That's a bit of a stretch. I've never jumped into any discussion on wargames to complain about people using points or playing competitively. In this thread, it came up that there could possibly be a game that comes from an entirely different perspective, a game without points, and that it could be a valid form of gaming. However, this point needs to be defended because apparently a lack of points makes the game garbage, or incomplete, or the worst thing ever. Clearly it is not the same kind of game as...almost every other wargame/tabletop game. If people want to play a game with points, there are already a ton of options. Some of them even sound good to me. I'm interested in playing KoW because it seems simple, easy to learn, quick to play, and has a potentially thriving community that will keep it expanding. Granted, I still won't play it with my competitive friends, but no game is so perfect that they won't find a way to try to make victory bitter or loss humiliating.
You want a game with points, fine. Go play one. You can even homebrew points for AoS easy-peasy. Just please stop pretending points are the only way to play and that there is something wrong or lacking from people who want to enjoy a (hopefully) fun game on its own terms.
I don't know why people like you don't understand that taking away points makes it impossible for two people to just meet and play without writing a peace accord. Not to mention it totally kills the best part of the game.. BUILDING AN EFFECTIVE ARMY!!
What is the point of playing a tabletop wargame, if you can't build an army within certain parameters? You might as well just go play chess or checkers, where all the models are preset, and both sides have the same thing. Perfect balance and it takes a minute to set up the board and it doesn't cost hundreds of dollars.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I explained how I feel. I demonstrated that there are players (at least one ) out there who don't care about pick up games, don't care for balance, don't like list building, and don't play to win (at least not as the primary point of the game). It's like you just can't conceive of any other reason to play a game.
Besides, the real danger is that a lively conversation might break out.
List building isn't the ONLY reason to play a game, but it IS part of a wargame. GW is gonna go broke trying to sell to gamers who don't care about pickup games don't care for balance, don't like list building and don't like list building, and don't play to win. If you don't like all that... go read a book or watch a movie or play Wii?
What you're playing sounds like Monopoly where nobody buys any of the properties but you roll dice to run around the board in circles.
Xenocidal Maniac wrote: Hopefully this will serve as a useful metaphor for those of us who think the idea of playing GW games "competitively" is a bit silly.
Speed Demon: I just spent $300,000 on this brand new Rolls Royce Phantom, and I am mad as HELL that it doesn't go 200mph! How am I supposed to win drag races??
...
What a perfect analogy for Games Workshop and AoS.
A pile of crap selling on an old name that has a ridiculous set of "features" that makes it super overpriced, but totally nonfunctional for what its primary purpose should be. And both are made for people who don't care about money!
For you a car is nonfunctional because it can't hit 200mph? Please tell me you take public transportation!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BobtheInquisitor wrote: That's a bit of a stretch. I've never jumped into any discussion on wargames to complain about people using points or playing competitively. In this thread, it came up that there could possibly be a game that comes from an entirely different perspective, a game without points, and that it could be a valid form of gaming. However, this point needs to be defended because apparently a lack of points makes the game garbage, or incomplete, or the worst thing ever. Clearly it is not the same kind of game as...almost every other wargame/tabletop game. If people want to play a game with points, there are already a ton of options. Some of them even sound good to me. I'm interested in playing KoW because it seems simple, easy to learn, quick to play, and has a potentially thriving community that will keep it expanding. Granted, I still won't play it with my competitive friends, but no game is so perfect that they won't find a way to try to make victory bitter or loss humiliating.
You want a game with points, fine. Go play one. You can even homebrew points for AoS easy-peasy. Just please stop pretending points are the only way to play and that there is something wrong or lacking from people who want to enjoy a (hopefully) fun game on its own terms.
I don't know why people like you don't understand that taking away points makes it impossible for two people to just meet and play without writing a peace accord. Not to mention it totally kills the best part of the game.. BUILDING AN EFFECTIVE ARMY!!
Take away points? When did AoS have points for them to be taken away?
Pretty sure the best part of a miniatures game is not the part that involves a pencil, paper, a calculator, and no minis. Besides, you must have meant DOWNLOADING AN EFFECTIVE LIST!!!
A peace accord? You mean a conversation? Heaven forbid.
You would probably be happier if you didn't try to play pick up games that aren't designed for it. There are plenty of existing, supported games where you don't even have to acknowledge the other player exists if you are willing to pretend his or her pieces are moving on their own. Have you tried Warmahordes? I hear that works.
What is the point of playing a tabletop wargame, if you can't build an army within certain parameters? You might as well just go play chess or checkers, where all the models are preset, and both sides have the same thing. Perfect balance and it takes a minute to set up the board and it doesn't cost hundreds of dollars.
This is hilarious because my advice to you was to play chess. You want a competitive game where victory means something and you can crush another player? That's chess. GW games are the kind where you spend more money or time than your opponent to ensure you never have to play a fair game and then go through the motions.
PS: AoS has parameters. They are just wildly different from the parameters WHFB used...well, except that in both cases the parameters come out of your wallet in the end.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I explained how I feel. I demonstrated that there are players (at least one ) out there who don't care about pick up games, don't care for balance, don't like list building, and don't play to win (at least not as the primary point of the game). It's like you just can't conceive of any other reason to play a game.
Besides, the real danger is that a lively conversation might break out.
List building isn't the ONLY reason to play a game, but it IS part of a wargame.
Except for the wargame Age of Sigmar. It's not part of that wargame.
GW is gonna go broke trying to sell to gamers who don't care about pickup games don't care for balance, don't like list building and don't like list building, and don't play to win.
GW is going to go broke anyway. When GW writes games with points, they still lose money! People who care about pickup games, balance and list building all hate GW. People who play to win play other games already.
I get that AoS isn't for you. Maybe GW isn't trying to sell to you any more. Maybe they never were.
If you don't like all that... go read a book or watch a movie or play Wii?
What you're playing sounds like Monopoly where nobody buys any of the properties but you roll dice to run around the board in circles.
That's as silly as playing AoS with points. It's almost like you are suggesting playing a game on it's own terms...but then you hate that when those terms don't include points.
And I would much prefer to read a book than actually play a game most of the time. But I do have these minis. And there is finally a rule set that appeals to my unprofitable niche.
@Marlov. I don't see how you can criticise someone else's enjoyment if a game when you think list building is the best part of a wargame?!? That's not even playing a game just an ancillary task you might do before a game.
And no list building isn't a requirement of wargaming, to suggest it is just daft. Some games do some games don't. Broaden your horizons.
We had our big playtest yesterday.
Chaos versus (my) Lizardmen, around 80 wounds each.
It was something between a demo (given by me) and a game.
In regard to the result of the battle: The Slann can summon more Lizardmen than any Chaos can chew. Not that i did summon anything by the way, but i showed what i could do.
The game proved indeed easy to learn.
We found alternating (close) combat a good detail. Alternate activation of 1 unit per player would have been better. But WHFB (sadly) never had that.
Magic easy and streamlined, like Warmaster.
But the longer we played, the more we knew that for veteran gamers like us (25+ years) there is nothing to master, no tactics or the kind of depth that we need.
Absence of anything to think (much) about, above all how to move your units; no closed formations, so no flanking or rear-charges.
The most important conclusion was that we will have to hope and see if there will be rules for the player that wants depth.
Furthermore we agree that WHFB 8th (without the 6th spell) was the best edition we had, so worse case scenario is that that is what we will play in the future with our collections.
Or play Kings of War; rules seem allright, allthough that does not include some WHFB armies and many models we have and we all don't care much for most Mantic models, so that is just the same problem the other way around.
Final conclusion: AoS can be fun if you play scenario's, stories and just like to play a fast-paced game to have fun.
It might work, but this does not work for us, so we REALLY hope for a future ruleset for the veteran gamer...
What a perfect analogy for Games Workshop and AoS.
A pile of crap selling on an old name that has a ridiculous set of "features" that makes it super overpriced, but totally nonfunctional for what its primary purpose should be. And both are made for people who don't care about money!
Ok, so we have established that your subjective opinion regarding GW and its product is as follows:
- It is "a pile of crap" (which generally carries negative connotations - I am assuming you are not a fan of crap, correct?)
- It has ridiculous features
- It is super overpriced
- Totally non-functional for what its primary purpose "should" be ("should" according to your 100% subjective opinion)
- Made for people who don't care about money
It's clear from your comments that GW's products do not meet your desires for competitive gaming. You are majorly dissatisfied. Or, to use my metaphor, their car doesn't go nearly fast enough for your liking. However, you feel that their car "should" go fast. Yet it doesn't and never has.
Going further, would it be fair to say that they have been pretty clear about their lack of intent to tailor their games for competitive play? They've always been very upfront about all this "forge the narrative" and "the most important rule is to have fun" and "sportsmanship" nonsense. Additionally, their rules and points systems have always been slipshod. Going back to my metaphor, we will liken this to saying that their car breaks down a lot and that they also have clearly stated that their cars are not designed for racing. But they don't care because they're not selling speed and reliability. They're selling to an entirely different market that doesn't care about those things.
In spite of your clear statements that their products do not meet your needs and in spite of clear overtures that they never intend to meet your needs, you continue to buy. You also continue to complain. You also continue to state that you are entitled to GW's absolute accommodation of your desires.
In light of all this, I would like you to explain to me why the Speed Demon in my analogy does not describe you exactly. Please tell me. And I will warn you; any further attempts at obfuscation won't work with me. I want you to answer the question I have posed to you and I want you to answer it directly. Give me a convincing argument that you are not the Speed Demon I describe.
I'll give you a gold star if you manage to come up with one.
What a perfect analogy for Games Workshop and AoS.
A pile of crap selling on an old name that has a ridiculous set of "features" that makes it super overpriced, but totally nonfunctional for what its primary purpose should be. And both are made for people who don't care about money!
Ok, so we have established that your subjective opinion regarding GW and its product is as follows:
- It is "a pile of crap" (which generally carries negative connotations - I am assuming you are not a fan of crap, correct?)
- It has ridiculous features
- It is super overpriced
- Totally non-functional for what its primary purpose "should" be ("should" according to your 100% subjective opinion)
- Made for people who don't care about money
It's clear from your comments that GW's products do not meet your desires for competitive gaming. You are majorly dissatisfied. Or, to use my metaphor, their car doesn't go nearly fast enough for your liking. However, you feel that their car "should" go fast. Yet it doesn't and never has.
Going further, would it be fair to say that they have been pretty clear about their lack of intent to tailor their games for competitive play? They've always been very upfront about all this "forge the narrative" and "the most important rule is to have fun" and "sportsmanship" nonsense. Additionally, their rules and points systems have always been slipshod. Going back to my metaphor, we will liken this to saying that their car breaks down a lot and that they also have clearly stated that their cars are not designed for racing. But they don't care because they're not selling speed and reliability. They're selling to an entirely different market that doesn't care about those things.
In spite of your clear statements that their products do not meet your needs and in spite of clear overtures that they never intend to meet your needs, you continue to buy. You also continue to complain. You also continue to state that you are entitled to GW's absolute accommodation of your desires.
In light of all this, I would like you to explain to me why the Speed Demon in my analogy does not describe you exactly. Please tell me. And I will warn you; any further attempts at obfuscation won't work with me. I want you to answer the question I have posed to you and I want you to answer it directly. Give me a convincing argument that you are not the Speed Demon I describe.
I'll give you a gold star if you manage to come up with one.
Awrite, I explain. We use your analogies for fun.
The problem with the Rolls Royce isn't that I want to run it at 200mph. It's got the same problem as the Ferrarri. The problem is that I the main thing I wanna do is drive it as a car and get from point a to point b, and it's totally impractical for that. Forget about driving at 200mph, both cars are more likely to break down than anything else. Unless your stupid rich you can't afford it, and even if you buy one you can't afford to keep it in good order. Your just better off buying a Chevy, but ok, you have 300k to blow, so you get a car that is totally impractical.
Same thing with the way they picture gw games. even if you can afford to buy the models unless you have more time than god you wont be able to paint models that look anything like what is on the website, so what does it matter how awesome you think the plastic is. most people can't paint them worth gak anyhow. be honest, the main reason most people buy the game is to play the game. And as a game it's a terrible game at the basic thing a wargame is supposed to accomplish... 2 people duking it out to determine a victor.
and I'm not the only person in the world who wants thinks the whole idea of singing kumbaya with your opponent before every game is ridiculous. I'm not saying you can't be friends. Invite them to your bbq, go to have burgers after, whatever, but when you play, you play to win. Yes some people care more than others, but everyone cares, or you would not play a game that has a winner or loser.
By the way, I am a WM/H player, which is the real gem. Yes, its also expensive, but at least it makes a good game. Just pick the number of points, two strangers can sit down and enjoy a game. No pregame treaty. Of course one list can destroy another list, so what? Do your research first and that wont happen. Or don't and learn as you go, but don't cry about it when you lose. But most WM/H players aren't like this. It's only the GW crowd where you have a part who want to be non-competitive... like conflict free war games.
Which is like the guy who buys a car, but doesn't want to drive.
Did you find it always turns into a big scrum in the middle?
Lack of tactical factors?
The worst part about the game is that it assumes that 2 sides should start out equal. If forces you to negotiate with your opponent before the game starts, which is totally counter to killing your opponent after. So basically the honest person punished and the person who argues for their advantage is rewarded. I mean how dumb is that?
The game only works at all if the two people are totally .. and equally .. honest. And I just don't think that happens much because at the end of the day, ok maybe not EVERYONE, but almost everyone wants to win, so they will have some kind of bias. So you're better off with a GOOD point system. Yah, there is netlisting, but so what, that's just doing your homework. If the French had done their homework, the Germans wouldn't have rolled all over them, rite? Life ain't fair, don't do your prep, you lose.
It shouldn't be your opponents job to go, "Hey, your army sucks, so I'll dumb down mine." It should be your opponents job to show you that your army sucks by beating you to a wet noodle so that you smarten up.
Marlov wrote: Same thing with the way they picture gw games. even if you can afford to buy the models unless you have more time than god you wont be able to paint models that look anything like what is on the website, so what does it matter how awesome you think the plastic is. most people can't paint them worth gak anyhow. be honest, the main reason most people buy the game is to play the game.
I think that's a pretty broad assumption to make lol.
Xenocidal Maniac wrote: Hopefully this will serve as a useful metaphor for those of us who think the idea of playing GW games "competitively" is a bit silly.
Speed Demon: I just spent $300,000 on this brand new Rolls Royce Phantom, and I am mad as HELL that it doesn't go 200mph! How am I supposed to win drag races??
Friend: Well, that's not really what a Rolls Royce Phantom is about. It's a 3 ton tank designed for comfort and status.
Speed Demon: But I paid $300,000 for it and I want it to go fast. I want to drive competitively!
Friend: Well, that's not what it does. Maybe next time you should look at any number of other fine high-end cars that will do exactly what you're looking for.
Speed Demon: But I like how it looks! I don't like how the other cars look! I like this one! I want it to go fast! I paid good money! They owe me!
Friend: They have, in the past, made "sport" editions as a half-hearted nod to sport driving enthusiasts, but they've always still been plush leather tanks. It's been pretty obvious for the past 20 years that going fast is not what giant Rolls Royce luxury cars are about. I really think you should look elsewhere.
Speed Demon: No! I paid good money for this thing! I am going to tear around the streets like it's a sports car anyway and no one better get in my way! And when I buy the next model as soon as it comes out, it damn well better be fast! If not, I am going to howl about it to the ends of the earth!
You are not at all a jerk for wanting to go fast and even win races against other like minded drivers. But you might be a jerk for racing on surface streets with people who aren't interested in racing.
And if going fast and winning races is what you want to do, you may want to reconsider your choice of car. Now that the ultra-plush luxury 4 ton edition is the only car that Rolls seems to be making, might be time to buy a Ferrari and Drive Like You've Got a Pair(TM).
Just a thought!
(Notice to our friends with Asperger's - no need to hop on Google to research whether I have my car facts accurate. It's very likely I don't. The point of the metaphor should still be apparent)
Your analogy is totally inappropriate though.
You buy a game, 2 people play the game, the game can be competitive (if it's written well enough).
If you bought a <insert car here> and your friend also bought <insert similar car here> then you COULD race them competitively against each other. Or you could buy one car and do some hot seat racing.
Buying a car and complaining it's not competitive has no parallel in wargaming.
The car is more like the miniatures that make up the wargame, not the wargame itself.
I began this hobby 25+ years ago for the combination of creativity and gaming (which is social interaction, challenging and IMO fun).
I buy models and whole armies because i like the models and because i have an idea of how i want them to look.
And i for one can make them look how i want them to look.
And that does not mean that i paint every model "Golden Daemon" quality, i don't have time for that indeed, more importantly i paint them at the level i want them to be, which varies per game, army and model.
I actively advise people that do NOT like creative part NOT to get into this hobby. They should rather get into specific types of computer games and/or boardgames.
Xenocidal Maniac wrote: Hopefully this will serve as a useful metaphor for those of us who think the idea of playing GW games "competitively" is a bit silly.
Speed Demon: I just spent $300,000 on this brand new Rolls Royce Phantom, and I am mad as HELL that it doesn't go 200mph! How am I supposed to win drag races??
Friend: Well, that's not really what a Rolls Royce Phantom is about. It's a 3 ton tank designed for comfort and status.
Speed Demon: But I paid $300,000 for it and I want it to go fast. I want to drive competitively!
Friend: Well, that's not what it does. Maybe next time you should look at any number of other fine high-end cars that will do exactly what you're looking for.
Speed Demon: But I like how it looks! I don't like how the other cars look! I like this one! I want it to go fast! I paid good money! They owe me!
Friend: They have, in the past, made "sport" editions as a half-hearted nod to sport driving enthusiasts, but they've always still been plush leather tanks. It's been pretty obvious for the past 20 years that going fast is not what giant Rolls Royce luxury cars are about. I really think you should look elsewhere.
Speed Demon: No! I paid good money for this thing! I am going to tear around the streets like it's a sports car anyway and no one better get in my way! And when I buy the next model as soon as it comes out, it damn well better be fast! If not, I am going to howl about it to the ends of the earth!
You are not at all a jerk for wanting to go fast and even win races against other like minded drivers. But you might be a jerk for racing on surface streets with people who aren't interested in racing.
And if going fast and winning races is what you want to do, you may want to reconsider your choice of car. Now that the ultra-plush luxury 4 ton edition is the only car that Rolls seems to be making, might be time to buy a Ferrari and Drive Like You've Got a Pair(TM).
Just a thought!
(Notice to our friends with Asperger's - no need to hop on Google to research whether I have my car facts accurate. It's very likely I don't. The point of the metaphor should still be apparent)
Your analogy is totally inappropriate though.
You buy a game, 2 people play the game, the game can be competitive (if it's written well enough).
If you bought a <insert car here> and your friend also bought <insert similar car here> then you COULD race them competitively against each other. Or you could buy one car and do some hot seat racing.
Buying a car and complaining it's not competitive has no parallel in wargaming.
The car is more like the miniatures that make up the wargame, not the wargame itself.
rock, paper, scissors can be a highly competitive game, its not exactly Shakespeare... GW made a game, AoS it can be played competitively if you so wish... but apparently its not the "style" of competitiveness that you wanted and therefore you complain (not you, but people in general) that the game is not the type of competitive game that YOU wanted.
easier example, which is more competitive, car racing or snail racing?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ORicK wrote: I began this hobby 25+ years ago for the combination of creativity and gaming (which is social interaction, challenging and IMO fun).
I buy models and whole armies because i like the models and because i have an idea of how i want them to look.
And i for one can make them look how i want them to look.
And that does not mean that i paint every model "Golden Daemon" quality, i don't have time for that indeed, more importantly i paint them at the level i want them to be, which varies per game, army and model.
I actively advise people that do NOT like creative part to get into this hobby. They should rather get into specific types of computer games and/or boardgames.
its funny, I know a person at my GW store who spent a YEAR painting a model yet has only used it 3-4 times that year alone... seems to me the hobby is all about building and painting miniatures, everything else is just an added bonus...
If I wanted a competitive game with dice I would play backgammon and I do but whenever I ask the people at the GW for a game they all look at me like I am crazy... I guess if you cannot use your built/painted toys what is the point right
One thing that is absolutely clear is that AOS has polarised community opinion in a similar way to 6th/7th edition 40K (that introduced Unbound, formations, variable charge distance.)
@Marlov - the car example works in the context of, you buy a car made for X features, and complain that it's lousy for Y features. It's not meant to compare the price of a Rolls Royce (or a Camry) with plastic models. Obviously more people can afford AoS than quarter-million dollar cars
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ORicK wrote:I actively advise people that do NOT like creative part to get into this hobby. They should rather get into specific types of computer games and/or boardgames.
I couldn't agree more. I think that tabletop wargames are the world's crappiest replacement for StarCraft, if that's your thing. Your competitor pool is likely less than a hundred people (certainly less than a thousand), versus millions or tens of millions of other players that can be electronically matched instantly to you.
The awesomeness that is tabletop wargames is entirely in the creative part, IMO. Without the great miniatures and the creative work done on them, all you have is a bad computer game. I mean, you can even play computer games with your friends in person, if you want them more social.
Kilkrazy wrote:One thing that is absolutely clear is that AOS has polarised community opinion in a similar way to 6th/7th edition 40K (that introduced Unbound, formations, variable charge distance.)
Amen!
I don't think that it's a bad thing that AoS seeks to carve out a niche not currently served by WM/H (I'm talking about gameplay, not models). If it were "like WM/H but with different models" and tried to grab the same eyeballs, GW would be attempting to pry happy customers away from a game that they're satisfied with. So why not go after customers who don't have a happy hobby home?
At least, nobody can say AoS is a ripoff of another product, right?
Emicrania wrote: I played my VC counts against empire and force of destruction. The game is boring. That's all.
try a scenario... make a story, create a goal, have a destination... create the fun.
Not speaking for him/her but creating a scenario in a game where you dont like the gameplay will not change anything. If I hate Starcraft, the campaign story and objective based missions dont help a bit and on the other hand, I dont need a script or a scenario for Close Combat, Combat Mission Shock Force, Wargame AB or Empire Total War, I can just play pitched battles for hours.
It's just like "fix the game yourself" suggestions for me. Age of Scrubs is so bad at its core that nothing there is worth salvaging, if they brought me that little streamlined tactical gem of a game without points then hell, I could sit down and create a point system.
From a model perspective alone I'm real impressed with AoS. these are some of the best minis I've gotten in a long time. I've been having lots of fun building and painting up the starter minis though, and that's 99% of the hobby for me anyway. I'm planning to paint up both armies, and then see which one I'd rather collect more of and then probably sell the other one. Right now I'm leaning toward SigMarines, but that might just be ShineyNew Syndrome.
I haven't played it yet, and don't know when I will since I hardly get to play anything but my own games lately.. I do appreciate the small amount of rules and what seems like a more laid back style of play rather than a game for tourneys, since I'm a laid back kinda gamer.
Mostly a lurker here, but I want to chime in with my impressions. As a quick background, I used to play Warhammer Fantasy in the early days. I wanted to get into 8th, but when I saw what they did to the game (the huge model count required to make gigantic blocks of unwieldy infantry), I lost interest. I just play with my friends, I don't go to stores, play pick up games, etc. We mainly have fun through creating a campaign, but at the same time, we want a balanced and fair game.
That begin said, I really wanted Games Workshop to succeed here. I love the Old World, but I wasn't exactly attached to the fluff, so blowing it up doesn't bother me (though I can definitely understand why it bothers others). The new fluff was kind of intriguing, and I always love the concepts of planes, so I was interested. I don't have any concerns with being able to use old models. While the idea of Sigmarines (Seriously, I tried to type Sigmarites into my phone when texting my friend and it autocorrected it to Sigmarines), is completely unoriginal, I can't deny that all of the models are gorgeous and look like they'd be fun to paint.
Then I started to read about the game before I bought anything, because the direction Games Workshop has been going in isn't one I've liked. And what I read sounds horrific. Four pages of rule, most of the depth stripped out and replaced by utter randomness disguising itself as strategy. I watched several video battle reports (Using the figures from the boxed set, I'm not interested in legacy armies), and battles all ended up with a huge melee in the center, completely dependent on luck. Maneuvering didn't seem to matter. There's a little decision making. In some cases, it was critical to choose what order to activate models in, but its so limited as to be a non-factor. There's simply no game here in my eyes. It's just rolling massive amounts of dice and hoping for the best.
So I haven't bought it. I'll keep reading and see how the game develops. I'm hoping there's something else here, cause I'd love to play an awesome new game. But so far, this isn't it for me.
*** That being said, I know many people here are arguing about what this game's intended audience is, what style of game is it, etc. I think these arguments are missing the point. Games Workshop believes it can make whatever it wants to and people will buy it. This game wasn't designed for a certain aspect of the wargaming crowd, for casual players, etc. It was designed to extract as much money as possible from the ground up from its player base. While there are people here arguing that you can somehow create a fair game out of the skeleton frame GW has given us, I would hope that most people realize its simply impossible. There's no way to have a balanced battle, and most games are going to result in slaughters in which players try to balance it themselves, which gets tiring.
But wait! There's an answer. GW scenarios. Those will be balanced and give an opportunity for fair fights more than likely. And you'll only have to buy a $74 book to do it! Not only that, but do you think there are going to be scenarios that balance out legacy forces? Probably not. The first book will likely have general scenarios that provide no balance and scenarios that use the Sigmarite and Khorne forces. Meaning if you do want some balance, you're going to have to buy the new models.
Then GW can release new, successive campaign books as quickly as they desire, each one either escalating the model count of existing armies (Sigmarites and Khorne), or being exclusively for the release of new armies (Duardin for example) forcing you to purchase more and more models if you want to play fresh scenarios that have actually gone through some form of play testing. This ensures, at least they think, a steady stream of income while phasing out the use of old, unsupported models as opposed to their old model, which they think people just bought an army or a few models and then stopped. Who knows actually, cause there's no market research going on.
Then you have the summoning mechanic, which to me is, is clearly a very cynical way for GW to sell even more models. More and more armies are able to summon (in some cases infinitely), and as more rules are released, we find out some of them can summon as well (I recall rules for a Sigmarite or a formation that allowed you to summon Stormcast Eternals). It's impossible to balance, and if both players don't have the option to summon, I feel sorry for the player without it, but it sure is a great way to sell a ton of models. At least in GW's eyes.
I know the answer some will give to a lot of what I've written is, "You have to house rule it! Create your own rules, ignore what you don't like!" My answer is - If I'm spending this much money on a game, I shouldn't have to essentially create the game for the designers and put in all of the time and effort to play test it that they're supposed to be doing to make it fun. It's just insulting to me as a customer, and speaks to how little GW respects me. And if that's the case, I'll vote with my wallet and buy Infinity instead. I'll just have to dream that one day GW will want me as a customer to spend money on their products again.
Plumbumbarum wrote:Not speaking for him/her but creating a scenario in a game where you dont like the gameplay will not change anything. If I hate Starcraft, the campaign story and objective based missions dont help a bit and on the other hand, I dont need a script or a scenario for Close Combat, Combat Mission Shock Force, Wargame AB or Empire Total War, I can just play pitched battles for hours.
It's just like "fix the game yourself" suggestions for me. Age of Scrubs is so bad at its core that nothing there is worth salvaging, if they brought me that little streamlined tactical gem of a game without points then hell, I could sit down and create a point system.
Yeah, if a game isn't fun, a scenario probably won't change much. On the subject of 'fix it yourself', there are varying degrees of this, and a lot of it depends on how much you like a game.
I think that if you love a fame but it doesn't work well for a particular purpose, it's worth changing up (like 40k tournaments). If it's a game you enjoy, but not love, it still might be worthwhile to just change the rules you don't like, if it's not a lot of them (like measuring from bases). Some games just differ too much from what you're looking for to make sense to fix, and I think this is where AoS is for some people.
Plus, like any other miniature game, if you don't love the miniatures, it's pretty hard to I've the game.
OTOH, it's very hard to find the perfect game with the perfect miniatures!
Necros wrote:From a model perspective alone I'm real impressed with AoS. these are some of the best minis I've gotten in a long time. I've been having lots of fun building and painting up the starter minis though, and that's 99% of the hobby for me anyway. I'm planning to paint up both armies, and then see which one I'd rather collect more of and then probably sell the other one. Right now I'm leaning toward SigMarines, but that might just be ShineyNew Syndrome.
I haven't played it yet, and don't know when I will since I hardly get to play anything but my own games lately.. I do appreciate the small amount of rules and what seems like a more laid back style of play rather than a game for tourneys, since I'm a laid back kinda gamer.
For me right now, it is also 95% models, even though the game was fun enough. It's nothig against AoS, but just like you, I'm constrained for game time, and 40k remains my first choice.
I think there's something here with the simplified rules people aren't considering - being able to play a pickup game with someone who hasn't analyzed the rules for a week prior.
I loved collecting/painting fantasy armies in 5th - 8th but played so rarely that every time I'd finally get to have a game I was a noob again who couldn't remember any of the basic rules. (I play way more 40k than fantasy)
Whats great about the new rules is I could play an hour game with a buddy who drops by and doesn't normally play Warhammer - I could even get my wife to try a game or 2 and she could pickup on the rules pretty fast. And if I don't play for a year I could read the rules in 15 min and be able to play.
To me this is gold.
Now for competative gaming, there will eventually, and probobly in the near future, develop a standardized way of list building.
Think of magic the gathering (which I haven't played in 15 years so bear with me) - there was no rule in the starting rulebook that you had to play with atleast 60 cards, maximum 4 of any kind, a restricted list where you could only have 1 of each and a banned list of cards that weren't allowed - this came with time.
But did people kick and scream that magic was completely unfair and broken and designed for children? No. Did they make stupid lists that said take 20 black lotuses, timetwisters and djinns and say just say I win, good game? No - Players were always driven to make fun decks and have fun games.
In AOS without competative rules, people will gravitate towards building fun lists.
1. NO POINTS! - I understand the serious problems this raises for pickup games. However RE, list building and competitive players I think that going out and buying all the broken units for a game that was never really balanced so you can steam roll your opponents is well- pretty lame- and not particularly "tactical" or "interesting". How possible it is to get some sort of balance by friendly agreement/scenario is the real issue here.
That said I'm a pretty big player of Flames of War, and I play with a competitive game group (though not insane WAAC) and do the occasional tournament (plenty of insane WAAC). List building is a pretty big part of the game, and if you bring a stupid list you get crushed. Sure there is "over powered" in the game, but it doesn't seem to be as a big of an issue. List building is more about synergy and being able to deal with different situations. (For example, do I have enough good AT to take out heavy Armour or do I have enough shots to stop a blob of russian conscripts.
2. GAME IS TO SIMPLE/BORING- this is a more valid criticism/topic for debate. I guess we will have to look at this rumoured "big rulebook" and scenarios etc Also guess whether its "boring" is in the eyes of the players.
Okay my starter set came in. WOW , very impressed. Great boxed set and can't complain about the price. For rules I will be using the point system proposed by Attila of Dakka. I'm very excited to start up my army! Very pleased.
Somebody wake up JERVIS JOHNSON from his self indulgent rankings on compititve gamers and tournaments. WAKE UP they are customers too!!! He is killing GW ....... Bring back Priesely and hire Cavatore (I'm a big fan of BA).
We as a community can do a much better job with rules and making the game fun anyway! Maybe GW should hire Attilla from Dakka!
No, by playing a game that is concise, easy to learn, with great unit depth, has beautiful models, and most importantly, fun.
Um? Um? I know I know the answer! You're referring to Warmahordes aren't you?
I own a Cyrix, Menoth, and Trollbood armies, but I really don't enjoy the game enough to want to play it. The models are pretty cool to paint one of, and because they're only a couple of parts per model, it's easy to build and paint. Oh, and a Retribution battle box still BNIB, and both the Warmachines and Hordes 2-army starters (unpainted) and loads of random minis that I just liked
I know some people may find this amazing to believe, but I actually had way, way more more fun playing random minis in AoS than WMH using fairly organized armies.
Maybe there's a little bit of bias, because I like the minis better, and I've only said a bazillion times that I'll take better minis over better rules any day. There's no question the AoS rules are simpler, though, and to chaosmarauder's point, really easy rules are FANTASTIC for a secondary game that is more collection / less gameplay, because you feel a bit noobish every time you decide to play it again. I mean, frankly, I don't like WMH enough to ever play it enough to become a skilled or esperienced WMH player, and it's so many months (years?!) between games that I pretty much forget the rules and have to re-read them before I play them anyhow. And I don't like AoS enough that I'll play it more than once every few months.. basically, if I've finished a bunch of models, I'll want to play that army a little bit, but then they'll get retired til there are new models for that army, or I finish another army. Plus it will need to coincide with a buddy ALSO wanting to play AoS.
I'm also not crazy about how with WMH there's a ton of stuff all over the table (and you can't disguise it, for instance, with clever objective markers).
Yet, Privateer Press gets plenty of my money If only I'd paint some of that stuff piling up >.<
Marlov wrote: Same thing with the way they picture gw games. even if you can afford to buy the models unless you have more time than god you wont be able to paint models that look anything like what is on the website, so what does it matter how awesome you think the plastic is. most people can't paint them worth gak anyhow. be honest, the main reason most people buy the game is to play the game.
I think that's a pretty broad assumption to make lol.
it is, isn't it AoV???
he did give himself an out with, "most people', though...
i am one of those rare folks who the minis matter to, more than any other aspect...
the way the models look on the website is my minimum basic standard of painting, and i can easily bring myself to put in more effort to make my paintjobs look even better than the studio models...
i have bought every edition of the game since 2nd ed. WFB and Rogue Trader (and all of the Specialist Games), but never played the game, as that would just take away from my painting time...
i would rather sit in the shop painting, while watching my friends play...
so, yeah, how awesome the plastic is comes in as the most important thing to me, and i know a bunch of painters who feel the exact same as me...
then there are those who spend the majority of their hobby time building and painting, but also play the game...
oddly enough, they seem to be the ones who are happiest with AoS...
i find the people who only see the minis as 3-D chits baffling, myself...
why even buy high-priced models if you only see them as game tokens???
might as well just be playing Paperhammer, like Battletech before that game had models...
Yeah the only thing I ever want to do is paint a cool collection of minis. Everything else is secondary. That AoS allows me to compose an army of whatever I want is the biggest plus!
Bottle wrote: Yeah the only thing I ever want to do is paint a cool collection of minis. Everything else is secondary. That AoS allows me to compose an army of whatever I want is the biggest plus!
I can't think of a game besides GW games that require you to use certain models...
Any other game the rules don't say "use citadel models" or "use X brand models". Even so ANY game can use any models as long as the base size is correct. AOS has nothing special in this regard. I can use my ww2 models in AOS if I wanted, just like I can fight my Aquans against my ww2 models etc.
So I cannot think of a game besides GW ones that restricts your models in any way. In fact a lot of rules encourage you to use the models you like.
So why does this actually matter for AOS? When AOS will even have a special GW unique blurb specifically mentioning citadel models just like in the 40k book "making all my 40k armies illegal by the way", not that it effects my games.
MadMarkMagee wrote:
2. GAME IS TO SIMPLE/BORING- this is a more valid criticism/topic for debate. I guess we will have to look at this rumoured "big rulebook" and scenarios etc Also guess whether its "boring" is in the eyes of the players.
Let's just look at 40k. It's already a simple game with the igougo whole army lolol mechanics where you dont have any overwatch, interrupts etc. What keeps it from being a tactical desert imo is the fact that vehicles have facing and it's mostly shooting oriented so flanking gives you solid advantage in a way of getting to vulnerable side of vehicles and negating cover (though it's all a bit spoiled by overly low movement ranges imo) Another thing is reserves which can shake up a lot on the table.
Now Age of Sleep is like 40k with all that removed or significantly limited. Maybe the only thing that you could call advantage from flanking is when you ran out place to charge something from the front but that's not really satisfying tbh. Obviously one can say that special rules interaction gameplay is more important than basic rules based tactics but then why not play Warmachine instead of wasting time on its dumbed down version.
Bottle wrote: Yeah the only thing I ever want to do is paint a cool collection of minis. Everything else is secondary. That AoS allows me to compose an army of whatever I want is the biggest plus!
I can't think of a game besides GW games that require you to use certain models...
Any other game the rules don't say "use citadel models" or "use X brand models". Even so ANY game can use any models as long as the base size is correct. AOS has nothing special in this regard. I can use my ww2 models in AOS if I wanted, just like I can fight my Aquans against my ww2 models etc.
So I cannot think of a game besides GW ones that restricts your models in any way. In fact a lot of rules encourage you to use the models you like.
So why does this actually matter for AOS? When AOS will even have a special GW unique blurb specifically mentioning citadel models just like in the 40k book "making all my 40k armies illegal by the way", not that it effects my games.
I don't believe this is true in organized play. For example, if you go to a WMH tournament and bring your space marines on 30mm bases to play as menoth or cyngar, or your imperial knight as a Stormwall or Judicator, you won't be permitted to play. You likewise can't call your Stormwall a Judicator and say, "well, they're about the same size".
In a friendly game, sure: use whatever you want. People pick up Transformers and call them Imperial Knights, for heavens sake. Trust me, when we wanted to try 40 scatterlasesr jetbikes, we didn't have 13 boxes of new jetbikes painted up. We just took bases, stuck a yellow dot on the corner (to indicate direction), and presto. When we wanted to play the 5 Household Knights formation (Terryn?), we didn't have 5 knights handy (we actually own enough, just didn't have them all in one place) -- so for two of them, they were paper round cutouts with a smiley face.
At a GW store, it's reasonable for them not to want people to use their space to play with models (or games) not sold by their company. Just like in some independent stores, they don't want you playing with ForgeWorld models, because they can't sell them. I mean, these things have a cost.
All I can say is, after a few days have passed, many nay sayers in my local area have had a change of heart. Several were ragging on it, claiming it was trash. Then they played...now all the fantasy players except maybe 1 or two have gotten on board.
Anecdotal but, hey. It's a sign of something. Good or bad, who knows!?
Bottle wrote: Yeah the only thing I ever want to do is paint a cool collection of minis. Everything else is secondary. That AoS allows me to compose an army of whatever I want is the biggest plus!
I can't think of a game besides GW games that require you to use certain models...
Any other game the rules don't say "use citadel models" or "use X brand models". Even so ANY game can use any models as long as the base size is correct. AOS has nothing special in this regard. I can use my ww2 models in AOS if I wanted, just like I can fight my Aquans against my ww2 models etc.
So I cannot think of a game besides GW ones that restricts your models in any way. In fact a lot of rules encourage you to use the models you like.
So why does this actually matter for AOS? When AOS will even have a special GW unique blurb specifically mentioning citadel models just like in the 40k book "making all my 40k armies illegal by the way", not that it effects my games.
I don't believe this is true in organized play. For example, if you go to a WMH tournament and bring your space marines on 30mm bases to play as menoth or cyngar, or your imperial knight as a Stormwall or Judicator, you won't be permitted to play. You likewise can't call your Stormwall a Judicator and say, "well, they're about the same size".
In a friendly game, sure: use whatever you want. People pick up Transformers and call them Imperial Knights, for heavens sake. Trust me, when we wanted to try 40 scatterlasesr jetbikes, we didn't have 13 boxes of new jetbikes painted up. We just took bases, stuck a yellow dot on the corner (to indicate direction), and presto. When we wanted to play the 5 Household Knights formation (Terryn?), we didn't have 5 knights handy (we actually own enough, just didn't have them all in one place) -- so for two of them, they were paper round cutouts with a smiley face.
At a GW store, it's reasonable for them not to want people to use their space to play with models (or games) not sold by their company. Just like in some independent stores, they don't want you playing with ForgeWorld models, because they can't sell them. I mean, these things have a cost.
Yes my point was though, it is not a good selling point for a game, when you can do it in any game. In fact AOS is WORSE because you also measure from the model, making things difficult in some situations. Ignoring all the external factors for the game, AOS is one of the worst games for using whatever models you want because 1 it's technically against the rules for GW games and 2 measurements are from the model.
But yes ignoring external factors like ignoring the rules (we all do, usually because they are silly) or your game store has weird rules about model usage then you can use whatever you want yes. But that is no different from ANY other game.
@Swastakowey - of all the rules that are in AoS, probably that only one that has met great resistance is measure from model (instead of base). I think the reasons for doing this were noble, but the result is something that's awkward to do, and more to the point, something that people who play wargames are so used to that it's difficult to unlearn.
I think #2 becomes irrelevant, as I haven't heard anyone actually play this measuring from the base.
There are plenty of reasons NOT to like AoS, but I think GW telling you that you should use GW models is a pretty weak one, because, practically, like you said, model usage/enforcement turns out to be like pretty much every other game.
Talys wrote: @Swastakowey - of all the rules that are in AoS, probably that only one that has met great resistance is measure from model (instead of base). I think the reasons for doing this were noble, but the result is something that's awkward to do, and more to the point, something that people who play wargames are so used to that it's difficult to unlearn.
I think #2 becomes irrelevant, as I haven't heard anyone actually play this measuring from the base.
There are plenty of reasons NOT to like AoS, but I think GW telling you that you should use GW models is a pretty weak one, because, practically, like you said, model usage/enforcement turns out to be like pretty much every other game.
Ok let me spell it out for you.
X person says "AOS is great for taking whatever model I want and using it in the game"
I say "No for X reasons in AOS and for the fact you can do that with any game"
You reply with something completely different to what I am talking about.
To clarify, AOS is in no way special about model choices since it does not matter what game you play any model is usable, if anything AOS is worse than other games because instead of using base sizes you measure from the model, making it harder to use any model you want etc.
Simply saying that using any model you want is not a selling point in AOS since it is standard and even encouraged in other games.
Talys wrote: @Swastakowey - of all the rules that are in AoS, probably that only one that has met great resistance is measure from model (instead of base). I think the reasons for doing this were noble, but the result is something that's awkward to do, and more to the point, something that people who play wargames are so used to that it's difficult to unlearn.
I think #2 becomes irrelevant, as I haven't heard anyone actually play this measuring from the base.
There are plenty of reasons NOT to like AoS, but I think GW telling you that you should use GW models is a pretty weak one, because, practically, like you said, model usage/enforcement turns out to be like pretty much every other game.
Ok let me spell it out for you.
X person says "AOS is great for taking whatever model I want and using it in the game"
I say "No for X reasons in AOS and for the fact you can do that with any game"
You reply with something completely different to what I am talking about.
To clarify, AOS is in no way special about model choices since it does not matter what game you play any model is usable, if anything AOS is worse than other games because instead of using base sizes you measure from the model, making it harder to use any model you want etc.
Simply saying that using any model you want is not a selling point in AOS since it is standard and even encouraged in other games.
I am 90% sure that they meant "whatever models they want within the GW range", anyways. Like, they can build an army that uses Empire State Troops and River Trolls side-by-side, 100% legally with the rules associated with those models, where most other games have restrictive allies systems that would prevent that (WHFB wouldn't let you do that at all in 8th, 40k you can go Unbound but then your trolls wouldn't be able to get within X" without going crazy or whatever, I am pretty sure Infinity has rules against taking PanO knights and Nomad Riot Grrls in the same list and WarmaHordes has mercs but I don't think you can take a Menoth WarCaster and an Everblight Warbeast together)
Talys wrote: @Swastakowey - of all the rules that are in AoS, probably that only one that has met great resistance is measure from model (instead of base). I think the reasons for doing this were noble, but the result is something that's awkward to do, and more to the point, something that people who play wargames are so used to that it's difficult to unlearn.
I think #2 becomes irrelevant, as I haven't heard anyone actually play this measuring from the base.
There are plenty of reasons NOT to like AoS, but I think GW telling you that you should use GW models is a pretty weak one, because, practically, like you said, model usage/enforcement turns out to be like pretty much every other game.
Ok let me spell it out for you.
X person says "AOS is great for taking whatever model I want and using it in the game"
I say "No for X reasons in AOS and for the fact you can do that with any game"
You reply with something completely different to what I am talking about.
To clarify, AOS is in no way special about model choices since it does not matter what game you play any model is usable, if anything AOS is worse than other games because instead of using base sizes you measure from the model, making it harder to use any model you want etc.
Simply saying that using any model you want is not a selling point in AOS since it is standard and even encouraged in other games.
I am 90% sure that they meant "whatever models they want within the GW range", anyways. Like, they can build an army that uses Empire State Troops and River Trolls side-by-side, 100% legally with the rules associated with those models, where most other games have restrictive allies systems that would prevent that (WHFB wouldn't let you do that at all in 8th, 40k you can go Unbound but then your trolls wouldn't be able to get within X" without going crazy or whatever, I am pretty sure Infinity has rules against taking PanO knights and Nomad Riot Grrls in the same list and WarmaHordes has mercs but I don't think you can take a Menoth WarCaster and an Everblight Warbeast together)
Yea more than likely actually.
I guess even then, is that really a selling point? I mean a lack of base structure is not usually seen as a good thing in rules. However the option to change the structure would be better. In your example of infinity, one could simply say "hey man, I have X model and really like it can I use him in my list?" Or hey this model is not X but is Z this game, that cool?" and bam you have the what "makes AOS good" and also the structure for decent game play.
But yea they probably mean't using their GW range of models with rules as whatever mix they want.
Talys wrote: @Swastakowey - of all the rules that are in AoS, probably that only one that has met great resistance is measure from model (instead of base). I think the reasons for doing this were noble, but the result is something that's awkward to do, and more to the point, something that people who play wargames are so used to that it's difficult to unlearn.
I think #2 becomes irrelevant, as I haven't heard anyone actually play this measuring from the base.
There are plenty of reasons NOT to like AoS, but I think GW telling you that you should use GW models is a pretty weak one, because, practically, like you said, model usage/enforcement turns out to be like pretty much every other game.
Ok let me spell it out for you.
X person says "AOS is great for taking whatever model I want and using it in the game"
I say "No for X reasons in AOS and for the fact you can do that with any game"
You reply with something completely different to what I am talking about.
To clarify, AOS is in no way special about model choices since it does not matter what game you play any model is usable, if anything AOS is worse than other games because instead of using base sizes you measure from the model, making it harder to use any model you want etc.
Simply saying that using any model you want is not a selling point in AOS since it is standard and even encouraged in other games.
I am 90% sure that they meant "whatever models they want within the GW range", anyways. Like, they can build an army that uses Empire State Troops and River Trolls side-by-side, 100% legally with the rules associated with those models, where most other games have restrictive allies systems that would prevent that (WHFB wouldn't let you do that at all in 8th, 40k you can go Unbound but then your trolls wouldn't be able to get within X" without going crazy or whatever, I am pretty sure Infinity has rules against taking PanO knights and Nomad Riot Grrls in the same list and WarmaHordes has mercs but I don't think you can take a Menoth WarCaster and an Everblight Warbeast together)
Yea more than likely actually.
I guess even then, is that really a selling point? I mean a lack of base structure is not usually seen as a good thing in rules. However the option to change the structure would be better. In your example of infinity, one could simply say "hey man, I have X model and really like it can I use him in my list?" Or hey this model is not X but is Z this game, that cool?" and bam you have the what "makes AOS good" and also the structure for decent game play.
But yea they probably mean't using their GW range of models with rules as whatever mix they want.
Eh, I don't think it's a bad thing. I mean, it really allows players to have their own, unique forces using whatever models they think are cool. Or they can create whatever fluff reason they want. I mean, having no list building structure can be both bad, and good. I think if they are to give any sort of list structure, it just needs to be limitations on specific unit types or amount of scroll limitations.
Could it be a selling point? Easily. This opens the flood gates to get players new and old to buy whatever they want. No longer are you bound by the faction you play. if you played Orcs and Gobos, you would likely never ever EVER buy anything that wasn't an Orc or Goblin army model. Unless it looked so super cool, you had to have it. But then, you could NEVER play with it. Now, you can buy whatever looks cool, and play it too, no matter what majority faction you happen to be playing.
Edit: As to asking if you could use X in a Y army list, that likely never flies because the rules say otherwise. And in pick up games, people seem to claim no one is capable of allowing rule of cool. So, the rules now support I can play X with Y no matter what.
Talys wrote: @Swastakowey - of all the rules that are in AoS, probably that only one that has met great resistance is measure from model (instead of base). I think the reasons for doing this were noble, but the result is something that's awkward to do, and more to the point, something that people who play wargames are so used to that it's difficult to unlearn.
I think #2 becomes irrelevant, as I haven't heard anyone actually play this measuring from the base.
There are plenty of reasons NOT to like AoS, but I think GW telling you that you should use GW models is a pretty weak one, because, practically, like you said, model usage/enforcement turns out to be like pretty much every other game.
Ok let me spell it out for you.
X person says "AOS is great for taking whatever model I want and using it in the game"
I say "No for X reasons in AOS and for the fact you can do that with any game"
You reply with something completely different to what I am talking about.
To clarify, AOS is in no way special about model choices since it does not matter what game you play any model is usable, if anything AOS is worse than other games because instead of using base sizes you measure from the model, making it harder to use any model you want etc.
Simply saying that using any model you want is not a selling point in AOS since it is standard and even encouraged in other games.
I am 90% sure that they meant "whatever models they want within the GW range", anyways. Like, they can build an army that uses Empire State Troops and River Trolls side-by-side, 100% legally with the rules associated with those models, where most other games have restrictive allies systems that would prevent that (WHFB wouldn't let you do that at all in 8th, 40k you can go Unbound but then your trolls wouldn't be able to get within X" without going crazy or whatever, I am pretty sure Infinity has rules against taking PanO knights and Nomad Riot Grrls in the same list and WarmaHordes has mercs but I don't think you can take a Menoth WarCaster and an Everblight Warbeast together)
Yea more than likely actually.
I guess even then, is that really a selling point? I mean a lack of base structure is not usually seen as a good thing in rules. However the option to change the structure would be better. In your example of infinity, one could simply say "hey man, I have X model and really like it can I use him in my list?" Or hey this model is not X but is Z this game, that cool?" and bam you have the what "makes AOS good" and also the structure for decent game play.
But yea they probably mean't using their GW range of models with rules as whatever mix they want.
Eh, I don't think it's a bad thing. I mean, it really allows players to have their own, unique forces using whatever models they think are cool. Or they can create whatever fluff reason they want. I mean, having no list building structure can be both bad, and good. I think if they are to give any sort of list structure, it just needs to be limitations on specific unit types or amount of scroll limitations.
Could it be a selling point? Easily. This opens the flood gates to get players new and old to buy whatever they want. No longer are you bound by the faction you play. if you played Orcs and Gobos, you would likely never ever EVER buy anything that wasn't an Orc or Goblin army model. Unless it looked so super cool, you had to have it. But then, you could NEVER play with it. Now, you can buy whatever looks cool, and play it too, no matter what majority faction you happen to be playing.
Edit: As to asking if you could use X in a Y army list, that likely never flies because the rules say otherwise. And in pick up games, people seem to claim no one is capable of allowing rule of cool. So, the rules now support I can play X with Y no matter what.
The thing is you never had to stick to a faction. 8 years ago I had Guard conscripts in my Tau army. We never needed a mess of a game to do that. For the Orcs I could easily get some humans, give them Orc warpaint and pretend they are like the diggers from Gorka Morka (Humans trying to be like orcs). That is fun, has fluff behind it and allows me to use other models. They are models, you can for all games simply buy whats cool and use it without breaking the game or having no structure.
Now yes you can still do that, but all the restrictions are also gone on everything and its just a mess. How is it a selling point?
I would understand if we had endless supplies of detailed and published books on Age of Sigmar's history, units, battles and so on and if the rules reflected these details (like in historical games) but giving us hundreds of units with randomly chosen gear and stats and saying use whatever is not a selling point to most people.
As to your edit the not allowed rule of cool is you may have experienced is a problem with players not rules. Just like in AOS I can say no Nagash and you could comply or leave. It's a player thing not a rules thing.
Talys wrote: @Swastakowey - of all the rules that are in AoS, probably that only one that has met great resistance is measure from model (instead of base). I think the reasons for doing this were noble, but the result is something that's awkward to do, and more to the point, something that people who play wargames are so used to that it's difficult to unlearn.
I think #2 becomes irrelevant, as I haven't heard anyone actually play this measuring from the base.
There are plenty of reasons NOT to like AoS, but I think GW telling you that you should use GW models is a pretty weak one, because, practically, like you said, model usage/enforcement turns out to be like pretty much every other game.
Ok let me spell it out for you.
X person says "AOS is great for taking whatever model I want and using it in the game"
I say "No for X reasons in AOS and for the fact you can do that with any game"
You reply with something completely different to what I am talking about.
To clarify, AOS is in no way special about model choices since it does not matter what game you play any model is usable, if anything AOS is worse than other games because instead of using base sizes you measure from the model, making it harder to use any model you want etc.
Simply saying that using any model you want is not a selling point in AOS since it is standard and even encouraged in other games.
I am 90% sure that they meant "whatever models they want within the GW range", anyways. Like, they can build an army that uses Empire State Troops and River Trolls side-by-side, 100% legally with the rules associated with those models, where most other games have restrictive allies systems that would prevent that (WHFB wouldn't let you do that at all in 8th, 40k you can go Unbound but then your trolls wouldn't be able to get within X" without going crazy or whatever, I am pretty sure Infinity has rules against taking PanO knights and Nomad Riot Grrls in the same list and WarmaHordes has mercs but I don't think you can take a Menoth WarCaster and an Everblight Warbeast together)
Yea more than likely actually.
I guess even then, is that really a selling point? I mean a lack of base structure is not usually seen as a good thing in rules. However the option to change the structure would be better. In your example of infinity, one could simply say "hey man, I have X model and really like it can I use him in my list?" Or hey this model is not X but is Z this game, that cool?" and bam you have the what "makes AOS good" and also the structure for decent game play.
But yea they probably mean't using their GW range of models with rules as whatever mix they want.
Eh, I don't think it's a bad thing. I mean, it really allows players to have their own, unique forces using whatever models they think are cool. Or they can create whatever fluff reason they want. I mean, having no list building structure can be both bad, and good. I think if they are to give any sort of list structure, it just needs to be limitations on specific unit types or amount of scroll limitations.
Could it be a selling point? Easily. This opens the flood gates to get players new and old to buy whatever they want. No longer are you bound by the faction you play. if you played Orcs and Gobos, you would likely never ever EVER buy anything that wasn't an Orc or Goblin army model. Unless it looked so super cool, you had to have it. But then, you could NEVER play with it. Now, you can buy whatever looks cool, and play it too, no matter what majority faction you happen to be playing.
Edit: As to asking if you could use X in a Y army list, that likely never flies because the rules say otherwise. And in pick up games, people seem to claim no one is capable of allowing rule of cool. So, the rules now support I can play X with Y no matter what.
The thing is you never had to stick to a faction. 8 years ago I had Guard conscripts in my Tau army. We never needed a mess of a game to do that. For the Orcs I could easily get some humans, give them Orc warpaint and pretend they are like the diggers from Gorka Morka (Humans trying to be like orcs). That is fun, has fluff behind it and allows me to use other models. They are models, you can for all games simply buy whats cool and use it without breaking the game or having no structure.
Now yes you can still do that, but all the restrictions are also gone on everything and its just a mess. How is it a selling point?
I would understand if we had endless supplies of detailed and published books on Age of Sigmar's history, units, battles and so on and if the rules reflected these details (like in historical games) but giving us hundreds of units with randomly chosen gear and stats and saying use whatever is not a selling point to most people.
As to your edit the not allowed rule of cool is you may have experienced is a problem with players not rules. Just like in AOS I can say no Nagash and you could comply or leave. It's a player thing not a rules thing.
True, but the difference between now and then is, for people who are very much rules sticklers is, it makes players 'that guy' for turning it down. When before, rules were in place for why you could or couldn't use something. Of course, playing with friends you, if they agree and aren't uptight, you could mix and match units. Sure. Have them be 'counts as'. It's fun to do so. BUT, the issue then comes in...try bringing that 'counts as' army ANYWHERE out of your usual play zone, and that likely won't fly. Having it defined by the rules what you can actually use in your army is important to just as many. Especially when it comes to players who live and die by WYSIWYG. So, using humans as 'diggers' would be fine for you, Steve, and Sally who play together every week. But if you went somewhere else for some reason (moved, traveling, etc) suddenly you're fluffy and fun army...may not get any games.
I see both sides of the coin here. I get what you're saying when it comes to 'you don't need to use X models to represent Y models', but a player SHOULD (unless your only intent is playing with the same specific people who know what your stuff is by heart). It makes it clear what is what at a glance. At least by what the model actually is. Like, sometimes I sub a few slugga boyz for shoota boyz, but at least it's clear those are BOYZ. Having humans sub in as Orc models makes things complicated. When you have to stop and ask "What's THAT unit of humans supposed to be again?"
Sorry if my thoughts are scattered. At work, sort of typing quickly whenever I have a chance.
Basically: AoS is a strong selling point to sell whatever for whomever. You can play Skavin with Orcs, or Brets with Elves, and now there's nothing to tell you no. Before, it was nothing but a house rule that didn't have any real ground to stand on and relied totally on the good will of your opponents to let you field it. Armies of old required a lot of thought and dedication. Because if you got into Elves, but also kinda wanted to play Brets...you had to start a new army entirely. Sure, you could sub those Brets in for a few Elf units if your friends say so...but you aren't USING Brets. Just Bret models. Which isn't the same. Now, you can mix and mash.
Yes unit rules are no longer limited at all, but you could still easily do this in the old system (or any system). Models have always been allowed to be changed as no rules can force models upon you.
But saying use whatever you want is not the place you should start. It should be an OPTION. Take 40k (easy example) we can play it with the AOS rules (take whatever and full up board). It is easy. But for AOS we cannot say lets play X style game. AOS limits your options as every possibility has to be discussed if you want a certain type of game.
AOS doesn't supply a base rule set to make changes on. This is why it is incorrect to say it is awesome because of this. You could always play games "AOS style", but it was and rightfully so an option. AOS would be far deeper and maybe worth playing if it had a "god mode" where players could pit their collections against each other and then had a normal game mode as well.
Simply put, the AOS system is backwards.
For example is it easier to add balancing factors, or remove unbalancing factors?
One is doing to work, the other is tweaking already done work. It is obvious which one is easier.
Talys wrote: @Swastakowey - of all the rules that are in AoS, probably that only one that has met great resistance is measure from model (instead of base). I think the reasons for doing this were noble, but the result is something that's awkward to do, and more to the point, something that people who play wargames are so used to that it's difficult to unlearn.
I think #2 becomes irrelevant, as I haven't heard anyone actually play this measuring from the base.
There are plenty of reasons NOT to like AoS, but I think GW telling you that you should use GW models is a pretty weak one, because, practically, like you said, model usage/enforcement turns out to be like pretty much every other game.
Ok let me spell it out for you.
X person says "AOS is great for taking whatever model I want and using it in the game"
I say "No for X reasons in AOS and for the fact you can do that with any game"
You reply with something completely different to what I am talking about.
To clarify, AOS is in no way special about model choices since it does not matter what game you play any model is usable, if anything AOS is worse than other games because instead of using base sizes you measure from the model, making it harder to use any model you want etc.
Simply saying that using any model you want is not a selling point in AOS since it is standard and even encouraged in other games.
Okay, first of all, I never said that AoS is anything special. In fact, I said it is like mist other games with respect to model substitution.
There are SOME games that explicitly allow model substitution, KoW being probably one of the best known. But 3 very popular games, X-Wing, Warmachines/Hordes, and Malifaux are exactly the same as AoS with respect to model substitution. I think Infinity too -- I have the N3, have read t, and do nit recall anything about substituting models.
But I can assure you that if you go in a Malifaux, Infinity, or WM/H night with GW models, people would think you had lost your mind. Even of someone is conceptually ok with it, they would have no idea what a wood elf or bretonian was supposed to be as Circle. To take the reverse, many models in the GW universe have nothing comparable: What looks like Nagash, a Necrosphinx, or a Putrid Blightking?
This isn't a reason to play AoS, but it's not a reason NOT to, either, because like it or not, most popular game wants to sell its own miniatures, and therefore creates unique miniatures without equivalence.
Now, if you want to champion generic systems, that's fine. But you also can't use those with Colossals and Warjacks, any more than you could with Riptides and Dreadnoughts.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Swastakowey wrote: Yes unit rules are no longer limited at all, but you could still easily do this in the old system (or any system). Models have always been allowed to be changed as no rules can force models upon you.
But saying use whatever you want is not the place you should start. It should be an OPTION. Take 40k (easy example) we can play it with the AOS rules (take whatever and full up board). It is easy. But for AOS we cannot say lets play X style game. AOS limits your options as every possibility has to be discussed if you want a certain type of game.
AOS doesn't supply a base rule set to make changes on. This is why it is incorrect to say it is awesome because of this. You could always play games "AOS style", but it was and rightfully so an option. AOS would be far deeper and maybe worth playing if it had a "god mode" where players could pit their collections against each other and then had a normal game mode as well.
Simply put, the AOS system is backwards.
For example is it easier to add balancing factors, or remove unbalancing factors?
One is doing to work, the other is tweaking already done work. It is obvious which one is easier.
And yet, many people on this thread (nit me!) have expressed that this is a step FORWARD, because it forces the players to have a conversation and work cooperatively to improve the game experience. To these people, getting rid of the list-to-win crowd is a blessing, because they hate that.
As many people have said, points are a very imprecise instrument of balance, and I've argued that often points give the illusion of fairness, when in fact there's nothing fair about the battle at all. It's just that I'm ok with that, and I like making lists.
So YOU find it hard to remember X = X during a game, but that is the fault of the player not the rules.
If you feel that you need a rule saying you can use whatever you want to be able to use with no limits, and not have an option of limiting a game, then thats fine, but is a backward way of doing it and that is undeniable. You cannot say it is easier for players to discuss a fun game beforehand with no method of measuring units (tweaked or not) than it is for people to take units with points and slightly tweak them for a good game.
Points are better than no points, even if some of the points are wrong.
Is it easier to tweak points, or tweak an entire game of units? Be honest dude it is easier to tweak points and takes less time than adding in your own balancing system.
That is undeniable, to say that going backwards is an improvement is like saying your business will be fine when you sell a buffet of food with no restriction on plate sizing. Limits are needed. You can of course decide some people can have bigger plates (for special occasions) but with the no plate size limit you are stuck with the constant issue of people bringing in plates that are only limited by the doors you have on your building. That company will fail because without limits people will do stupid crap.
Yes unit rules are no longer limited at all, but you could still easily do this in the old system (or any system). Models have always been allowed to be changed as no rules can force models upon you.
I fail to see what you mean here. Models changing how?
But saying use whatever you want is not the place you should start. It should be an OPTION. Take 40k (easy example) we can play it with the AOS rules (take whatever and full up board). It is easy. But for AOS we cannot say lets play X style game. AOS limits your options as every possibility has to be discussed if you want a certain type of game.
This isn't relevant to being a selling point. It might be a slight deterrent if you think about it. Negotiation has ALWAYS been a big factor for GW games. The idea now, whether or not its a good one is to be seen, is that you bring as much of your collection as possible. Both players take turns putting models down until they decide "Ok, that's enough" and then play. You have to 'eyeball it' now. Is it good? Is it bad? This is entirely subjective.
AOS doesn't supply a base rule set to make changes on. This is why it is incorrect to say it is awesome because of this. You could always play games "AOS style", but it was and rightfully so an option. AOS would be far deeper and maybe worth playing if it had a "god mode" where players could pit their collections against each other and then had a normal game mode as well.
Not being awesome is, again, subjective. The system is so barebones, the only thing one can do to it IS change it. As to playing an AoS style game before, yeah, you always could. But, to some it matters that it wasn't an officially backed form of playing. It wasn't until Unbound in 40k that people could play 'AoS style' in 40k, with only points being a limiting factor. But honestly, even then, points didn't mean the unbound side or bound side was more balanced, or even fair. I know many more bound army lists that are disgustingly less fair than unbound. But, that's a different argument.
Simply put, the AOS system is backwards.
For example is it easier to add balancing factors, or remove unbalancing factors?
One is doing to work, the other is tweaking already done work. It is obvious which one is easier.
I don't think the system is all that 'backwards'. In a sense to what we know and are familiar with...yes. It is 'backwards'. Having the restraints lifted off of us makes us feel like suddenly we don't know what to do. That doing something we were told previously was bad, is suddenly still bad. Maybe that thing wasn't bad after all, but we always THOUGHT it was bad, because we were repeatedly told it was bad.
Brainwashed, if you think about it.
This system, while at first glance is 'unbalanced', but only because we no longer have a check list of 'cans and cants'. This is 'scary'. It's 'unbalanced'. And because of that, people want to push it away. it's too unfamiliar. it's like people can't trust themselves or the people they've been playing with to be in control. In the world of the internet, no one can be trusted, so hyperbole is EVERYWHERE. All of a sudden, everyone lives in an area where everyone is TFG and the game is going to cause all the TFG from every other game system to come swooping into the game and continue to ruin the fun.
All I can really say is: If you don't like the game, that's fine. No one is going to try to force you to like it. What the game is trying to do is not for everyone. It's selling point of 'buy anything, play anything' may resonate with others, and may not do a thing for the rest. The basic rule set and lack of army construction will be a make or break for some, but may be the best thing ever for others ('die hard' or 'causal' alike).
What some feel is an unbalanced mess, to others is a creative wet dream.
What some feel is lazy game design, others might feel is rather genius in its simplicity.
All I can say is, from my perspective, I feel AoS allows me to do what Fantasy didn't. I can play it. The first thing AoS does it instantly lower the cost of entry. I can buy a single hero, and a box of dudes, put em together and play with my friend who already plays, or maybe play with a dude who did the same thing as me. And the match would likely be very close. Later on, as I buy more stuff, because I'm no longer bound to just one army, all the rules are free for them. I can go back later and play with those guys against another guy who came.
If he has more stuff...I talk with him about it. Yeah, we have no 'list', but honestly, looking at unit profiles, it's not that hard to figure out what your army can and can't handle, or to just figure out a model count. If the game feels lopsided right away, it's easier now to 'reset' the match, readjust lists, and try again without having to redeploy an entire damn army.
AoS isn't perfect. Not by a long shot. But to me, it looks fun and I can feel free to buy what I want, when I want, and play what I want. Even if I want to play 2 trolls, a unit of Elf archers and a unit of skelemen with some Daemonettes, because why the hell not?
Creative people aren't creative if they can't do it without a rule telling them they HAVE to. This game does not give you tools, it forces you to do it yourself.
As for cost of entry, you could always play a game of any size. Easy, just tweak the base rules to do it. See you can't say AOS is great because you can now do X when you always could with any decent ruleset. Hence why it is backward.
You see AOS does nothing special but FORCE you to do GW job and fix it. Instead of tweaking a somewhat ok ruleset you have to fix a bad ruleset from the ground up. Any game has a base game then you can tweak it to do what you want. AOS has no base game meaning you have to change everything yourself. How is that better than tweaking already made games? Why not simply make your own game instead?
Swastakowey wrote: Creative people aren't creative if they can't do it without a rule telling them they HAVE to. This game does not give you tools, it forces you to do it yourself.
As for cost of entry, you could always play a game of any size. Easy, just tweak the base rules to do it. See you can't say AOS is great because you can now do X when you always could with any decent ruleset. Hence why it is backward.
You see AOS does nothing special but FORCE you to do GW job and fix it. Instead of tweaking a somewhat ok ruleset you have to fix a bad ruleset from the ground up. Any game has a base game then you can tweak it to do what you want. AOS has no base game meaning you have to change everything yourself. How is that better than tweaking already made games? Why not simply make your own game instead?
No, you can't say it's great because of those reasons. It's not great for you. You can't speak for me, or anyone else.
Edit: After seeign what GW has attempted to do for a completed rule set, I'd rather them give me the bare bones, and I take it from there. The core of the rules work well enough, the universal stat lines and other changes all work well enough. The only thing that needs 'tweaking' from the core rules is how to measure, and that's really it. Maybe how to determine 'visibility' of a model. There's a refreshingly low chance for redundant rules, or overly vague rules that relied on us to do judgement calls (or outright rewrite or revise) and do GW's job to begin with.
As for what to bring to the table, if you have a good group, that shouldn't be hard. If you have a bad group, I can see why this game isn't for you.
Swastakowey wrote: Creative people aren't creative if they can't do it without a rule telling them they HAVE to. This game does not give you tools, it forces you to do it yourself.
As for cost of entry, you could always play a game of any size. Easy, just tweak the base rules to do it. See you can't say AOS is great because you can now do X when you always could with any decent ruleset. Hence why it is backward.
You see AOS does nothing special but FORCE you to do GW job and fix it. Instead of tweaking a somewhat ok ruleset you have to fix a bad ruleset from the ground up. Any game has a base game then you can tweak it to do what you want. AOS has no base game meaning you have to change everything yourself. How is that better than tweaking already made games? Why not simply make your own game instead?
No, you can't say it's great because of those reasons. It's not great for you. You can't speak for me, or anyone else.
Well say why? Every reason you guys say it is awesome you can do EASIER with another rule set, so why is AOS awesome?
Unless you can give me a reason AOS is worth playing over another game (where you can do the same and more, with the same models even) then stop saying its an awesome game. Because there is nothing to make it better than anything else out there.
Swastakowey wrote: Creative people aren't creative if they can't do it without a rule telling them they HAVE to. This game does not give you tools, it forces you to do it yourself.
As for cost of entry, you could always play a game of any size. Easy, just tweak the base rules to do it. See you can't say AOS is great because you can now do X when you always could with any decent ruleset. Hence why it is backward.
You see AOS does nothing special but FORCE you to do GW job and fix it. Instead of tweaking a somewhat ok ruleset you have to fix a bad ruleset from the ground up. Any game has a base game then you can tweak it to do what you want. AOS has no base game meaning you have to change everything yourself. How is that better than tweaking already made games? Why not simply make your own game instead?
No, you can't say it's great because of those reasons. It's not great for you. You can't speak for me, or anyone else.
Well say why? Every reason you guys say it is awesome you can do EASIER with another rule set, so why is AOS awesome?
Unless you can give me a reason AOS is worth playing over another game (where you can do the same and more, with the same models even) then stop saying its an awesome game. Because there is nothing to make it better than anything else out there.
The funny thing is, I never said it was awesome. To be honest, I don't understand why you want me to try to justify my reasons for giving the game any attention. i have nothing to prove to you. You have nothing to prove to me. It's not like your opinions are more valid than my own. I don't think anyone here has made the claim that AoS is better or TRYING to be better than any other game. You're just spiraling in your own dislike for the game you are only reading/hearing what you want to read/hear.
Swastakowey wrote: Creative people aren't creative if they can't do it without a rule telling them they HAVE to. This game does not give you tools, it forces you to do it yourself.
As for cost of entry, you could always play a game of any size. Easy, just tweak the base rules to do it. See you can't say AOS is great because you can now do X when you always could with any decent ruleset. Hence why it is backward.
You see AOS does nothing special but FORCE you to do GW job and fix it. Instead of tweaking a somewhat ok ruleset you have to fix a bad ruleset from the ground up. Any game has a base game then you can tweak it to do what you want. AOS has no base game meaning you have to change everything yourself. How is that better than tweaking already made games? Why not simply make your own game instead?
No, you can't say it's great because of those reasons. It's not great for you. You can't speak for me, or anyone else.
Well say why? Every reason you guys say it is awesome you can do EASIER with another rule set, so why is AOS awesome?
Unless you can give me a reason AOS is worth playing over another game (where you can do the same and more, with the same models even) then stop saying its an awesome game. Because there is nothing to make it better than anything else out there.
The funny thing is, I never said it was awesome. To be honest, I don't understand why you want me to try to justify my reasons for giving the game any attention. i have nothing to prove to you. You have nothing to prove to me. It's not like your opinions are more valid than my own. I don't think anyone here has made the claim that AoS is better or TRYING to be better than any other game. You're just spiraling in your own dislike for the game you are only reading/hearing what you want to read/hear.
Except the people who said the game is a step forward...
This discussion started (when I joined) because someone siad they love to paint minis and AOS allows them to use anything they please. I simply (note simply) stated that any game allows this even with minor tweaks, how is AOS good for this?
Instead of people saying what you just said (admitting it isn't really good for this, but we will play it anyway) people started saying how AOS is different because X and that it is even a step forward.
I am not spiraling, you guys are simply quoting me with random (I hesitate here) excuses for this game so I answer.
This game offers nothing new or different to any other game besides the fact it has less. Nobody has said otherwise yet the discussion continues... If nobody is trying to say it is better then why reply?
See below:
The basic rule set and lack of army construction will be a make or break for some, but may be the best thing ever for others ('die hard' or 'causal' alike).
You replied with this at one point for example. But as stated earlier you can always do this with minor tweaks without destroying a foundation for a game. It is easy to have a normal ruleset then slightly change it (seconds of work) to do the anything goes style. The opposite does not work so well (AOS).
What some feel is an unbalanced mess, to others is a creative wet dream.
How so? When you can always have a creative wet dream with any ruleset? AOS is no different here either except it forces you to do more than tweak rules.
Just 2 examples of you defending AOS. But everyone who defends the game is merely saying what all games have and do better.
If you don't disagree with that then why reply with disagreements?
bitethythumb wrote: easier example, which is more competitive, car racing or snail racing?
Car racing, because unless there's an aspect of snail racing I'm not familiar with, you have no control over your snails, for the humans it's gambling rather than competition and for the snails I doubt they even know they are "racing"
But I'm not sure what that has to do with the price of fish. I was simply pointing out that complaining about a car not being "competitive" is not an apt parallel compared to wargaming. Whether or not a car is "competitive" depends on the racing series you are entering more than the car itself. A Chevy Volt is competitive when raced against other Chevy Volts, an Ferrari Enzo is not competitive when raced against formula 1 cars.... in that sense cars are more like the miniatures that make up the wargame rather than the wargame itself, the wargame is more similar to the racing series in which you enter the car.
Xeno went off on a long ranting metaphor which is rendered useless by the fact the situations are not parallels of each other.
Bottle wrote: Yeah the only thing I ever want to do is paint a cool collection of minis. Everything else is secondary. That AoS allows me to compose an army of whatever I want is the biggest plus!
I can't think of a game besides GW games that require you to use certain models...
Any other game the rules don't say "use citadel models" or "use X brand models". Even so ANY game can use any models as long as the base size is correct. AOS has nothing special in this regard. I can use my ww2 models in AOS if I wanted, just like I can fight my Aquans against my ww2 models etc.
So I cannot think of a game besides GW ones that restricts your models in any way. In fact a lot of rules encourage you to use the models you like.
So why does this actually matter for AOS? When AOS will even have a special GW unique blurb specifically mentioning citadel models just like in the 40k book "making all my 40k armies illegal by the way", not that it effects my games.
Yeah you missed my point completely as further discussed. When I say AoS is great for letting me take whatever I want it is in regards to:
1. Being able to mix factions
2. Small units being viable
3. No rules on composition, such as limits on Heroes or Monsters.
I'm sure it's possible in other games. But it wasn't really possible in 8th without house ruling. And I don't play other games or buy non GW minis, so I don't really care what's possible in other games.
And my response was to the poster who said people buy models only as gaming pieces. I buy them to paint and create a beautiful collection of primarily.
AoS - the equivalent of dog turds sneakily mixed in your favorite cake. Sure, it may look good from afar, but the closer you get, the more you wonder where the smell is coming from until the sobering reality sets in, and you realize what you just consumed. Some pallets may be desensitized to this (because of a progressive history in eating fecal-game-matter), so it may take a few good heaping mouthfuls to catch on.
The thing is, there are some who probably won't admit they were fooled into eating it too. Some of these same people are more inclined to cover (or convince themselves) with the line 'you know, its actually pretty good!'.
As for me, I figured it out before it was too late. Perhaps I'm closed minded on it when it comes to dog turds, which is fine. /shrug
Swastakowey wrote: Yes unit rules are no longer limited at all, but you could still easily do this in the old system (or any system). Models have always been allowed to be changed as no rules can force models upon you.
But saying use whatever you want is not the place you should start. It should be an OPTION. Take 40k (easy example) we can play it with the AOS rules (take whatever and full up board). It is easy. But for AOS we cannot say lets play X style game. AOS limits your options as every possibility has to be discussed if you want a certain type of game.
AOS doesn't supply a base rule set to make changes on. This is why it is incorrect to say it is awesome because of this. You could always play games "AOS style", but it was and rightfully so an option. AOS would be far deeper and maybe worth playing if it had a "god mode" where players could pit their collections against each other and then had a normal game mode as well.
Simply put, the AOS system is backwards.
For example is it easier to add balancing factors, or remove unbalancing factors?
One is doing to work, the other is tweaking already done work. It is obvious which one is easier.
And yet, many people on this thread (nit me!) have expressed that this is a step FORWARD, because it forces the players to have a conversation and work cooperatively to improve the game experience.
Those people are wrong. It's as forward as selling you a broken car claiming you should be grateful for an opportunity to fix it and learn mechanics or gain insight into people's hard work. Also there is enough negotiating in wargames especialy gw ones and we don't need to be forced to start with basic balancing instead of just discussing missions or terrain.
Talys wrote:
To these people, getting rid of the list-to-win crowd is a blessing, because they hate that.
I will never believe that anyone from our noble social oriented narrative fun brigade could post anything like that. It would not only be hypocrytical ro 11 but also expose one as a whiny facist special snowflake scrub, a narrative tfg of sorts. Even the black hearted bullies rampaging the community for years with their balance and winning dont post about getting rid of half the community. Though they do dare to suggest that a good balanced ruleset helps narrative play, fething douches.
Bottle wrote: Yeah the only thing I ever want to do is paint a cool collection of minis. Everything else is secondary. That AoS allows me to compose an army of whatever I want is the biggest plus!
I can't think of a game besides GW games that require you to use certain models...
Any other game the rules don't say "use citadel models" or "use X brand models". Even so ANY game can use any models as long as the base size is correct. AOS has nothing special in this regard. I can use my ww2 models in AOS if I wanted, just like I can fight my Aquans against my ww2 models etc.
So I cannot think of a game besides GW ones that restricts your models in any way. In fact a lot of rules encourage you to use the models you like.
So why does this actually matter for AOS? When AOS will even have a special GW unique blurb specifically mentioning citadel models just like in the 40k book "making all my 40k armies illegal by the way", not that it effects my games.
Yeah you missed my point completely as further discussed. When I say AoS is great for letting me take whatever I want it is in regards to:
1. Being able to mix factions
2. Small units being viable
3. No rules on composition, such as limits on Heroes or Monsters.
I'm sure it's possible in other games. But it wasn't really possible in 8th without house ruling. And I don't play other games or buy non GW minis, so I don't really care what's possible in other games.
And my response was to the poster who said people buy models only as gaming pieces. I buy them to paint and create a beautiful collection of primarily.
This is all fine and dandy, at a house rule level. Wargaming with toy soldiers has always been, and will be, a niche for people with a propensity for the little details. Going against this tendency is sort of like swimming upstream -as a company.
Bottle wrote: Yeah the only thing I ever want to do is paint a cool collection of minis. Everything else is secondary. That AoS allows me to compose an army of whatever I want is the biggest plus!
I can't think of a game besides GW games that require you to use certain models...
Any other game the rules don't say "use citadel models" or "use X brand models". Even so ANY game can use any models as long as the base size is correct. AOS has nothing special in this regard. I can use my ww2 models in AOS if I wanted, just like I can fight my Aquans against my ww2 models etc.
So I cannot think of a game besides GW ones that restricts your models in any way. In fact a lot of rules encourage you to use the models you like.
So why does this actually matter for AOS? When AOS will even have a special GW unique blurb specifically mentioning citadel models just like in the 40k book "making all my 40k armies illegal by the way", not that it effects my games.
Yeah you missed my point completely as further discussed. When I say AoS is great for letting me take whatever I want it is in regards to:
1. Being able to mix factions
2. Small units being viable
3. No rules on composition, such as limits on Heroes or Monsters.
I'm sure it's possible in other games. But it wasn't really possible in 8th without house ruling. And I don't play other games or buy non GW minis, so I don't really care what's possible in other games.
And my response was to the poster who said people buy models only as gaming pieces. I buy them to paint and create a beautiful collection of primarily.
This is all fine and dandy, at a house rule level. Wargaming with toy soldiers has always been, and will be, a niche for people with a propensity for the little details. Going against this tendency is sort of like swimming upstream -as a company.
ChazLikesCake wrote: I like how having to field citadel miniatures only becomes an issue when a new GW game lets you field more variety than ever. Because logic.
AOS having no form of balance or limits so players can do what they always have been allowed (because you always have had permission to change the rules for whatever reason in a GW game, not that you need permission) to do is not an issue and or an improvement for some because... logic?
The fact that you can only use citadel miniatures is just icing on the cake really.
ChazLikesCake wrote: I like how having to field citadel miniatures only becomes an issue when a new GW game lets you field more variety than ever. Because logic.
Its always been an issue although given that this particular 'rule' has been completely ignored by more enlightened gamers years its not exactly vital.
Wargaming naturally implies complexity and thus simplifying it (like lifting former restrictions) too much can be bad. If you want to go hog wild and simplify the IP/rules, there's nothing from stopping you - to house rule it.
Now I digress/expand on this again:
Again, if people like you want unrestricted access to lords, heroes etc, then that's fine but it needs to be understood, that is an exceptional thing to the modern/classical sense of a wargame. Making the exceptional a generally accepted rule is counter intuitive and adds a stumbling block - if I want to play a game of warhammer in a communally balanced understanding.
ChazLikesCake wrote: I like how having to field citadel miniatures only becomes an issue when a new GW game lets you field more variety than ever. Because logic.
AOS having no form of balance or limits so players can do what they always have been allowed (because you always have had permission to change the rules for whatever reason in a GW game, not that you need permission) to do is not an issue and or an improvement for some because... logic?
The fact that you can only use citadel miniatures is just icing on the cake really.
Again. You're missing the point.
I could add random models into my 8th armies with a house rule, yes.
But it required buying another £30 armybook. Not worth it for one model.
With regards to house rules as well. Fine for playing with close friends. I play in a local GW, and now I can create an army for those pick up games without having to convince my opponent to my house rules.
Lastly the change in mechanics mean I can buy a single box and see good use out of it rather than feeling I need 40+ of a single model.
These are all great changes to Warhammer imo.
Lastly, only you are talking about the GW minis-only rule.
Simplified rules aren't especially bad. The old times of "complex rules thus better rules" are now gone since there are so many games to try and so few time left to play.
The thing is, rules must work in a clear view of the game. And here in AoS...the view is "play all the models you want". This is a game that allows you to have fun with your favorite models. And that's all.
The rules translate that quite well; no need to have a lot of rules or a way to balance everything. No need to have alternations in phases (or - gasp!- for each unit) rather than the old "IGOUGO" system in full turns. And of course plenty of random dice roll for any reason, even if it isn't really needed.
A good example is the "initiative roll" at the beginning of the turn to decide which player goes first. That wasn't thought too much, IMHO - because if it works quite well in a game when players play one of their units before giving the hand to the other and so on, it's not the same in a "IGOUGO" system.
Because that means the other player can wait a longer time before actually playing - not saying he will not really have so much fun when his opponent gets to play two turns in a row because he got lucky by rolling just one dice - thus having to watch his army get ganbanged twice before being allowed to move just one of his units. If he still have any unit left after this, of course.
That kind of rule makes me think they didn't playtest that much - but that's not a surprise for GW, anyway.
But hey, in a good spirit, when you just put your models on the table and don't care too much about rules, yeah, game can be fun.
So it's a game for collectors. Not for gamers - don't even talk about wargamers.
Once you understand that, everything makes so much sense - and AoS can be fun, really. You just have to take the game for what it is.
But then, I agree it's not for everyone. In my town, players aren't very fond of AoS - because most of them are WFB old vets and feel really like being betrayed when they saw it wasn't 9th edition at all. It will take time before the game will launch, and it will mainly come from new players or people who only play 40k until now.
But the WFB community? It's completely torn apart.
Wargaming naturally implies complexity and thus simplifying it (like lifting former restrictions) too much can be bad. If you want to go hog wild and simplify the IP/rules, there's nothing from stopping you - to house rule it.
Now I digress/expand on this again:
As for what I want - a wargame with rank & file fighting - I want it to to be consistent between gaming groups. If people, like you, want unrestricted access to lords, heroes etc, then that's fine but it needs to be understood, that is an exceptional thing to the modern/classical sense of a wargame. Now, we've made the exceptional a generally accepted rule - which is counter intuitive and adds a stumbling block if I want to play a game of warhammer in a communally balanced understanding.
Time will tell on what the majority prefer.
Didn't older versions of Warhammer have no restrictions on Heroes/monsters too? If that's the case AoS could be seen as a return to that.
Wargaming naturally implies complexity and thus simplifying it (like lifting former restrictions) too much can be bad. If you want to go hog wild and simplify the IP/rules, there's nothing from stopping you - to house rule it.
Now I digress/expand on this again:
As for what I want - a wargame with rank & file fighting - I want it to to be consistent between gaming groups. If people, like you, want unrestricted access to lords, heroes etc, then that's fine but it needs to be understood, that is an exceptional thing to the modern/classical sense of a wargame. Now, we've made the exceptional a generally accepted rule - which is counter intuitive and adds a stumbling block if I want to play a game of warhammer in a communally balanced understanding.
Time will tell on what the majority prefer.
Didn't older versions of Warhammer have no restrictions on Heroes/monsters too? If that's the case AoS could be seen as a return to that.
I'm actually headed toward 3rd edition; I just ordered a copy via ebay a few days ago. The difference there is that there was a lot of complexity and a lot of choice. You could get away with a lot too. However, the split warhammer went during 4ths advent was making tournament play = "warhammer", which is not what I want either. I do want balance but mainly in an approximate, and appropriate point cost. I don't mind streamlined army lists either, so long as there is a way to fit it in the peculiar - even going as far as the whole 'unbound' concept you have in 40k
Also, the majority preference is not necessarily the wisest preference.
Simplifed rules are good for introducing new players but they don't necessarily lead to long term play value.
The sad thing for me about AOS is how limited ambition the designers showed in tearing up the old rulebooks to make something radical, new and awesome.
Compare AOS with De Bellis Antiquitatis, which had a similar ambition, to present a smaller, simpler, quicker player game that you could use with existing armies or enable you to try out small, interesting armies at lower cost than a full size army.
DBA completely changed every single aspect of the previous WRG 7th Edition rules, except for base sizes and measurement. And it resulted in a dynamic, very playable game that is still popular 25 years later.
In AOS we still have the tired old clunky combat resolution, IGOUGO made worse by potentially alternating initiative, and special rules spewing out of the Design Studio's fundament to sell new models, which are already starting to unbalance and over-complicate the game.
Sarouan wrote: Simplified rules aren't especially bad. The old times of "complex rules thus better rules" are now gone since there are so many games to try and so few time left to play.
The thing is, rules must work in a clear view of the game. And here in AoS...the view is "play all the models you want". This is a game that allows you to have fun with your favorite models. And that's all.
The rules translate that quite well; no need to have a lot of rules or a way to balance everything. No need to have alternations in phases (or - gasp!- for each unit) rather than the old "IGOUGO" system in full turns. And of course plenty of random dice roll for any reason, even if it isn't really needed.
A good example is the "initiative roll" at the beginning of the turn to decide which player goes first. That wasn't thought too much, IMHO - because if it works quite well in a game when players play one of their units before giving the hand to the other and so on, it's not the same in a "IGOUGO" system.
Because that means the other player can wait a longer time before actually playing - not saying he will not really have so much fun when his opponent gets to play two turns in a row because he got lucky by rolling just one dice - thus having to watch his army get ganbanged twice before being allowed to move just one of his units. If he still have any unit left after this, of course.
That kind of rule makes me think they didn't playtest that much - but that's not a surprise for GW, anyway.
But hey, in a good spirit, when you just put your models on the table and don't care too much about rules, yeah, game can be fun.
So it's a game for collectors. Not for gamers - don't even talk about wargamers.
Once you understand that, everything makes so much sense - and AoS can be fun, really. You just have to take the game for what it is.
But then, I agree it's not for everyone. In my town, players aren't very fond of AoS - because most of them are WFB old vets and feel really like being betrayed when they saw it wasn't 9th edition at all. It will take time before the game will launch, and it will mainly come from new players or people who only play 40k until now.
But the WFB community? It's completely torn apart.
I personally anymore prescribe to the concept of playing to win (since that's the point of a game) and having fun.... at the same time I pursue victory in a game - in the confines of civility and a good heart.
As far as refining the D6 turn system - Bolt Action has an excelent approach - that I would like to see in warhammer.
On the other hand, I should play that game of AoS when a Stormcast Eternal small party encounter the dreaded giants Shimakaze and Nagato in their full battle armors.
Should be fun now that bases aren't important.
By the way, here is Shimakaze;
And here is Nagato;
What? They're not citadel miniatures? Who cares? I will just write a few rules for the game. It's really easy, now, after all.
After reading this thread I have become much more hesitant to buy into this game. I would hate to spend, say $110, on starting an army only to have my opponet throw down a few models that can, in the course of the game, summon his $2000 dollar army and curb stomp me all over. There seems to be nothing in the rules to prevent this, and if I don't know enough about his army/models I may not know it is coming untill after we start. In the same vein I could put down a unit from the starter set, then have him counter with a bloodthirster, or Nagash, or some other super strong character and I would have nothing to do but conceide. This game seems very much pay-to-win, and very little play-to-win.
The AoS rules work if you don't play to win or to train your tactical prowess, but to have fun playing a simple tabletop wargame with miniatures.
Not the ruleset for me, because i do want a tactical game (Epic is still my favourite game), so in this form i will not play it.
But the models is another thing. I like them and might buy them anyway. And in the future i will see how i will use them, except to paint something.
I am in this hobby for beautifull miniatures and i have many from companies that never had any games or from games that i never played (a lot from Rackham).
ORicK wrote: The AoS rules work if you don't play to win or to train your tactical prowess, but to have fun playing a simple tabletop wargame with miniatures.
I'm not sure how this statement works given I have fun playing a simple table top wargame by playing to win and train my tactical prowess
Lord Blackscale wrote: After reading this thread I have become much more hesitant to buy into this game. I would hate to spend, say $110, on starting an army only to have my opponet throw down a few models that can, in the course of the game, summon his $2000 dollar army and curb stomp me all over. There seems to be nothing in the rules to prevent this, and if I don't know enough about his army/models I may not know it is coming untill after we start. In the same vein I could put down a unit from the starter set, then have him counter with a bloodthirster, or Nagash, or some other super strong character and I would have nothing to do but conceide. This game seems very much pay-to-win, and very little play-to-win.
If you're playing competitively whoever's organising would have probably laid out some ground rules beforehand. If you're playing casually then you and your opponent probably have some kind of understanding that neither will tolerate bs.
I tried going in with an open mind but after playing half a dozen games or so I have to say that it was one of the most depressing experiences of my life.
The game is an absolute disaster. Any element of strategy has been completely removed and winning is all about the luck of the dice.
GW has gone the same route they did with 40k and dumbed down every element of the game.
Sadly, after 15 years in the hobby, AOS is the last nail in the coffin and I now move permanently to other gaming systems.
Sigvatr wrote: In all honesty, AoS isn't playing a game, it's more of having a fun time.
That entirely depends on your definition of fun I guess.
Yeah. The entire success of AoS depends on enough people finding AoS fun enough to make an initial purchase and continue to buy into. It doesn't really matter how many people don't like it, as long as enough people like it to keep it going as a product.
I *like* the game, but not enough to keep playing it, because in the very limited amount of game time I have, I like 40k much more than AoS. But ironically, GW will never know this, because I will buy their Sigmarite models, and if I enjoy their 264 page book, I may even buy more of the books. I have like, 100+ games that I've read the books for but never played, so this is hardly anything new... I enjoy reading rulebooks and game world setting books If they have super deals on box sets, or super premium models like Nagash, I'll buy them just to model anyways.
So, my point... GW might end up thinking, "gee, this guy likes the game!" even though I'll play it like, twice a year. Or, every army I finish modelling... once
There's plenty of collectors out there who will buy things in spite of the game instead of because of it. Even though I say "plenty" I don't think it's enough to really sustain a game in GW's current business model, but we'll see I guess.
I have finescale WW2 aircraft and tank kits on my shelf that I paid a decent amount of money to buy and decent amount of time to paint even though all they do is sit there and look pretty. I'm sure there's people who treat GW stuff the same way, I just tend to think there's not enough of them to keep their stores open.
I do still think GW made the wrong move dropping the regimental combat completely, they held the dominant place in that market and even though sales had slipped in the last 2 editions, IMO they were fixable problems. I'm sure many people who love loose formation games don't understand the appeal of a regimental games, but personally I've never really understood the appeal of loose formation games
I also doubt I'll play AoS really much at all, really just due to time though. I want to play it, I just know that I won't really get around to it. I also bought the collectors/special versions of the previous 2 WFB rulebooks and some army books too, but since 7th edition came out I played 2 whole games. I'm planning to get the big AoS book (not the special edition though), and will likely buy others.. cuz they do make em nice with lots of pretty pictures for me to look at.
In the end, if they keep making awesome models I want to buy, I'll keep buying them.
I'm also buying the hardback Kings of War book in August too, which I also doubt I'll ever play, but would like to. I don't really plan to get any KoW models though, I just want those rules in case I want to play a ranked battle game again with my lizards or goblinses (who I've had for 4 years and never played 1 game with).
I understand most gamers aren't like me and can definitely see the reasons for all the frustration and nerdrage going on though. Last I heard no one in my old gaming group (except me) was planning to get into AoS at all, they all started as a WFB club.
Gandohar wrote: I tried going in with an open mind but after playing half a dozen games or so I have to say that it was one of the most depressing experiences of my life.
The game is an absolute disaster. Any element of strategy has been completely removed and winning is all about the luck of the dice.
GW has gone the same route they did with 40k and dumbed down every element of the game.
Sadly, after 15 years in the hobby, AOS is the last nail in the coffin and I now move permanently to other gaming systems.
What exactly was missing in terms of strategy? Also did you take advantage of the terrain rules and such, I find that including lots of terrain boosts the "strategy" ( if you call it that, most dice games are probability in nature and not strategy), in my opinion AoS is a skirmish d&d game... Its better to play with a theme or story... If you want strategy play a none diced game..
Gandohar wrote: I tried going in with an open mind but after playing half a dozen games or so I have to say that it was one of the most depressing experiences of my life. The game is an absolute disaster. Any element of strategy has been completely removed and winning is all about the luck of the dice. GW has gone the same route they did with 40k and dumbed down every element of the game. Sadly, after 15 years in the hobby, AOS is the last nail in the coffin and I now move permanently to other gaming systems.
What exactly was missing in terms of strategy? Also did you take advantage of the terrain rules and such, I find that including lots of terrain boosts the "strategy" ( if you call it that, most dice games are probability in nature and not strategy), in my opinion AoS is a skirmish d&d game... Its better to play with a theme or story... If you want strategy play a none diced game..
?
Dice means an element of random, of course AOS is almost entirely random but most wargames only use random where it makes sense.
AOS is pretty much ALL based on dice from running, to charging and even how many attacks things have etc. I have never seen a game use so many dice to decide so much, of course it has no strategy. DnD has a lot of strategy. How the classes work together, how you spend your gold and skills etc all greatly matter and every little thing in that game can be calculated. Even the casual players aren't walking into randomly placed forests with random rules moving random distances and getting random attacks. DnD, an RPG game, is far more tactical than AOS.
If you want a brain dead game AOS is definitely the way to go though.
Gandohar wrote: I tried going in with an open mind but after playing half a dozen games or so I have to say that it was one of the most depressing experiences of my life.
The game is an absolute disaster. Any element of strategy has been completely removed and winning is all about the luck of the dice.
GW has gone the same route they did with 40k and dumbed down every element of the game.
Sadly, after 15 years in the hobby, AOS is the last nail in the coffin and I now move permanently to other gaming systems.
What exactly was missing in terms of strategy? Also did you take advantage of the terrain rules and such, I find that including lots of terrain boosts the "strategy" ( if you call it that, most dice games are probability in nature and not strategy), in my opinion AoS is a skirmish d&d game... Its better to play with a theme or story... If you want strategy play a none diced game..
?
Dice means an element of random, of course AOS is almost entirely random but most wargames only use random where it makes sense.
AOS is pretty much ALL based on dice from running, to charging and even how many attacks things have etc. I have never seen a game use so many dice to decide so much, of course it has no strategy. DnD has a lot of strategy. How the classes work together, how you spend your gold and skills etc all greatly matter and every little thing in that game can be calculated. Even the casual players aren't walking into randomly placed forests with random rules moving random distances and getting random attacks. DnD, an RPG game, is far more tactical than AOS.
If you want a brain dead game AOS is definitely the way to go though.
Yea ok... I am just going to agree to disagree on that... Its funny how you say d&d has strategy but not AoS because in AoS you have so many options on how units help each other now as well as heroes and the terrain... Either way enjoy whatever game you wish, its your fun
AoS you have so many options on how units help each other now as well as heroes and the terrain
What wargame does not do this? In fact I will go as far to say all wargames do this better. Name a game where terrain and models don't interact to provide depth, then name a game where AOS beats others here. Tip: There is none. Can't you charge models you can't see? I am very sure there are models that can burrow into the ground and not be interacted with (good luck shifting that objective holder and or killing it) and many more broken shenanigans that make these interactions with the terrain and other models you praise pretty bad dude.
Its fine to like a terrible game dude, just at least admit it is terrible.
Kilkrazy wrote: Simplifed rules are good for introducing new players but they don't necessarily lead to long term play value.
The sad thing for me about AOS is how limited ambition the designers showed in tearing up the old rulebooks to make something radical, new and awesome.
Compare AOS with De Bellis Antiquitatis, which had a similar ambition, to present a smaller, simpler, quicker player game that you could use with existing armies or enable you to try out small, interesting armies at lower cost than a full size army.
DBA completely changed every single aspect of the previous WRG 7th Edition rules, except for base sizes and measurement. And it resulted in a dynamic, very playable game that is still popular 25 years later.
In AOS we still have the tired old clunky combat resolution, IGOUGO made worse by potentially alternating initiative, and special rules spewing out of the Design Studio's fundament to sell new models, which are already starting to unbalance and over-complicate the game.
Thank you KilKrazy. Out of all the nerd-rage and white-knightery (and everything inbetween), this is about the best summation of AoS I've seen.
Given GW's pure size, I suspect AoS will be a something of a success. But it's just a badly designed game. Period. That said, it fits perfectly in GW's implicit (if not explicit!) business model of looking to sell as many toys to kids as possible before they move on to other things. And that's the one quibble I'd have with KilKrazy's summation. I don't think the designers showed a lack of ambition. Although I certainly don't have any direct insights into the the decisions that lead to AoS, I'd go so far as to argue that AoS was never actually intended to be a game. Honestly. It's a marketing device, and a very cynical one that fits directly into GW's "pump and dump" strategy at that, and nothing more.
Successful at bringing kids in or not, at its core, AoS is just too limited -no matter how many special rules GW throws at it- to be a good game. There's just not enough structure in the core of the rules to force players to have to make interesting choices before and during the game, and to my mind at the heart of good game design is forcing players to make interesting decisions, I would argue that interesting decisions (within the context of game design at least, but also, as an example, in poetry) are forced when decision space is limited. The AoS rules just don't impose those limitations on players probably because "interesting" in this context is also dangerously close to "hard" and "hard" doesn't sell to GW's target audience for AoS.
But, hey, a cynical marketting platform masquerading as a game may be all GW needs to meet their corporate needs.
I still get the feeling (or maybe just wishful thinking) that they have more to the rules planned and we're basically just paying for a beta test, and something a little more balanced will come later on after they see what folks think of the game.
Necros wrote: I still get the feeling (or maybe just wishful thinking) that they have more to the rules planned and we're basically just paying for a beta test, and something a little more balanced will come later on after they see what folks think of the game.
How many games have you played yourself of this 'beta test'?
AoS you have so many options on how units help each other now as well as heroes and the terrain
What wargame does not do this? In fact I will go as far to say all wargames do this better. Name a game where terrain and models don't interact to provide depth, then name a game where AOS beats others here. Tip: There is none. Can't you charge models you can't see? I am very sure there are models that can burrow into the ground and not be interacted with (good luck shifting that objective holder and or killing it) and many more broken shenanigans that make these interactions with the terrain and other models you praise pretty bad dude.
Its fine to like a terrible game dude, just at least admit it is terrible.
Correct, you can charge a unit you could not see prior to moving the charge distance roll. And this is fine. Its works well in this game.
I have never really joined in with the local scene, they mostly played 40k and I am not that interested in sci-fi most of the time (though Infinity is a bit of an exception). They recently started to get more into WM/H which is great, but now I've heard their feelings of AoS.
Apparently they absolutely LOVE it. Calling it the most fun they've had playing mini wargames in years. I wasn't even going to bother giving it a shot, but I just might show up with my Dark Elves sometime now. Still don't have high hopes though.
I'd say reserve judgement until you play it. Some people love the rules, others loathe them, and everything in-between. The real result will be how popular it is 2-4 years from now.
Swastakowey wrote: Yes but saying the terrain works well and adds strategy to the game is incorrect when it means nothing in many situations. Like charging.
In short, more people trying to pay this crap off as good without any good reason.
I would have to agree with the above poster regarding terrain. Judging by your comments, it seems to me you have not actually played several games yourself. In my experience (WHFB 5th to 8th editions) I am now having much more fun and interaction with terrain than ever before. While, your example of terrain not blocking LoS for charging is correct (thank god, its now much smother play), terrain does(can) block LoS for shooting, magic, command abilities, and even melee combat (depending on model arrangement). Further, each terrain piece now has different buffs and/or debuffs which are rolled for at the start of a game. In my 3 dozen or so games of AoS, these have made a significant impact in almost all games when used correctly. Especially if compounding with other buffs given by heroes etc. If not used, or in some cases ignored, they can cripple your sides potential.
Please, before crying, go out and gain some real experience of this game for yourself. Try playing several games, change the terrain up every time. Try the scenarios (arguably the best and most fun way to play AoS) where terrain is often critical. But coming on here and saying things like "terrain don't anything" is just embarrassing yourself and makes it clear to anyone who is actively learning the game realise how much crap your talking.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Bottle wrote: Played another game yesterday that wasn't as fun as previous games. 2v2 and with so many models we didn't finish in 3 hours.
It has really reinforced to me that games should be under 50 models. Otherwise they take too long.
And I am desperate for the compendiums to be released as card decks. Flicking through warscrolls on my iPad is a pain.
Yeah I agree! I don't know ifs planned for the future but being able to buy Warscroll cards would be awesome. Atm I have printed them off to fit an A5 sheet and then laminated them. Not as professional but they look nice (in colour) and pretty durable.
Swastakowey wrote: Yes but saying the terrain works well and adds strategy to the game is incorrect when it means nothing in many situations. Like charging.
In short, more people trying to pay this crap off as good without any good reason.
I would have to agree with the above poster regarding terrain. Judging by your comments, it seems to me you have not actually played several games yourself. In my experience (WHFB 5th to 8th editions) I am now having much more fun and interaction with terrain than ever before. While, your example of terrain not blocking LoS for charging is correct (thank god, its now much smother play), terrain does(can) block LoS for shooting, magic, command abilities, and even melee combat (depending on model arrangement). Further, each terrain piece now has different buffs and/or debuffs which are rolled for at the start of a game. In my 3 dozen or so games of AoS, these have made a significant impact in almost all games when used correctly. Especially if compounding with other buffs given by heroes etc. If not used, or in some cases ignored, they can cripple your sides potential.
Please, before crying, go out and gain some real experience of this game for yourself. Try playing several games, change the terrain up every time. Try the scenarios (arguably the best and most fun way to play AoS) where terrain is often critical. But coming on here and saying things like "terrain don't anything" is just embarrassing yourself and makes it clear to anyone who is actively learning the game realise how much crap your talking.
Yea I played with a few models. Terrain does less in this game than ever. Partly covered by terrain? Who cares needs to be in it (why have walls again? oh thats right so we can stand on them and gain benefits because that makes sense). All they did for this game was make terrain less decent and made it ALL pre game mysterious terrain. It is a terrible system. Why should I stand on a wall to gain its benefits? Why should I be allowed to charge units I can't see but I cannot do other things through bits I can't see?
Also my point was Terrain does nothing to make this game more strategic, it just makes it more random... because we need more random in AOS. Heck if I have lances pointing upwards on my knights then most terrain means nothing since people can shoot the lance tips. That alone should tell you how bad it is... Hills need to be very tall hills in this game to stop my unfortunately armed knights from being shot through the hill.
Yea I played with a few models. Terrain does less in this game than ever. Partly covered by terrain? Who cares needs to be in it (why have walls again? oh thats right so we can stand on them and gain benefits because that makes sense). All they did for this game was make terrain less decent and made it ALL pre game mysterious terrain. It is a terrible system. Why should I stand on a wall to gain its benefits? Why should I be allowed to charge units I can't see but I cannot do other things through bits I can't see?
Also my point was Terrain does nothing to make this game more strategic, it just makes it more random... because we need more random in AOS. Heck if I have lances pointing upwards on my knights then most terrain means nothing since people can shoot the lance tips. That alone should tell you how bad it is... Hills need to be very tall hills in this game to stop my unfortunately armed knights from being shot through the hill.
/facepalm
Why should you stand on a wall to gain benefits? Which benefits? LoS benefits? Thats always been the case. Mysterious terrain buffs/debuffs? Its usually within 3" at the start of the hero phase to buff your unit until your next hero phase (don't forget this may be awhile if you loose the roll or choose for your opponent to take initiative). Lots to consider (tactical).
Why should I be allowed to charge units I can't see but I cannot do other things through bits I can't see?: Because it makes good game play and actually makes some real life sense, if your that way inclined. You can't shoot through what you can't see through but you can certainly be told to charge an unseen enemy which are around a corner (think about a general given orders to a unit). But regardless, its game mechanics, which work well if you bothered to play more.
The terrain types setup at the start are random (thank goodness) but you get to roll of and choose which side to take (tactical), where to deploy each unit (tactical) in relation to terrain. The start is random. How you choose to use that to your advantage is your decision (tactical).
Heck if I have lances pointing upwards on my knights then most terrain means nothing since people can shoot the lance tips: If you know this, why did you decide to stop moving your knights so they could be seen and be shot at? Your not being tactical.
Hills need to be very tall hills in this game to stop my unfortunately armed knights from being shot through the hill: Hill or mound? This has always been the case. If your knights could be seen (get down over the table top) then they could be shot. Nothing has changed. Use your terrain better (tactical).
I would love for you to be my opponent. Perhaps one day I suggest you play and practice more.
Yea I played with a few models. Terrain does less in this game than ever. Partly covered by terrain? Who cares needs to be in it (why have walls again? oh thats right so we can stand on them and gain benefits because that makes sense). All they did for this game was make terrain less decent and made it ALL pre game mysterious terrain. It is a terrible system. Why should I stand on a wall to gain its benefits? Why should I be allowed to charge units I can't see but I cannot do other things through bits I can't see?
Also my point was Terrain does nothing to make this game more strategic, it just makes it more random... because we need more random in AOS. Heck if I have lances pointing upwards on my knights then most terrain means nothing since people can shoot the lance tips. That alone should tell you how bad it is... Hills need to be very tall hills in this game to stop my unfortunately armed knights from being shot through the hill.
/facepalm
I would love for you to be my opponent. Perhaps one day
Face palm? Why because I happen to love pikes and Lances on my models? I mean unless you want to make my terrain bigger to help them out...
Ultimately if I was forced to play this (and didn't take one goblin to auto lose and leave) I would have to house rule stupidity like this out of the rules or it would be a waste of time. Unless you think being able to shoot my pike formation with black powder weapons because you can see their pikes is a good rule?
I would be surprised if many people play this in a few years time. Unless the rules change for the better.
Next time im in OZ ill hit you up though, I think you will find playing me is like playing most people... pretty normal
The house rules I play are measuring base to base and no targeting weapons.
Regarding walls, agree with your opponent that touching the wall confers the +1 save and gives the buff.
Or not. Seems you don't want to play AoS.
For me there are lots of great things about it, and a few tweaks as above make it even better. But if you don't like it fair game, no point house ruling it in that case. :-)
Bottle wrote: The house rules I play are measuring base to base and no targeting weapons.
Regarding walls, agree with your opponent that touching the wall confers the +1 save and gives the buff.
Or not. Seems you don't want to play AoS.
For me there are lots of great things about it, and a few tweaks as above make it even better. But if you don't like it fair game, no point house ruling it in that case. :-)
I feel I can see the reasoning, after a few good games, for most of the new rules. However, I don't see why they changed the base rules. If I was to speculate, it was put in to stop situations where certain troop types (lets say human spearmen) from getting a larger than normal amount of attacks in with their 2" spears. Since they are on a 20mm bases. Im sure there are other better examples. However, I wouldn't be surprised if the model-to-model rule was put in temporarily, with a future errata to revert, once all the new models are converted to standardised round bases. However, I could be wrong and their might be another reason for the change.
We have been playing model to model and to be honest, its been fine so far. No issues and always keeps things simple. Can he reach me for that charge? Yes? Bugger, perhaps I should have not positioned him facing that angle when I piled in for the previous combat. Stuff like that has added a nice layer of strategy I never expected.
No it used to be that you had to see certain parts of the model. Most games would have me ignore the lances for LOS because that makes sense. Meaning hills and other terrain sufficiently obscured units and I was not punished for modeling cool things.
Why would I stand on a wall? Because that is the only way to get the benefits of terrain in AOS, being behind it does nothing. This is not always the case, and nor does that make sense.
Commanders would not tell men to run around a tall castle wall and charge whatever is there... because unless they had some kind of foresight or reports etc then they could be sending their men into god knows what. As you say yes in some (not many) situations it makes sense, but I think in most it is obvious it should not happen. I fail to see how this adds to the game.
I mean dude, this game is full of the downright dumbest rules in wargaming hands down. Everything from single models beating 400 models in combat because he is immune to battle shock to shooting crossbows while having your face eaten by dragons while fighting them with your knife and the most recent example of killing men because their pikes are too high. Unless you are advocating my pike men lie down (legal by the rule too) and face backwards as they fight their battles, avoiding enemies charing their spears and avoiding their pikes pointing into the sky? Because that is just getting pedantic over something any good rule set will fix with real rules.
Can I ask you honestly, what do you actually like about this rule set that no other game can offer?
Just so you know what I am talking about this is the base of my Empire Force: (these are not mine but the shop painted ones from the website) and that blob of pikemen suffer in AOS. The knights I have are worse off because the horse adds more height.
Bottle, this whole game needs to be house ruled. From start to finish, but at that point why waste time? May as well play a real game with those cool models. I should not have to house rule in to a game that a wall is good for cover...
Swastakowey wrote: No it used to be that you had to see certain parts of the model. Most games would have me ignore the lances for LOS because that makes sense. Meaning hills and other terrain sufficiently obscured units and I was not punished for modeling cool things.
Why would I stand on a wall? Because that is the only way to get the benefits of terrain in AOS, being behind it does nothing. This is not always the case, and nor does that make sense.
Commanders would not tell men to run around a tall castle wall and charge whatever is there... because unless they had some kind of foresight or reports etc then they could be sending their men into god knows what. As you say yes in some (not many) situations it makes sense, but I think in most it is obvious it should not happen. I fail to see how this adds to the game.
I mean dude, this game is full of the downright dumbest rules in wargaming hands down. Everything from single models beating 400 models in combat because he is immune to battle shock to shooting crossbows while having your face eaten by dragons while fighting them with your knife and the most recent example of killing men because their pikes are too high. Unless you are advocating my pike men lie down (legal by the rule too) and face backwards as they fight their battles, avoiding enemies charing their spears and avoiding their pikes pointing into the sky? Because that is just getting pedantic over something any good rule set will fix with real rules.
Can I ask you honestly, what do you actually like about this rule set that no other game can offer?
Bottle, this whole game needs to be house ruled. From start to finish, but at that point why waste time? May as well play a real game with those cool models. I should not have to house rule in to a game that a wall is good for cover...
A lot of your arguments seem to be a disconnect from previous Warhammer abstractions and AoS abstractions. So I won't bother arguing further with examples of trying to make the transition easier for you. I can understand how this can be aggravating though. Everyone who has seen a major overhaul in their favouate war-game (indeed PC game) or even going from one system to the next. However, you will soon get over the "this makes no RL sense". Once you adapt to the new games abstractions, it will seem comfortable. I recommend you to have an open mind and spend the time getting to know these mechanics and game play.
On the question of what I like about this rule set, Id have to say many many things. Is it the best, most perfect game there is atm? Unlikely that answer can ever be a yes with such a high variety of tastes in the world. Do I think they achieved a great game here? Yes! Infact, I would say its a stroke of genius. My favourite thing about AoS rules is the complexity of gameplay it creates from super simple ideas and rules. Much like the game of chess or the complexity of human life from 4 DNA bases. This was not something I appreciated (ateast until my 4+ game) at first. However, at the moment, I am having more fun with AoS than my previous 20 years of wargaming experiences. And isn't that what its all about?
Bottle, this whole game needs to be house ruled. From start to finish, but at that point why waste time? May as well play a real game with those cool models. I should not have to house rule in to a game that a wall is good for cover...
Yep, as I said seems like you'd have more fun playing something else, like KoW etc. no worries. I have loads that I like about this game, such as the freedom in army composition and being able to play in my local GW so I'm happy to add one or two house rules.
@TRIGSTEN I agree and think the model-to-model rules are a placeholder too until everyone is on circle/oval bases. In the meantime I'm happy to play base to base. It doesn't make much difference to infantry, but really does to big monsters (or example the Araknarok Spider has a big open space between its front two legs.
Swastakowey wrote: No it used to be that you had to see certain parts of the model. Most games would have me ignore the lances for LOS because that makes sense. Meaning hills and other terrain sufficiently obscured units and I was not punished for modeling cool things.
Why would I stand on a wall? Because that is the only way to get the benefits of terrain in AOS, being behind it does nothing. This is not always the case, and nor does that make sense.
Commanders would not tell men to run around a tall castle wall and charge whatever is there... because unless they had some kind of foresight or reports etc then they could be sending their men into god knows what. As you say yes in some (not many) situations it makes sense, but I think in most it is obvious it should not happen. I fail to see how this adds to the game.
I mean dude, this game is full of the downright dumbest rules in wargaming hands down. Everything from single models beating 400 models in combat because he is immune to battle shock to shooting crossbows while having your face eaten by dragons while fighting them with your knife and the most recent example of killing men because their pikes are too high. Unless you are advocating my pike men lie down (legal by the rule too) and face backwards as they fight their battles, avoiding enemies charing their spears and avoiding their pikes pointing into the sky? Because that is just getting pedantic over something any good rule set will fix with real rules.
Can I ask you honestly, what do you actually like about this rule set that no other game can offer?
Just so you know what I am talking about this is the base of my Empire Force: (these are not mine but the shop painted ones from the website) and that blob of pikemen suffer in AOS. The knights I have are worse off because the horse adds more height.
Bottle, this whole game needs to be house ruled. From start to finish, but at that point why waste time? May as well play a real game with those cool models. I should not have to house rule in to a game that a wall is good for cover...
Swastakowey wrote: No it used to be that you had to see certain parts of the model. Most games would have me ignore the lances for LOS because that makes sense. Meaning hills and other terrain sufficiently obscured units and I was not punished for modeling cool things.
Why would I stand on a wall? Because that is the only way to get the benefits of terrain in AOS, being behind it does nothing. This is not always the case, and nor does that make sense.
Commanders would not tell men to run around a tall castle wall and charge whatever is there... because unless they had some kind of foresight or reports etc then they could be sending their men into god knows what. As you say yes in some (not many) situations it makes sense, but I think in most it is obvious it should not happen. I fail to see how this adds to the game.
I mean dude, this game is full of the downright dumbest rules in wargaming hands down. Everything from single models beating 400 models in combat because he is immune to battle shock to shooting crossbows while having your face eaten by dragons while fighting them with your knife and the most recent example of killing men because their pikes are too high. Unless you are advocating my pike men lie down (legal by the rule too) and face backwards as they fight their battles, avoiding enemies charing their spears and avoiding their pikes pointing into the sky? Because that is just getting pedantic over something any good rule set will fix with real rules.
Can I ask you honestly, what do you actually like about this rule set that no other game can offer?
Bottle, this whole game needs to be house ruled. From start to finish, but at that point why waste time? May as well play a real game with those cool models. I should not have to house rule in to a game that a wall is good for cover...
A lot of your arguments seem to be a disconnect from previous Warhammer abstractions and AoS abstractions. So I won't bother arguing further with examples of trying to make the transition easier for you. I can understand how this can be aggravating though. Everyone who has seen a major overhaul in their favouate war-game (indeed PC game) or even going from one system to the next. However, you will soon get over the "this makes no RL sense". Once you adapt to the new games abstractions, it will seem comfortable. I recommend you to have an open mind and spend the time getting to know these mechanics and game play.
On the question of what I like about this rule set, Id have to say many many things. Is it the best, most perfect game there is atm? Unlikely that answer can ever be a yes with such a high variety of tastes in the world. Do I think they achieved a great game here? Yes! Infact, I would say its a stroke of genius. My favourite thing about AoS rules is the complexity of gameplay it creates from super simple ideas and rules. Much like the game of chess or the complexity of human life from 4 DNA bases. This was not something I appreciated (ateast until my 4+ game) at first. However, at the moment, I am having more fun with AoS than my previous 20 years of wargaming experiences. And isn't that what its all about?
Fair enough. I actually didn't like Fantasy very much (40k is tolerable but I have some cool armies for it so I play it still) I just think AOS is frankly the worst rule set I have seen. Believe me I know that with house rules, ignoring some rules and lots of knowing your opponent and discussing this game may be a little playable (just like 40k), but I also think AOS is a whole new level of terrible rules. I wish I could understand why people like it, but I am not gonna spend more than a few test games to try find some redeemable aspect of this game. I watched battles as I painted stuff (I am watching mission 3 of the starter as I paint some 6mm Lizards right now) and frankly the only thing I can see that is any good is being able to take whatever you want. But then again what ruleset does not allow that with a simple house rule? In my opinion better off playing a real game with one house rule for using whatever units to want, then play a game that allows any units you want but have to house rule everything else.
Ultimately, if you enjoy that is fine I don't mind (not that it matters if I ming haha). I just hope if anyone new to wargaming reads this they decide to not walk into GW and spend money on this when they can play something decent that will give them a great and balanced tme for their money. Especially at prices GW charges.
Heck if I have lances pointing upwards on my knights then most terrain means nothing since people can shoot the lance tips. That alone should tell you how bad it is... Hills need to be very tall hills in this game to stop my unfortunately armed knights from being shot through the hill.
your gaming friends must be real douchebags if you agreed that lance tips count as the models when hiding behind terrain either way you clearly ignored the most important rule, literally called "the most important rule"(read it up) because you must have agreed that shooting lance tips is ok or let your opponent do so without discussing it either way it seems to me you have no idea how to play the game and/or you play with total douchebags and let them get away with abusing the game...
more or less its your own fault.... and no, having it written in the rules that "lance tips do not count" is not a necessity, if you need your hand held whilst playing this game you should play something else or get people who are not total douchebags to play with you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ultimately, if you enjoy that is fine I don't mind (not that it matters if I ming haha). I just hope if anyone new to wargaming reads this they decide to not walk into GW and spend money on this when they can play something decent that will give them a great and balanced tme for their money. Especially at prices GW charges.
its a GW game and they can charge what they want, I have never had a problem with their prices (apart from their tools, cheaper ones and better quality elsewhere, particulary the drills) either way why complain about GW if you do not collect or pay for it? surely leave the critique to the actual collectors and players.. or you do buy their stuff in which case begs to question why you complain about their prices... do not buy it :/
Heck if I have lances pointing upwards on my knights then most terrain means nothing since people can shoot the lance tips. That alone should tell you how bad it is... Hills need to be very tall hills in this game to stop my unfortunately armed knights from being shot through the hill.
your gaming friends must be real douchebags if you agreed that lance tips count as the models when hiding behind terrain either way you clearly ignored the most important rule, literally called "the most important rule"(read it up) because you must have agreed that shooting lance tips is ok or let your opponent do so without discussing it either way it seems to me you have no idea how to play the game and/or you play with total douchebags and let them get away with abusing the game...
more or less its your own fault.... and no, having it written in the rules that "lance tips do not count" is not a necessity, if you need your hand held whilst playing this game you should play something else or get people who are not total douchebags to play with you.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ultimately, if you enjoy that is fine I don't mind (not that it matters if I ming haha). I just hope if anyone new to wargaming reads this they decide to not walk into GW and spend money on this when they can play something decent that will give them a great and balanced tme for their money. Especially at prices GW charges.
its a GW game and they can charge what they want, I have never had a problem with their prices (apart from their tools, cheaper ones and better quality elsewhere, particulary the drills) either way why complain about GW if you do not collect or pay for it? surely leave the critique to the actual collectors and players.. or you do buy their stuff in which case begs to question why you complain about their prices... do not buy it :/
Oh cool its my friends fault we played the rules as written for some test games. Is this called victim blaming? If not lances where do we draw the line?
I don't know man, sounds like you just told me to change crappy rules writing in defence of crappy rules...
Yea they can charge what they want, I didn't say otherwise. Doesn;t change the fact they are a rip off 99% of the time. I do not buy it unless I can get them at reasonable prices. Chances are here in NZ I have to pay double what you do, so please tell me more about how GW doesn't rip me off.
Also what matters more if you own a business, why people don;t buy or why people who buy still buy? One leads to growth and the other leads to stagnation or decline, guess what's happening to GW... (Hint it's decline, and with rules like AOS it doesn't take a genius to figure out why).
Oh cool its my friends fault we played the rules as written for some test games. Is this called victim blaming?
lol "victim blaming" really? you see yourself as a victim... lol
" If not lances where do we draw the line? "
again, read the "most important rule" or if that is too hard let me copy and paste it for you
THE MOST
IMPORTANT RULE
In a game as detailed and wide-ranging as
Warhammer: Age of Sigmar, there may be
times when you are not sure exactly how to
resolve a situation that has come up during
play. When this happens, have a quick
chat with your opponent, and apply the
solution that makes the most sense to you
both (or seems the most fun!). If no single
solution presents itself, both of you should
roll a dice, and whoever rolls higher gets to
choose what happens. Then you can get on
with the fighting!
Oh cool its my friends fault we played the rules as written for some test games. Is this called victim blaming?
lol "victim blaming" really? you see yourself as a victim... lol
" If not lances where do we draw the line? "
again, read the "most important rule" or if that is too hard let me copy and paste it for you
THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE In a game as detailed and wide-ranging as Warhammer: Age of Sigmar, there may be times when you are not sure exactly how to resolve a situation that has come up during play. When this happens, have a quick chat with your opponent, and apply the solution that makes the most sense to you both (or seems the most fun!). If no single solution presents itself, both of you should roll a dice, and whoever rolls higher gets to choose what happens. Then you can get on with the fighting!
After playing AOS yea I feel a bit violated.
Sorry mate... remind me about the bit that's unclear when it comes to measuring from the model for line of sight purposes? Because that rule is clear in AOS so that rule you quoted, while nice, does not apply here.
Sorry mate... remind me about the bit that's unclear when it comes to measuring from the model for line of sight purposes? Because that rule is clear in AOS so that rule you quoted, while nice, does not apply here.
yea I would not like to play with you in any game settings, you are extremely pedantic in your rules but lets see... here is the rule you think is very clear.#
PICKING TARGETS
First, you must pick the target units for
the attacks. In order to attack an enemy
unit, an enemy model from that unit must
be in range of the attacking weapon (i.e.
within the maximum distance, in inches,
of the Range listed for the weapon making
the attack), and visible to the attacker (if
unsure, stoop down and get a look from
behind the attacking model to see if the
target is visible). For the purposes of
determining visibility, an attacking model
can see through other models in its unit.
you seem to think THAT means "lance tips count"... and that the "most important rule" (even though it clearly does and any sensible player would agree that lance tips do not count) does not apply... yea you are one of "those" players... anyways, good luck, enjoy whatever game you want and all the best
Sorry mate... remind me about the bit that's unclear when it comes to measuring from the model for line of sight purposes? Because that rule is clear in AOS so that rule you quoted, while nice, does not apply here.
yea I would not like to play with you in any game settings, you are extremely pedantic in your rules but lets see... here is the rule you think is very clear.#
PICKING TARGETS First, you must pick the target units for the attacks. In order to attack an enemy unit, an enemy model from that unit must be in range of the attacking weapon (i.e. within the maximum distance, in inches, of the Range listed for the weapon making the attack), and visible to the attacker (if unsure, stoop down and get a look from behind the attacking model to see if the target is visible). For the purposes of determining visibility, an attacking model can see through other models in its unit.
you seem to think THAT means "lance tips count"... and that the "most important rule" (even though it clearly does and any sensible player would agree that lance tips do not count) does not apply... yea you are one of "those" players... anyways, good luck, enjoy whatever game you want and all the best
But you measure everything from any point of the model including line of site, where does it say lance tips are not included as they are part of the model?
I mean to everyone who has played this the rules are you measure everything from any part of the model. The rule you just quoted does nothing to change that. The rule is very very clear, you see the model (the lance is apart of the model yes? I believe so...) then you shoot it. Just like I can charge someone's lance tip and kill them.
Feel free to house rule it mate, but that does not change the fact these rules are gak.
Also you have no idea how I play. If I had to play this crappy game I would house rule it. But please insult me for something you don;t know for sure, it just shows you are desperate. If you look at my battle reports for 40k you will find I play just like you... I just think AOS is the worst ruleset in existence and frankly will not put my precious time to house rule the whole ruleset.
Wait so every game I saw online are made up of "those guys" for measuring from the model as per rules... dude I think you need to lay off the insults.
AoS you have so many options on how units help each other now as well as heroes and the terrain
What wargame does not do this? In fact I will go as far to say all wargames do this better. Name a game where terrain and models don't interact to provide depth, then name a game where AOS beats others here. Tip: There is none. Can't you charge models you can't see? I am very sure there are models that can burrow into the ground and not be interacted with (good luck shifting that objective holder and or killing it) and many more broken shenanigans that make these interactions with the terrain and other models you praise pretty bad dude.
Its fine to like a terrible game dude, just at least admit it is terrible.
Yes it's one of the worst tt wargames ever released, especialy given the context of it being a reboot of a decent system from a big company. Non of the detail and tactics from skirmish games, no or at best little strategy and tactics from regiment games. Initiative roll just because and whole ruleset is like that. Without the gw stamp noone would bother tbh.
AoS you have so many options on how units help each other now as well as heroes and the terrain
What wargame does not do this? In fact I will go as far to say all wargames do this better. Name a game where terrain and models don't interact to provide depth, then name a game where AOS beats others here. Tip: There is none. Can't you charge models you can't see? I am very sure there are models that can burrow into the ground and not be interacted with (good luck shifting that objective holder and or killing it) and many more broken shenanigans that make these interactions with the terrain and other models you praise pretty bad dude.
Its fine to like a terrible game dude, just at least admit it is terrible.
Yes it's one of the worst tt wargames ever released, especialy given the context of it being a reboot of a decent system from a big company. Non of the detail and tactics from skirmish games, no or at best little strategy and tactics from regiment games. Initiative roll just because and whole ruleset is like that. Without the gw stamp noone would bother tbh.
Bang on. Had someone released these rules for free and tried to sell the starter set on kickstarter at the GW price (Which is priced differently in each region) then I bet even the people who try defend this "game" will laugh them off the kickstarter. I don't understand why a GW sticker means anything. Funny how that works.
I am struggling to think of a worse wargame to be honest. As you said combined with the fact we have the top (declining thankfully) wargames company in size who created these rules it is frankly worse than if some kid could of written this during his english class. Crazy stuff man.
Played my first game a couple weeks ago- Skaven vs. Orks (or whatever the armies are being called now...). I should add that the Ork player also had 4 Stone Trolls. See my post here.
It's a game that can't be taken too seriously. There were a couple times when my opponent and I would get into these "deep philosophical discussions" about some of the rules (I won't bother to say which ones- it's not worth it), and we would just stop and say "we're reading too much into this, let's just play".
We tried measuring from model to model, and you can see where that both helped me and hindered me with my Skaven Grey Seer and his tail + ragged robe than allowed my opponent's Black Orcs to move into close combat with him. Can't see if measuring base to base is that much better- because you can now overlap basses. Neither myself or my opponent had any significantly large bases with lots of modeling elements, but if I had a hero on a 40mm base all painted up, with some dramatic bits and static grass, skulls, etc. I might say something when my opponent tries to stack 10 15mm bases on it to attack. So some common respect should be used here.
It doesn't feel like a very "deep" game. As in maneuvering your models is not as critical as it once was. There are no flanking bonuses, so trying to run around models or units just delays the combat. Being able to shoot and charge in the same turn makes some units very, very powerful. Multi-charging is a thing, and in some cases, can be very beneficial as we found out in our game.
At the same time we were playing this game, two other people were playing Daemons vs. Skaven, and it was a "here are my 6 Daemon Princesses, a Greater Daemon of Khorne, and a unit of Nurglings." His opponent "Thott and Boneripper, HPA, 2 Warp Lightning Cannons, 4 Storm Fiends, Verminlord". Their game lasted all of one hour and ended when the last Greater Daemon of Khorne was shot off the table on turn 4. My point here is that the game can be very fast and brutal if you go that route. The first player to set something down on the table sets the pace for the entire game. If you set down 10 Skaven Clanrats, I could go over the top and put a Greater Daemon of Khorne on the table. Or i could respond in kind and out out 10 Empire Pistolers. If I go the Daemon Prince route, then it's like opening the flood gates to "Oh, it's going to be one of those games? OK, here is my HPA".
With the Warscrolls in place now, there is no way to play this game in a tournament setting. It can't balance by wounds- 12 wounds of Skaven Clanrats are not equal to a Dark Elf Sorcerer on a black dragon. It can't balance it by Warscrolls either. Some Warscrolls are just way, way over the top, and others are so generic and bland that it's like "Why would I ever take that one?". With no points and the way options are handled in the Warscrolls "Some Vampire Lords use swords, some use Lances, some use big axes, and some just use their strength and teeth. Here are the rules for each option..." (not a direct quote, just used for illustration purposes), it's impossible to adjust/balance each Warscroll against all the other Warscrolls.
There will be house rules aplenty for this game, and going from venue to venue will get frustrating as each one will probably play AoS drastically different. It will be interesting to see the ideas people come up with to play this game competitively or in a tournament.
For me it will be a fun game that doesn't require much "investment" from me to play. Investment as in won't have to think too hard about deployment or movement, or anything else. It's simplicity to play is probably it's biggest advantage, but could become very stale very quickly. Certainly nothing like Warmachine/Hordes or Drop Zone Commander, or even FoW with the far more complex rules system, movement, and attacking. For more "depth" or "meat", I'd play some other game instead of AoS.
Closing thought: As it's such a simple game to play, it could very well become a "gateway" game for a lot of newer players. They will play it, learn the basics of table top gaming, and then move on to a more complex/challenging game system. Or not. It's all about what you want out of a game.
Just gave the warscrolls another read through to realize that 3+ armor saves (without a buff) are a thing, and not only that... dwarfs only have 1 model with a native 3+ save (well, 2 if your Dwarf Lord has a shield). So do Beastmen... But Bretonnia and Chaos are laden with 3+ saves!
What happened to our mighty Gromril, I wonder? Did we start forging our armor with Ur-gold instead?
Sorry mate... remind me about the bit that's unclear when it comes to measuring from the model for line of sight purposes? Because that rule is clear in AOS so that rule you quoted, while nice, does not apply here.
yea I would not like to play with you in any game settings, you are extremely pedantic in your rules but lets see... here is the rule you think is very clear.#
PICKING TARGETS
First, you must pick the target units for
the attacks. In order to attack an enemy
unit, an enemy model from that unit must
be in range of the attacking weapon (i.e.
within the maximum distance, in inches,
of the Range listed for the weapon making
the attack), and visible to the attacker (if
unsure, stoop down and get a look from
behind the attacking model to see if the
target is visible). For the purposes of
determining visibility, an attacking model
can see through other models in its unit.
you seem to think THAT means "lance tips count"... and that the "most important rule" (even though it clearly does and any sensible player would agree that lance tips do not count) does not apply... yea you are one of "those" players... anyways, good luck, enjoy whatever game you want and all the best
But you measure everything from any point of the model including line of site, where does it say lance tips are not included as they are part of the model?
I mean to everyone who has played this the rules are you measure everything from any part of the model. The rule you just quoted does nothing to change that. The rule is very very clear, you see the model (the lance is apart of the model yes? I believe so...) then you shoot it. Just like I can charge someone's lance tip and kill them.
Feel free to house rule it mate, but that does not change the fact these rules are gak.
Also you have no idea how I play. If I had to play this crappy game I would house rule it. But please insult me for something you don;t know for sure, it just shows you are desperate. If you look at my battle reports for 40k you will find I play just like you... I just think AOS is the worst ruleset in existence and frankly will not put my precious time to house rule the whole ruleset.
Wait so every game I saw online are made up of "those guys" for measuring from the model as per rules... dude I think you need to lay off the insults.
no insults intended, if you felt insulted I apologise....
I saw the models in person finally a couple of days ago, and they are technically very well executed. The character riding the monster and the Khorne Lord with leashed flesh hound were the two highlights. Unfortunately the scale, style and size of the models does not appeal to me at all and I hate 32mm bases.
I also spent some time reading all the old Mordheim pdfs, and looking at the new background, I guess it just leaves a sour taste in my mouth. I loved the old fluff for beastmen lurking in the woods around isolated empire/bret settlements, and the raids and battles that could happen. That was some serious atmosphere. Not really feeling the new background at all, to be honest.
At the same time we were playing this game, two other people were playing Daemons vs. Skaven, and it was a "here are my 6 Daemon Princesses, a Greater Daemon of Khorne, and a unit of Nurglings." His opponent "Thott and Boneripper, HPA, 2 Warp Lightning Cannons, 4 Storm Fiends, Verminlord". Their game lasted all of one hour and ended when the last Greater Daemon of Khorne was shot off the table on turn 4. My point here is that the game can be very fast and brutal if you go that route. The first player to set something down on the table sets the pace for the entire game. If you set down 10 Skaven Clanrats, I could go over the top and put a Greater Daemon of Khorne on the table. Or i could respond in kind and out out 10 Empire Pistolers. If I go the Daemon Prince route, then it's like opening the flood gates to "Oh, it's going to be one of those games? OK, here is my HPA".
What keeps me from wanting to take the plunge is that I will likely be fielding a pure Skaven force based around the Island of Blood plastics, with some fun additions from the rest of the Skaven menagerie. I don't want to paint up a cool, fluffy force, if I am going to have to face armies like the first two examples all the time. The problem is that without rules to police players, I see 75% of responses to 10 Skaven Clanrats as being a Bloodthirster.
I don't want a game where I feel I have to field "Thott and Boneripper, HPA, 2 Warp Lightning Cannons, 4 Storm Fiends, Verminlord", as a Skaven "army" to keep my head above water. Although at least that army uses all Skaven models, rather than a force made of 3-4 races' most recent giant plastic kits because that player can buy a half-dozen $70 kits to make an army.
I don't want to invest a ton of time just to end up playing WFB: Apocalypse/ WHB Unbound. I just want battles of Warhammer without giant unwieldy blocks of wound markers for the front rank, which is what AoS started out sounding like.
That sounds more like what the local players are into. If you can't find an opponent who can play without going for crazy overkill, time to convert your family or else play KOW instead?
to me, most of these complaints sound like you want the game to police the players because the players are jerks. If they are such jerks, would you really want to play any game with them?
BobtheInquisitor wrote: That sounds more like what the local players are into. If you can't find an opponent who can play without going for crazy overkill, time to convert your family or else play KOW instead?
to me, most of these complaints sound like you want the game to police the players because the players are jerks. If they are such jerks, would you really want to play any game with them?
Yeah: what's the difference of what game you play, if you don't have like minded players to game with? Whether you're playing WMH or 40k or AoS, if your opponents are hypercompetitive and you're not, you're going to have a lot less fun.
Essentially, you can break it down into people who build armies because they want to play models that they enjoy, and people who build armies that are optimized around winning combinations. I personally find these two philosophies very hard to reconcile, as a themetic list typically has no chance against a min/max (spammy) list or supercombo list; and typically the themetic player doesn't WANT either of the latter. Somewhat of a relief to this are superformations like Gladius and Skyhammer or Decurion. But even so, people who want to optimize these will do much better than people who just want to play with what they want to play with (within the context of a Company, for example).
It's made worse by 99.99% of these combinations being taken off the Internet. It's also made worse by not really needing to be all that "tactical" or "strategic" in any particular game, because most of the folks using these great combos (in whatever game) are just repeating what they've read on the Internet. For me, that's 100% NOT my thing. I would rather go get a root canal. Now, if one of my friends thought of an original, awesome combo, I would happily lose to it (but not over and over and over - I'm happy to concede at some point that a "normal" army can't win against it).
My suggestion is simply to start another group of people who are looking for the same thing that you are.
Yeah: what's the difference of what game you play, if you don't have like minded players to game with? Whether you're playing WMH or 40k or AoS, if your opponents are hypercompetitive and you're not, you're going to have a lot less fun.
Essentially, you can break it down into people who build armies because they want to play models that they enjoy, and people who build armies that are optimized around winning combinations. I personally find these two philosophies very hard to reconcile, as a themetic list typically has no chance against a min/max (spammy) list or supercombo list; and typically the themetic player doesn't WANT either of the latter.
Main issue with that is some armies, while still thematic, can also be absurdly overpowered. The Tau are the perfect example of that - a regular Tau army back in the day (you know, your typical Black Library book tau army with fire warriors, cool suits and tnaks) was just outright overpowered. You were literally scorned by other players for playing an army you enjoy!
The big problem here is that not everything can work. A thematic army of dwarf slayers led by slayer heroes might not be as good as a well-rounded, regular dwarf army and it's not even game's fault - you are supposed to be making a good, balanced army that has all it's bases covered. The ETC Empire army netlist was perfect example of that - you had two blocks of halberdiers, a unit of demigryph knights, a tank, a hurricanum, a couple archers (as redirectors) and wizards/general. That's your typical Empire army from any book (of course tanks and demigryphs may vary lore-wise). But a regular Dark Elf army was a total mix-match ragtag bunch of regiments that just worked the best in that particular setup because each was op in it's own field.
But what if the player actually likes playing that particular mix because it suits what he pictured in his mind as a cool ark army? He is running a min/maxed army while still enjoying it for other reasons.
It's hard to balance everything because some builds will always be weaker than those where you just cherry-pick all the best things for competitive, sports-like game where everyone tries equally hard to make the best out of what they have available.
@Klyerch - I totally get what your saying. Even in 6e Eldar, what transports did people want Eldar use, if not Wave Serpents? Decurion... cheese or fluff?
On the other hand, I love the Diablo 3/World of Warcraft artwork. In model form? GIMME.
What I would do for a Tyrael model
Does anyone that played D3 at release remember kiting him to Act 3 Bridge, dying, and letting him kill all the mobs, and then coming back to get the loot? Happy times. I don't know how many thousands of dollars (of real money) that I made off of drops I got from Tyrael killing stuff. My favoritest angel ever!
Every time I see the AoS stuff, I get a serious "He-Man and the Masters of the Universe" vibe...
Or is that just me?
You say that like is a bad thing.
I had to make that comment, a friend of mine has made a He-Man Chapter Master and his Chaos Lord is Hordak. He even has a Skeletor and Evilyn Sorcerers.
Wife is putting together my start set. These might be the nicest models I've ever seen. Mind you I have 5 different 40k armies , these are really that good.
And yet, for the opposite reason, I cannot bring myself to play or buy it. The "rules" are the most poorly thought out, lazy excuse for a game I have EVER seen any company put out. Heck even people making their own free game systems for anyone most times have better balance.
Its not a game. Its a model hype system. As is in the book.
, it is horrible.
Orock wrote: And yet, for the opposite reason, I cannot bring myself to play or buy it. The "rules" are the most poorly thought out, lazy excuse for a game I have EVER seen any company put out. Heck even people making their own free game systems for anyone most times have better balance.
Its not a game. Its a model hype system. As is in the book.
, it is horrible.
I disagree the rules are thought out exactly the way they were supposed to be... They are simple, easy to learn, quick to play, its no longer a tabletop war-game, it's more a tabletop war rpg... Which is great imo already got plans for self made scenario but I am waiting for the other forces to be released, warscrolls of the old armies no longer fit in (mostly) and 2 factions is not enough.
Orock wrote: And yet, for the opposite reason, I cannot bring myself to play or buy it. The "rules" are the most poorly thought out, lazy excuse for a game I have EVER seen any company put out. Heck even people making their own free game systems for anyone most times have better balance.
Its not a game. Its a model hype system. As is in the book.
, it is horrible.
I disagree the rules are thought out exactly the way they were supposed to be... They are simple, easy to learn, quick to play, its no longer a tabletop war-game, it's more a tabletop war rpg... Which is great imo already got plans for self made scenario but I am waiting for the other forces to be released, warscrolls of the old armies no longer fit in (mostly) and 2 factions is not enough.
The only RPG element in this game is if you win a game you get a bonus next game you play. Can you explain the RPG side of this game? I may be missing something but in the hefty 4 page rule set I saw there was nothing RPG aside from that one singular rule. This game is no more RPG than any other normal wargame.
Other than that he is correct, it's just poorly done rules. I don't blame him for staying clear of them.
Orock wrote: And yet, for the opposite reason, I cannot bring myself to play or buy it. The "rules" are the most poorly thought out, lazy excuse for a game I have EVER seen any company put out. Heck even people making their own free game systems for anyone most times have better balance.
Its not a game. Its a model hype system. As is in the book.
, it is horrible.
I disagree the rules are thought out exactly the way they were supposed to be... They are simple, easy to learn, quick to play, its no longer a tabletop war-game, it's more a tabletop war rpg... Which is great imo already got plans for self made scenario but I am waiting for the other forces to be released, warscrolls of the old armies no longer fit in (mostly) and 2 factions is not enough.
We are working on one ourselves. Side one gets 7 Characters, now all we need is 40 Cavalry Figures and some townsfolk.
Orock wrote: And yet, for the opposite reason, I cannot bring myself to play or buy it. The "rules" are the most poorly thought out, lazy excuse for a game I have EVER seen any company put out. Heck even people making their own free game systems for anyone most times have better balance.
Its not a game. Its a model hype system. As is in the book.
, it is horrible.
I disagree the rules are thought out exactly the way they were supposed to be... They are simple, easy to learn, quick to play, its no longer a tabletop war-game, it's more a tabletop war rpg... Which is great imo already got plans for self made scenario but I am waiting for the other forces to be released, warscrolls of the old armies no longer fit in (mostly) and 2 factions is not enough.
The only RPG element in this game is if you win a game you get a bonus next game you play. Can you explain the RPG side of this game? I may be missing something but in the hefty 4 page rule set I saw there was nothing RPG aside from that one singular rule. This game is no more RPG than any other normal wargame.
Other than that he is correct, it's just poorly done rules. I don't blame him for staying clear of them.
you want me to explain the role playing side if this game? Ok... You create an army if goblins and dragons and you play a scenario(dungeon) that has specific themes, goals and setting that you and others enjoy, you role play as your army as a whole instead of an individual and you have many ways to play them in house scenarios and ones you make yourself... The DM is the rulekeeper as he irons out the rules people complain about time "do lance tips count as models" but there is no need for a rules keeper (or dungeon master or scenario lords) if you have sensible like minded players... And your character is your army, your stats are your units etc.. But you are now going to say I am wrong and continue pouring steam out like a Duardin in the realm of Aqshy
Orock wrote: And yet, for the opposite reason, I cannot bring myself to play or buy it. The "rules" are the most poorly thought out, lazy excuse for a game I have EVER seen any company put out. Heck even people making their own free game systems for anyone most times have better balance.
Its not a game. Its a model hype system. As is in the book.
, it is horrible.
I disagree the rules are thought out exactly the way they were supposed to be... They are simple, easy to learn, quick to play, its no longer a tabletop war-game, it's more a tabletop war rpg... Which is great imo already got plans for self made scenario but I am waiting for the other forces to be released, warscrolls of the old armies no longer fit in (mostly) and 2 factions is not enough.
We are working on one ourselves. Side one gets 7 Characters, now all we need is 40 Cavalry Figures and some townsfolk.
environments are going to play a heavy role in my scenario and a bigger table is needed... And I am hoping to included progress as suggested in new book (like getting support if you are weakened or chaos gods helping etc) by adding more/less units over time
Orock wrote: And yet, for the opposite reason, I cannot bring myself to play or buy it. The "rules" are the most poorly thought out, lazy excuse for a game I have EVER seen any company put out. Heck even people making their own free game systems for anyone most times have better balance.
Its not a game. Its a model hype system. As is in the book.
, it is horrible.
I disagree the rules are thought out exactly the way they were supposed to be... They are simple, easy to learn, quick to play, its no longer a tabletop war-game, it's more a tabletop war rpg... Which is great imo already got plans for self made scenario but I am waiting for the other forces to be released, warscrolls of the old armies no longer fit in (mostly) and 2 factions is not enough.
The only RPG element in this game is if you win a game you get a bonus next game you play. Can you explain the RPG side of this game? I may be missing something but in the hefty 4 page rule set I saw there was nothing RPG aside from that one singular rule. This game is no more RPG than any other normal wargame.
Other than that he is correct, it's just poorly done rules. I don't blame him for staying clear of them.
you want me to explain the role playing side if this game? Ok... You create an army if goblins and dragons and you play a scenario(dungeon) that has specific themes, goals and setting that you and others enjoy, you role play as your army as a whole instead of an individual and you have many ways to play them in house scenarios and ones you make yourself... The DM is the rulekeeper as he irons out the rules people complain about time "do lance tips count as models" but there is no need for a rules keeper (or dungeon master or scenario lords) if you have sensible like minded players... And your character is your army, your stats are your units etc.. But you are now going to say I am wrong and continue pouring steam out like a Duardin in the realm of Aqshy
Oh... so the same as any other Table Top Wargame then. Get 2 forces of your choosing, battle it out to the death, sometimes with someone helping out with the rules and make a story out of it? What game does not do this? Most games do this and do it better.
Orock wrote: And yet, for the opposite reason, I cannot bring myself to play or buy it. The "rules" are the most poorly thought out, lazy excuse for a game I have EVER seen any company put out. Heck even people making their own free game systems for anyone most times have better balance.
Its not a game. Its a model hype system. As is in the book.
, it is horrible.
I disagree the rules are thought out exactly the way they were supposed to be... They are simple, easy to learn, quick to play, its no longer a tabletop war-game, it's more a tabletop war rpg... Which is great imo already got plans for self made scenario but I am waiting for the other forces to be released, warscrolls of the old armies no longer fit in (mostly) and 2 factions is not enough.
The only RPG element in this game is if you win a game you get a bonus next game you play. Can you explain the RPG side of this game? I may be missing something but in the hefty 4 page rule set I saw there was nothing RPG aside from that one singular rule. This game is no more RPG than any other normal wargame.
Other than that he is correct, it's just poorly done rules. I don't blame him for staying clear of them.
you want me to explain the role playing side if this game? Ok... You create an army if goblins and dragons and you play a scenario(dungeon) that has specific themes, goals and setting that you and others enjoy, you role play as your army as a whole instead of an individual and you have many ways to play them in house scenarios and ones you make yourself... The DM is the rulekeeper as he irons out the rules people complain about time "do lance tips count as models" but there is no need for a rules keeper (or dungeon master or scenario lords) if you have sensible like minded players... And your character is your army, your stats are your units etc.. But you are now going to say I am wrong and continue pouring steam out like a Duardin in the realm of Aqshy
Oh... so the same as any other Table Top Wargame then. Get 2 forces of your choosing, battle it out to the death, sometimes with someone helping out with the rules and make a story out of it? What game does not do this? Most games do this and do it better.
Just saying...
As predicted or "just as planned"... Most games are not as heavily into scenarios as AoS and lets be clear...AoS is what? 2 weeks old... Most other games have had plenty of time to iron things out... Yes I see AoS as a whole new game and not 9th fantasy... But you will again say I am wrong like an Aelf at a duardin feast.
Orock wrote: And yet, for the opposite reason, I cannot bring myself to play or buy it. The "rules" are the most poorly thought out, lazy excuse for a game I have EVER seen any company put out. Heck even people making their own free game systems for anyone most times have better balance.
Its not a game. Its a model hype system. As is in the book.
, it is horrible.
I disagree the rules are thought out exactly the way they were supposed to be... They are simple, easy to learn, quick to play, its no longer a tabletop war-game, it's more a tabletop war rpg... Which is great imo already got plans for self made scenario but I am waiting for the other forces to be released, warscrolls of the old armies no longer fit in (mostly) and 2 factions is not enough.
The only RPG element in this game is if you win a game you get a bonus next game you play. Can you explain the RPG side of this game? I may be missing something but in the hefty 4 page rule set I saw there was nothing RPG aside from that one singular rule. This game is no more RPG than any other normal wargame.
Other than that he is correct, it's just poorly done rules. I don't blame him for staying clear of them.
you want me to explain the role playing side if this game? Ok... You create an army if goblins and dragons and you play a scenario(dungeon) that has specific themes, goals and setting that you and others enjoy, you role play as your army as a whole instead of an individual and you have many ways to play them in house scenarios and ones you make yourself... The DM is the rulekeeper as he irons out the rules people complain about time "do lance tips count as models" but there is no need for a rules keeper (or dungeon master or scenario lords) if you have sensible like minded players... And your character is your army, your stats are your units etc.. But you are now going to say I am wrong and continue pouring steam out like a Duardin in the realm of Aqshy
Oh... so the same as any other Table Top Wargame then. Get 2 forces of your choosing, battle it out to the death, sometimes with someone helping out with the rules and make a story out of it? What game does not do this? Most games do this and do it better.
Just saying...
As predicted or "just as planned"... Most games are not as heavily into scenarios as AoS and lets be clear...AoS is what? 2 weeks old... Most other games have had plenty of time to iron things out... Yes I see AoS as a whole new game and not 9th fantasy... But you will again say I am wrong like an Aelf at a duardin feast.
No it is not 2 weeks old, it had years to be developed and thought out by one of the biggest table top companies. They likely have the next year or more worth of stuff ready for AOS already. It is only 2 weeks old to us.
Now if AOS radically changes over the next few months I may start paying it, but as it is even with its "2 weeks since release" excuse it is pretty bad. And Flames of War is 100% Scenarios, most games are in fact 100% scenario driven. Infinity is, Black Powder and the list is endless. AOS has next to no decent Scenarios.
I mean, it's ok to like it dude, just be honest about the game...
Played my first game this weekend.
The rules as written are horrible, yet somehow enjoyable if you make up your own and alter them.
We measured from bases and let models charge like in 40k (to the nearest free enemy model, not the nearest enemy model).
We each had 2 units and an unnamed hero.
It was quite fun and the rules are so streamlined, that you barely need to think for long and therefore plays really fast. It's not the perfect casual game, but if you play against a friend and agree on altering the rules to make some sense, it's a pretty fun casual game.
After not having played WHFB for 12 years, I found myself looking through the GW range of fantasy models, because this game makes me want to start a few small armies with 80 or so wounds for quick games.
Orock wrote: And yet, for the opposite reason, I cannot bring myself to play or buy it. The "rules" are the most poorly thought out, lazy excuse for a game I have EVER seen any company put out. Heck even people making their own free game systems for anyone most times have better balance.
Its not a game. Its a model hype system. As is in the book.
, it is horrible.
I disagree the rules are thought out exactly the way they were supposed to be... They are simple, easy to learn, quick to play, its no longer a tabletop war-game, it's more a tabletop war rpg... Which is great imo already got plans for self made scenario but I am waiting for the other forces to be released, warscrolls of the old armies no longer fit in (mostly) and 2 factions is not enough.
The only RPG element in this game is if you win a game you get a bonus next game you play. Can you explain the RPG side of this game? I may be missing something but in the hefty 4 page rule set I saw there was nothing RPG aside from that one singular rule. This game is no more RPG than any other normal wargame.
Other than that he is correct, it's just poorly done rules. I don't blame him for staying clear of them.
you want me to explain the role playing side if this game? Ok... You create an army if goblins and dragons and you play a scenario(dungeon) that has specific themes, goals and setting that you and others enjoy, you role play as your army as a whole instead of an individual and you have many ways to play them in house scenarios and ones you make yourself... The DM is the rulekeeper as he irons out the rules people complain about time "do lance tips count as models" but there is no need for a rules keeper (or dungeon master or scenario lords) if you have sensible like minded players... And your character is your army, your stats are your units etc.. But you are now going to say I am wrong and continue pouring steam out like a Duardin in the realm of Aqshy
Oh... so the same as any other Table Top Wargame then. Get 2 forces of your choosing, battle it out to the death, sometimes with someone helping out with the rules and make a story out of it? What game does not do this? Most games do this and do it better.
Just saying...
As predicted or "just as planned"... Most games are not as heavily into scenarios as AoS and lets be clear...AoS is what? 2 weeks old... Most other games have had plenty of time to iron things out... Yes I see AoS as a whole new game and not 9th fantasy... But you will again say I am wrong like an Aelf at a duardin feast.
No it is not 2 weeks old, it had years to be developed and thought out by one of the biggest table top companies. They likely have the next year or more worth of stuff ready for AOS already. It is only 2 weeks old to us.
Now if AOS radically changes over the next few months I may start paying it, but as it is even with its "2 weeks since release" excuse it is pretty bad. And Flames of War is 100% Scenarios, most games are in fact 100% scenario driven. Infinity is, Black Powder and the list is endless. AOS has next to no decent Scenarios.
I mean, it's ok to like it dude, just be honest about the game...
so I am dishonest now? I am pretty sure its all opinions at this point... Either way, HONESTLY, I love the rules and love the style of game... And In my opinion has RPG like areas not seen on other war-games (some have as well, but scenarios are a key aspect of AoS) but that is just my opinion which you think is dishonest and wrong, no wonder GW needed new players for fantasy, you are as angry as a Khorne daemon at a wood aelf wedding.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Hanskrampf wrote: Played my first game this weekend.
The rules as written are horrible, yet somehow enjoyable if you make up your own and alter them.
We measured from bases and let models charge like in 40k (to the nearest free enemy model, not the nearest enemy model).
We each had 2 units and an unnamed hero.
It was quite fun and the rules are so streamlined, that you barely need to think for long and therefore plays really fast. It's not the perfect casual game, but if you play against a friend and agree on altering the rules to make some sense, it's a pretty fun casual game.
After not having played WHFB for 12 years, I found myself looking through the GW range of fantasy models, because this game makes me want to start a few small armies with 80 or so wounds for quick games.
I am mostly buying the models I like the look off and mixing them up, will be buying a grail relique next week to use as a proxy hero on horseback(do not copy me :( ) so far got a hellpit, river trolls, 16 skellies (will try and convert to 20), 3 goblin fanatics... Holding out on new models and still have the starter box to assemble, I feel like a night goblin at the burning man at this point.
Orock wrote: And yet, for the opposite reason, I cannot bring myself to play or buy it. The "rules" are the most poorly thought out, lazy excuse for a game I have EVER seen any company put out. Heck even people making their own free game systems for anyone most times have better balance.
Its not a game. Its a model hype system. As is in the book. , it is horrible.
I disagree the rules are thought out exactly the way they were supposed to be... They are simple, easy to learn, quick to play, its no longer a tabletop war-game, it's more a tabletop war rpg... Which is great imo already got plans for self made scenario but I am waiting for the other forces to be released, warscrolls of the old armies no longer fit in (mostly) and 2 factions is not enough.
The only RPG element in this game is if you win a game you get a bonus next game you play. Can you explain the RPG side of this game? I may be missing something but in the hefty 4 page rule set I saw there was nothing RPG aside from that one singular rule. This game is no more RPG than any other normal wargame.
Other than that he is correct, it's just poorly done rules. I don't blame him for staying clear of them.
you want me to explain the role playing side if this game? Ok... You create an army if goblins and dragons and you play a scenario(dungeon) that has specific themes, goals and setting that you and others enjoy, you role play as your army as a whole instead of an individual and you have many ways to play them in house scenarios and ones you make yourself... The DM is the rulekeeper as he irons out the rules people complain about time "do lance tips count as models" but there is no need for a rules keeper (or dungeon master or scenario lords) if you have sensible like minded players... And your character is your army, your stats are your units etc.. But you are now going to say I am wrong and continue pouring steam out like a Duardin in the realm of Aqshy
Oh... so the same as any other Table Top Wargame then. Get 2 forces of your choosing, battle it out to the death, sometimes with someone helping out with the rules and make a story out of it? What game does not do this? Most games do this and do it better.
Just saying...
As predicted or "just as planned"... Most games are not as heavily into scenarios as AoS and lets be clear...AoS is what? 2 weeks old... Most other games have had plenty of time to iron things out... Yes I see AoS as a whole new game and not 9th fantasy... But you will again say I am wrong like an Aelf at a duardin feast.
No it is not 2 weeks old, it had years to be developed and thought out by one of the biggest table top companies. They likely have the next year or more worth of stuff ready for AOS already. It is only 2 weeks old to us.
Now if AOS radically changes over the next few months I may start paying it, but as it is even with its "2 weeks since release" excuse it is pretty bad. And Flames of War is 100% Scenarios, most games are in fact 100% scenario driven. Infinity is, Black Powder and the list is endless. AOS has next to no decent Scenarios.
I mean, it's ok to like it dude, just be honest about the game...
so I am dishonest now? I am pretty sure its all opinions at this point... Either way, HONESTLY, I love the rules and love the style of game... And In my opinion has RPG like areas not seen on other war-games (some have as well, but scenarios are a key aspect of AoS) but that is just my opinion which you think is dishonest and wrong, no wonder GW needed new players for fantasy, you are as angry as a Khorne daemon at a wood self wedding.
You say it is Scenario Driven like no other game... but how many scenarios are there? You have like 3 in the main book and then the ones in the starter (scenarios that only work if you have X models). How is that a scenario based game? Unless I missed some scenarios. You are saying things about this game that aren't true, it is not Scenario driven at all. Maybe next few months it will be, but at the moment it's use the basic 3 scenario set ups or make your own Scenarios... which ALL games have (most games have better base scenarios and more of them). I think what you say about the game is dishonest, you like the game (fine, odd but fine) but what you are saying about the game is incorrect. It is not scenario driven, it is bring your crap and plonk it front of someone else driven.
I don't play fantasy mate... Played it for a try but that is about it. They needed new players because they don't know how to handle their company I assume, but I cannot be sure.
Someone mentioned Conan the Barbarian in relation to negative feelings toward AoS and I'd like to point something out.
Robert E. Howard helped create GW as much as Ridley Scott, Darth Vader and Rambo. What most people don't realize about Conan is that he was a great character and full of storytelling nuance. The bland homogenized image we get nowadays when someone brings him up is not the real Conan, certainly not the Conan REH would have written.
You see a man named L. Sprague De'Camp somehow got ahold of the rights to Conan after REH passed on, and while he was a big fan, he wasn't such a great writer. De'Camp spent the rest of his life profiting off Conan writing terrible pastiches. Ultimately Conan went from a multifaceted expression of REH's imagination to a generic hero trope, a very bad one at that. De'Camp was as generous with his property license as he was with his own interpretation of the characters and so many talentless hacks were able to further mangle the IP. In a nutshell Conan went from true literature to drugstore paperback. He may as well have been a Danielle Steele coverboy. Which is really funny when you realize that Conan started out in Weird Tales! A drugstore magazine!
Give me 5 more minutes I'll tell you about the soup I made today.
Fans of Conan and by extension REH will agree, Conan isn't just a big muscle bound brute, well he is that, but he is also cunning and iron willed. He has a depth of character not often found in hero's of his type and for anyone willing to look, there can be a wealth of philosophical meaning in his stories. Time and time again we see Conan as a morose and almost uncaring individual, but as you read further into him you can begin to see why he is this way. Life in Hyboria is bad. Its short and unkind and brutal and for a man like Conan there are no gods, no fates, no destiny. Life for Conan is what he can make of it. He eventually becomes a king and hey, for a scrawny kid from Cimmeria that's pretty darn good! But in the end, Conan knows that life is only as good as you make it, and well... What truly is better than a strong drink, a good lover and a hard fight? If you are Conan, nothing.
So how does this relate to AoS? Well longtime fans of WFB will tell you the same thing about their hobby as I have just told you about Conan. WFB was a fun game and it had lots of thinking involved. Fast forward 30 years and what do we have? A watered down ruleset, scale creep (or is that scale steamrolling?), PDF army books, useless accessories, and more of the same shut up and buy attitude.
You could say that GW has done for Warhammer what De'Camp did for Conan.
Orock wrote: And yet, for the opposite reason, I cannot bring myself to play or buy it. The "rules" are the most poorly thought out, lazy excuse for a game I have EVER seen any company put out. Heck even people making their own free game systems for anyone most times have better balance.
Its not a game. Its a model hype system. As is in the book.
, it is horrible.
I disagree the rules are thought out exactly the way they were supposed to be... They are simple, easy to learn, quick to play, its no longer a tabletop war-game, it's more a tabletop war rpg... Which is great imo already got plans for self made scenario but I am waiting for the other forces to be released, warscrolls of the old armies no longer fit in (mostly) and 2 factions is not enough.
The only RPG element in this game is if you win a game you get a bonus next game you play. Can you explain the RPG side of this game? I may be missing something but in the hefty 4 page rule set I saw there was nothing RPG aside from that one singular rule. This game is no more RPG than any other normal wargame.
Other than that he is correct, it's just poorly done rules. I don't blame him for staying clear of them.
you want me to explain the role playing side if this game? Ok... You create an army if goblins and dragons and you play a scenario(dungeon) that has specific themes, goals and setting that you and others enjoy, you role play as your army as a whole instead of an individual and you have many ways to play them in house scenarios and ones you make yourself... The DM is the rulekeeper as he irons out the rules people complain about time "do lance tips count as models" but there is no need for a rules keeper (or dungeon master or scenario lords) if you have sensible like minded players... And your character is your army, your stats are your units etc.. But you are now going to say I am wrong and continue pouring steam out like a Duardin in the realm of Aqshy
Oh... so the same as any other Table Top Wargame then. Get 2 forces of your choosing, battle it out to the death, sometimes with someone helping out with the rules and make a story out of it? What game does not do this? Most games do this and do it better.
Just saying...
As predicted or "just as planned"... Most games are not as heavily into scenarios as AoS and lets be clear...AoS is what? 2 weeks old... Most other games have had plenty of time to iron things out... Yes I see AoS as a whole new game and not 9th fantasy... But you will again say I am wrong like an Aelf at a duardin feast.
No it is not 2 weeks old, it had years to be developed and thought out by one of the biggest table top companies. They likely have the next year or more worth of stuff ready for AOS already. It is only 2 weeks old to us.
Now if AOS radically changes over the next few months I may start paying it, but as it is even with its "2 weeks since release" excuse it is pretty bad. And Flames of War is 100% Scenarios, most games are in fact 100% scenario driven. Infinity is, Black Powder and the list is endless. AOS has next to no decent Scenarios.
I mean, it's ok to like it dude, just be honest about the game...
so I am dishonest now? I am pretty sure its all opinions at this point... Either way, HONESTLY, I love the rules and love the style of game... And In my opinion has RPG like areas not seen on other war-games (some have as well, but scenarios are a key aspect of AoS) but that is just my opinion which you think is dishonest and wrong, no wonder GW needed new players for fantasy, you are as angry as a Khorne daemon at a wood self wedding.
You say it is Scenario Driven like no other game... but how many scenarios are there? You have like 3 in the main book and then the ones in the starter (scenarios that only work if you have X models). How is that a scenario based game? Unless I missed some scenarios. You are saying things about this game that aren't true, it is not Scenario driven at all. Maybe next few months it will be, but at the moment it's use the basic 3 scenario set ups or make your own Scenarios... which ALL games have (most games have better base scenarios and more of them). I think what you say about the game is dishonest, you like the game (fine, odd but fine) but what you are saying about the game is incorrect. It is not scenario driven, it is bring your crap and plonk it front of someone else driven.
I don't play fantasy mate... Played it for a try but that is about it. They needed new players because they don't know how to handle their company I assume, but I cannot be sure.
so you want a 2 week old game to have heaps of scenarios because? Lets ease players in first buddy.. Remember some people do not play tabletop war-games as religiously as you... Scenarios are limited but I bet my gnoblars more will come with more books for each faction... We still have destruction and undead to slaanesh over... Patience is clearly not one of your virtues.
Someone mentioned Conan the Barbarian in relation to negative feelings toward AoS and I'd like to point something out.
Robert E. Howard helped create GW as much as Ridley Scott, Darth Vader and Rambo. What most people don't realize about Conan is that he was a great character and full of storytelling nuance. The bland homogenized image we get nowadays when someone brings him up is not the real Conan, certainly not the Conan REH would have written.
You see a man named L. Sprague De'Camp somehow got ahold of the rights to Conan after REH passed on, and while he was a big fan, he wasn't such a great writer. De'Camp spent the rest of his life profiting off Conan writing terrible pastiches. Ultimately Conan went from a multifaceted expression of REH's imagination to a generic hero trope, a very bad one at that. De'Camp was as generous with his property license as he was with his own interpretation of the characters and so many talentless hacks were able to further mangle the IP. In a nutshell Conan went from true literature to drugstore paperback. He may as well have been a Danielle Steele coverboy. Which is really funny when you realize that Conan started out in Weird Tales! A drugstore magazine!
Give me 5 more minutes I'll tell you about the soup I made today.
Fans of Conan and by extension REH will agree, Conan isn't just a big muscle bound brute, well he is that, but he is also cunning and iron willed. He has a depth of character not often found in hero's of his type and for anyone willing to look, there can be a wealth of philosophical meaning in his stories. Time and time again we see Conan as a morose and almost uncaring individual, but as you read further into him you can begin to see why he is this way. Life in Hyboria is bad. Its short and unkind and brutal and for a man like Conan there are no gods, no fates, no destiny. Life for Conan is what he can make of it. He eventually becomes a king and hey, for a scrawny mid from Cimmeria that's pretty darn good! But in the end, Conan knows that life is only as good as you make it, and well... What truly is better than a strong drink, a good lover and a hard fight? If you are Conan, nothing.
So how does this relate to AoS? Well longtime fans of WFB will tell you the same thing about their hobby as I have just told you about Conan. WFB was a fun game and it had lots of thinking involved. Fast forward 30 years and what do we have? A watered down ruleset, scale creep (or is that scale steamrolling?), PDF army books, useless accessories, and more of the same shut up and buy attitude.
You could say that GW has done for Warhammer what De'Camp did for Conan.
dunno, Conan is pretty cool in the comics I read, he is closest to your original description than you think... Smart, strong, honourable etc... Maybe you just read the wring things? Was the D guy the one who made the movie? In which case your problem is watching bad movies..
Orock wrote: And yet, for the opposite reason, I cannot bring myself to play or buy it. The "rules" are the most poorly thought out, lazy excuse for a game I have EVER seen any company put out. Heck even people making their own free game systems for anyone most times have better balance.
Its not a game. Its a model hype system. As is in the book.
, it is horrible.
I disagree the rules are thought out exactly the way they were supposed to be... They are simple, easy to learn, quick to play, its no longer a tabletop war-game, it's more a tabletop war rpg... Which is great imo already got plans for self made scenario but I am waiting for the other forces to be released, warscrolls of the old armies no longer fit in (mostly) and 2 factions is not enough.
The only RPG element in this game is if you win a game you get a bonus next game you play. Can you explain the RPG side of this game? I may be missing something but in the hefty 4 page rule set I saw there was nothing RPG aside from that one singular rule. This game is no more RPG than any other normal wargame.
Other than that he is correct, it's just poorly done rules. I don't blame him for staying clear of them.
you want me to explain the role playing side if this game? Ok... You create an army if goblins and dragons and you play a scenario(dungeon) that has specific themes, goals and setting that you and others enjoy, you role play as your army as a whole instead of an individual and you have many ways to play them in house scenarios and ones you make yourself... The DM is the rulekeeper as he irons out the rules people complain about time "do lance tips count as models" but there is no need for a rules keeper (or dungeon master or scenario lords) if you have sensible like minded players... And your character is your army, your stats are your units etc.. But you are now going to say I am wrong and continue pouring steam out like a Duardin in the realm of Aqshy
Oh... so the same as any other Table Top Wargame then. Get 2 forces of your choosing, battle it out to the death, sometimes with someone helping out with the rules and make a story out of it? What game does not do this? Most games do this and do it better.
Just saying...
As predicted or "just as planned"... Most games are not as heavily into scenarios as AoS and lets be clear...AoS is what? 2 weeks old... Most other games have had plenty of time to iron things out... Yes I see AoS as a whole new game and not 9th fantasy... But you will again say I am wrong like an Aelf at a duardin feast.
No it is not 2 weeks old, it had years to be developed and thought out by one of the biggest table top companies. They likely have the next year or more worth of stuff ready for AOS already. It is only 2 weeks old to us.
Now if AOS radically changes over the next few months I may start paying it, but as it is even with its "2 weeks since release" excuse it is pretty bad. And Flames of War is 100% Scenarios, most games are in fact 100% scenario driven. Infinity is, Black Powder and the list is endless. AOS has next to no decent Scenarios.
I mean, it's ok to like it dude, just be honest about the game...
so I am dishonest now? I am pretty sure its all opinions at this point... Either way, HONESTLY, I love the rules and love the style of game... And In my opinion has RPG like areas not seen on other war-games (some have as well, but scenarios are a key aspect of AoS) but that is just my opinion which you think is dishonest and wrong, no wonder GW needed new players for fantasy, you are as angry as a Khorne daemon at a wood self wedding.
You say it is Scenario Driven like no other game... but how many scenarios are there? You have like 3 in the main book and then the ones in the starter (scenarios that only work if you have X models). How is that a scenario based game? Unless I missed some scenarios. You are saying things about this game that aren't true, it is not Scenario driven at all. Maybe next few months it will be, but at the moment it's use the basic 3 scenario set ups or make your own Scenarios... which ALL games have (most games have better base scenarios and more of them). I think what you say about the game is dishonest, you like the game (fine, odd but fine) but what you are saying about the game is incorrect. It is not scenario driven, it is bring your crap and plonk it front of someone else driven.
I don't play fantasy mate... Played it for a try but that is about it. They needed new players because they don't know how to handle their company I assume, but I cannot be sure.
so you want a 2 week old game to have heaps of scenarios because? Lets ease players in first buddy.. Remember some people do not play tabletop war-games as religiously as you... Scenarios are limited but I bet my gnoblars more will come with more books for each faction... We still have destruction and undead to slaanesh over... Patience is clearly not one of your virtues.
Yea keep insulting me buddy.
Yes I want a 2 week old game to be a complete game. I don't want half written rubbish, I want a ruleset. You know what most games do? Have a finished ruleset, then have suggestions for beginners and then when the beginers are comfortable they can do the advanced stuff... in the same rulebook. Do you know what this does? This means that players of all abilities can enjoy the game. Do you know what that means? You will have more people buying the game. Do you know what that means? You have more people to play and GW has more money to grow instead of the current situation where they are losing money.
But sure man keep trying to tell me when things are new they should not be complete... because that makes total sense. Now if GW released a beta ruleset for us to give them feedback, then maybe these rules would be ok (for now) but they aren't. These are the full rules.
But yea, the game sucks because im not patient enough to wait for them to write a real ruleset. makes sense I guess.
Orock wrote: And yet, for the opposite reason, I cannot bring myself to play or buy it. The "rules" are the most poorly thought out, lazy excuse for a game I have EVER seen any company put out. Heck even people making their own free game systems for anyone most times have better balance.
Its not a game. Its a model hype system. As is in the book.
, it is horrible.
I disagree the rules are thought out exactly the way they were supposed to be... They are simple, easy to learn, quick to play, its no longer a tabletop war-game, it's more a tabletop war rpg... Which is great imo already got plans for self made scenario but I am waiting for the other forces to be released, warscrolls of the old armies no longer fit in (mostly) and 2 factions is not enough.
The only RPG element in this game is if you win a game you get a bonus next game you play. Can you explain the RPG side of this game? I may be missing something but in the hefty 4 page rule set I saw there was nothing RPG aside from that one singular rule. This game is no more RPG than any other normal wargame.
Other than that he is correct, it's just poorly done rules. I don't blame him for staying clear of them.
you want me to explain the role playing side if this game? Ok... You create an army if goblins and dragons and you play a scenario(dungeon) that has specific themes, goals and setting that you and others enjoy, you role play as your army as a whole instead of an individual and you have many ways to play them in house scenarios and ones you make yourself... The DM is the rulekeeper as he irons out the rules people complain about time "do lance tips count as models" but there is no need for a rules keeper (or dungeon master or scenario lords) if you have sensible like minded players... And your character is your army, your stats are your units etc.. But you are now going to say I am wrong and continue pouring steam out like a Duardin in the realm of Aqshy
Oh... so the same as any other Table Top Wargame then. Get 2 forces of your choosing, battle it out to the death, sometimes with someone helping out with the rules and make a story out of it? What game does not do this? Most games do this and do it better.
Just saying...
As predicted or "just as planned"... Most games are not as heavily into scenarios as AoS and lets be clear...AoS is what? 2 weeks old... Most other games have had plenty of time to iron things out... Yes I see AoS as a whole new game and not 9th fantasy... But you will again say I am wrong like an Aelf at a duardin feast.
No it is not 2 weeks old, it had years to be developed and thought out by one of the biggest table top companies. They likely have the next year or more worth of stuff ready for AOS already. It is only 2 weeks old to us.
Now if AOS radically changes over the next few months I may start paying it, but as it is even with its "2 weeks since release" excuse it is pretty bad. And Flames of War is 100% Scenarios, most games are in fact 100% scenario driven. Infinity is, Black Powder and the list is endless. AOS has next to no decent Scenarios.
I mean, it's ok to like it dude, just be honest about the game...
so I am dishonest now? I am pretty sure its all opinions at this point... Either way, HONESTLY, I love the rules and love the style of game... And In my opinion has RPG like areas not seen on other war-games (some have as well, but scenarios are a key aspect of AoS) but that is just my opinion which you think is dishonest and wrong, no wonder GW needed new players for fantasy, you are as angry as a Khorne daemon at a wood self wedding.
You say it is Scenario Driven like no other game... but how many scenarios are there? You have like 3 in the main book and then the ones in the starter (scenarios that only work if you have X models). How is that a scenario based game? Unless I missed some scenarios. You are saying things about this game that aren't true, it is not Scenario driven at all. Maybe next few months it will be, but at the moment it's use the basic 3 scenario set ups or make your own Scenarios... which ALL games have (most games have better base scenarios and more of them). I think what you say about the game is dishonest, you like the game (fine, odd but fine) but what you are saying about the game is incorrect. It is not scenario driven, it is bring your crap and plonk it front of someone else driven.
I don't play fantasy mate... Played it for a try but that is about it. They needed new players because they don't know how to handle their company I assume, but I cannot be sure.
so you want a 2 week old game to have heaps of scenarios because? Lets ease players in first buddy.. Remember some people do not play tabletop war-games as religiously as you... Scenarios are limited but I bet my gnoblars more will come with more books for each faction... We still have destruction and undead to slaanesh over... Patience is clearly not one of your virtues.
Yea keep insulting me buddy.
Yes I want a 2 week old game to be a complete game. I don't want half written rubbish, I want a ruleset. You know what most games do? Have a finished ruleset, then have suggestions for beginners and then when the beginers are comfortable they can do the advanced stuff... in the same rulebook. Do you know what this does? This means that players of all abilities can enjoy the game. Do you know what that means? You will have more people buying the game. Do you know what that means? You have more people to play and GW has more money to grow instead of the current situation where they are losing money.
But sure man keep trying to tell me when things are new they should not be complete... because that makes total sense. Now if GW released a beta ruleset for us to give them feedback, then maybe these rules would be ok (for now) but they aren't. These are the full rules.
But yea, the game sucks because im not patient enough to wait for them to write a real ruleset. makes sense I guess.
if you feel insulted I apologise, not my intent but you feverously anti AoS and your whole argument is "gw could have done more, the game is incomplete" but the thing is, the game is complete as it should be, the rules are simple because its the way it was designed, you think they are unfinished and I do not but I am somehow wrong and you are right, some of us rather enjoy it... And then you go off on the "gw is taking money" rant which more or less establishes why you have so much khorne in you... No one forced you to buy into their hobby and others are just as expensive
in short, some of us are content with the simplified rules and do not see it as unfinished, some of us so not want to carry around a 200 page books of rules because our hand needs to be held playing and where we as the players cannot work things out with a simple 5min conversation mid game.
Orock wrote: And yet, for the opposite reason, I cannot bring myself to play or buy it. The "rules" are the most poorly thought out, lazy excuse for a game I have EVER seen any company put out. Heck even people making their own free game systems for anyone most times have better balance.
Its not a game. Its a model hype system. As is in the book.
, it is horrible.
I disagree the rules are thought out exactly the way they were supposed to be... They are simple, easy to learn, quick to play, its no longer a tabletop war-game, it's more a tabletop war rpg... Which is great imo already got plans for self made scenario but I am waiting for the other forces to be released, warscrolls of the old armies no longer fit in (mostly) and 2 factions is not enough.
The only RPG element in this game is if you win a game you get a bonus next game you play. Can you explain the RPG side of this game? I may be missing something but in the hefty 4 page rule set I saw there was nothing RPG aside from that one singular rule. This game is no more RPG than any other normal wargame.
Other than that he is correct, it's just poorly done rules. I don't blame him for staying clear of them.
you want me to explain the role playing side if this game? Ok... You create an army if goblins and dragons and you play a scenario(dungeon) that has specific themes, goals and setting that you and others enjoy, you role play as your army as a whole instead of an individual and you have many ways to play them in house scenarios and ones you make yourself... The DM is the rulekeeper as he irons out the rules people complain about time "do lance tips count as models" but there is no need for a rules keeper (or dungeon master or scenario lords) if you have sensible like minded players... And your character is your army, your stats are your units etc.. But you are now going to say I am wrong and continue pouring steam out like a Duardin in the realm of Aqshy
Oh... so the same as any other Table Top Wargame then. Get 2 forces of your choosing, battle it out to the death, sometimes with someone helping out with the rules and make a story out of it? What game does not do this? Most games do this and do it better.
Just saying...
As predicted or "just as planned"... Most games are not as heavily into scenarios as AoS and lets be clear...AoS is what? 2 weeks old... Most other games have had plenty of time to iron things out... Yes I see AoS as a whole new game and not 9th fantasy... But you will again say I am wrong like an Aelf at a duardin feast.
No it is not 2 weeks old, it had years to be developed and thought out by one of the biggest table top companies. They likely have the next year or more worth of stuff ready for AOS already. It is only 2 weeks old to us.
Now if AOS radically changes over the next few months I may start paying it, but as it is even with its "2 weeks since release" excuse it is pretty bad. And Flames of War is 100% Scenarios, most games are in fact 100% scenario driven. Infinity is, Black Powder and the list is endless. AOS has next to no decent Scenarios.
I mean, it's ok to like it dude, just be honest about the game...
so I am dishonest now? I am pretty sure its all opinions at this point... Either way, HONESTLY, I love the rules and love the style of game... And In my opinion has RPG like areas not seen on other war-games (some have as well, but scenarios are a key aspect of AoS) but that is just my opinion which you think is dishonest and wrong, no wonder GW needed new players for fantasy, you are as angry as a Khorne daemon at a wood self wedding.
You say it is Scenario Driven like no other game... but how many scenarios are there? You have like 3 in the main book and then the ones in the starter (scenarios that only work if you have X models). How is that a scenario based game? Unless I missed some scenarios. You are saying things about this game that aren't true, it is not Scenario driven at all. Maybe next few months it will be, but at the moment it's use the basic 3 scenario set ups or make your own Scenarios... which ALL games have (most games have better base scenarios and more of them). I think what you say about the game is dishonest, you like the game (fine, odd but fine) but what you are saying about the game is incorrect. It is not scenario driven, it is bring your crap and plonk it front of someone else driven.
I don't play fantasy mate... Played it for a try but that is about it. They needed new players because they don't know how to handle their company I assume, but I cannot be sure.
so you want a 2 week old game to have heaps of scenarios because? Lets ease players in first buddy.. Remember some people do not play tabletop war-games as religiously as you... Scenarios are limited but I bet my gnoblars more will come with more books for each faction... We still have destruction and undead to slaanesh over... Patience is clearly not one of your virtues.
Yea keep insulting me buddy.
Yes I want a 2 week old game to be a complete game. I don't want half written rubbish, I want a ruleset. You know what most games do? Have a finished ruleset, then have suggestions for beginners and then when the beginers are comfortable they can do the advanced stuff... in the same rulebook. Do you know what this does? This means that players of all abilities can enjoy the game. Do you know what that means? You will have more people buying the game. Do you know what that means? You have more people to play and GW has more money to grow instead of the current situation where they are losing money.
But sure man keep trying to tell me when things are new they should not be complete... because that makes total sense. Now if GW released a beta ruleset for us to give them feedback, then maybe these rules would be ok (for now) but they aren't. These are the full rules.
But yea, the game sucks because im not patient enough to wait for them to write a real ruleset. makes sense I guess.
if you feel insulted I apologise, not my intent but you feverously anti AoS and your whole argument is "gw could have done more, the game is incomplete" but the thing is, the game is complete as it should be, the rules are simple because its the way it was designed, you think they are unfinished and I do not but I am somehow wrong and you are right, some of us rather enjoy it... And then you go off on the "gw is taking money" rant which more or less establishes why you have so much khorne in you... No one forced you to buy into their hobby and others are just as expensive
in short, some of us are content with the simplified rules and do not see it as unfinished, some of us so not want to carry around a 200 page books of rules because our hand needs to be held playing and where we as the players cannot work things out with a simple 5min conversation mid game.
GW SHOULD have done more. Why is the game as complete as it should be? Its not complete at all, or people wouldn't be trying to fix it so much right now.
When did I say GW was taking my money? I am only criticizing their rules. And no, no other hobby is as expensive as GW that I do. GW is more expensive than most companies. Not that this has anything to do with their munted rules.
You dont have to carry around 200 pages for a complete ruleset.
Please stop making stuff up man. What game has a 200 page ruleset? GW doesnt even have that many pages of rules in any of their games.
AOS has NOTHING that ANY game doesn't have and actually has less. Nothing redeemable here but models that look cool.
If this is incomplete or not is to been seen.
But at this moment it is complete as it should be, because even in the first few weeks this seems to have an effect.
First off: AoS is not for me, i play WHFB since 3rd edition and above all like games with more depth, not less.
But in discussions i ask the people who complain most how many WHFB models they bought the last couple of years and the answer is "few" or "none", with the reason given: "because almost nobody plays it".
Well, that's exactly the reason why it had to change.
And the first fase of the change seems to work.
There are people that get interested in this game, which is easy and quite enough to have some fun with miniatures.
Nothing more and nothing less.
Maybe GW could have done more, but i don't think GW should have done more, because then this would not have worked. We already had a more complex game named WHFB that did not sell.
Maybe we get a AoS++ or new WHFB later on, but for now i actualy thing this is the best way to go. Even though it is not for me.
Orock wrote: And yet, for the opposite reason, I cannot bring myself to play or buy it. The "rules" are the most poorly thought out, lazy excuse for a game I have EVER seen any company put out. Heck even people making their own free game systems for anyone most times have better balance.
Its not a game. Its a model hype system. As is in the book.
, it is horrible.
I disagree the rules are thought out exactly the way they were supposed to be... They are simple, easy to learn, quick to play, its no longer a tabletop war-game, it's more a tabletop war rpg... Which is great imo already got plans for self made scenario but I am waiting for the other forces to be released, warscrolls of the old armies no longer fit in (mostly) and 2 factions is not enough.
The only RPG element in this game is if you win a game you get a bonus next game you play. Can you explain the RPG side of this game? I may be missing something but in the hefty 4 page rule set I saw there was nothing RPG aside from that one singular rule. This game is no more RPG than any other normal wargame.
Other than that he is correct, it's just poorly done rules. I don't blame him for staying clear of them.
you want me to explain the role playing side if this game? Ok... You create an army if goblins and dragons and you play a scenario(dungeon) that has specific themes, goals and setting that you and others enjoy, you role play as your army as a whole instead of an individual and you have many ways to play them in house scenarios and ones you make yourself... The DM is the rulekeeper as he irons out the rules people complain about time "do lance tips count as models" but there is no need for a rules keeper (or dungeon master or scenario lords) if you have sensible like minded players... And your character is your army, your stats are your units etc.. But you are now going to say I am wrong and continue pouring steam out like a Duardin in the realm of Aqshy
Oh... so the same as any other Table Top Wargame then. Get 2 forces of your choosing, battle it out to the death, sometimes with someone helping out with the rules and make a story out of it? What game does not do this? Most games do this and do it better.
Just saying...
As predicted or "just as planned"... Most games are not as heavily into scenarios as AoS and lets be clear...AoS is what? 2 weeks old... Most other games have had plenty of time to iron things out... Yes I see AoS as a whole new game and not 9th fantasy... But you will again say I am wrong like an Aelf at a duardin feast.
No it is not 2 weeks old, it had years to be developed and thought out by one of the biggest table top companies. They likely have the next year or more worth of stuff ready for AOS already. It is only 2 weeks old to us.
Now if AOS radically changes over the next few months I may start paying it, but as it is even with its "2 weeks since release" excuse it is pretty bad. And Flames of War is 100% Scenarios, most games are in fact 100% scenario driven. Infinity is, Black Powder and the list is endless. AOS has next to no decent Scenarios.
I mean, it's ok to like it dude, just be honest about the game...
so I am dishonest now? I am pretty sure its all opinions at this point... Either way, HONESTLY, I love the rules and love the style of game... And In my opinion has RPG like areas not seen on other war-games (some have as well, but scenarios are a key aspect of AoS) but that is just my opinion which you think is dishonest and wrong, no wonder GW needed new players for fantasy, you are as angry as a Khorne daemon at a wood self wedding.
You say it is Scenario Driven like no other game... but how many scenarios are there? You have like 3 in the main book and then the ones in the starter (scenarios that only work if you have X models). How is that a scenario based game? Unless I missed some scenarios. You are saying things about this game that aren't true, it is not Scenario driven at all. Maybe next few months it will be, but at the moment it's use the basic 3 scenario set ups or make your own Scenarios... which ALL games have (most games have better base scenarios and more of them). I think what you say about the game is dishonest, you like the game (fine, odd but fine) but what you are saying about the game is incorrect. It is not scenario driven, it is bring your crap and plonk it front of someone else driven.
I don't play fantasy mate... Played it for a try but that is about it. They needed new players because they don't know how to handle their company I assume, but I cannot be sure.
so you want a 2 week old game to have heaps of scenarios because? Lets ease players in first buddy.. Remember some people do not play tabletop war-games as religiously as you... Scenarios are limited but I bet my gnoblars more will come with more books for each faction... We still have destruction and undead to slaanesh over... Patience is clearly not one of your virtues.
Yea keep insulting me buddy.
Yes I want a 2 week old game to be a complete game. I don't want half written rubbish, I want a ruleset. You know what most games do? Have a finished ruleset, then have suggestions for beginners and then when the beginers are comfortable they can do the advanced stuff... in the same rulebook. Do you know what this does? This means that players of all abilities can enjoy the game. Do you know what that means? You will have more people buying the game. Do you know what that means? You have more people to play and GW has more money to grow instead of the current situation where they are losing money.
But sure man keep trying to tell me when things are new they should not be complete... because that makes total sense. Now if GW released a beta ruleset for us to give them feedback, then maybe these rules would be ok (for now) but they aren't. These are the full rules.
But yea, the game sucks because im not patient enough to wait for them to write a real ruleset. makes sense I guess.
if you feel insulted I apologise, not my intent but you feverously anti AoS and your whole argument is "gw could have done more, the game is incomplete" but the thing is, the game is complete as it should be, the rules are simple because its the way it was designed, you think they are unfinished and I do not but I am somehow wrong and you are right, some of us rather enjoy it... And then you go off on the "gw is taking money" rant which more or less establishes why you have so much khorne in you... No one forced you to buy into their hobby and others are just as expensive
in short, some of us are content with the simplified rules and do not see it as unfinished, some of us so not want to carry around a 200 page books of rules because our hand needs to be held playing and where we as the players cannot work things out with a simple 5min conversation mid game.
GW SHOULD have done more. Why is the game as complete as it should be? Its not complete at all, or people wouldn't be trying to fix it so much right now.
When did I say GW was taking my money? I am only criticizing their rules. And no, no other hobby is as expensive as GW that I do. GW is more expensive than most companies. Not that this has anything to do with their munted rules.
You dont have to carry around 200 pages for a complete ruleset.
Please stop making stuff up man. What game has a 200 page ruleset? GW doesnt even have that many pages of rules in any of their games.
AOS has NOTHING that ANY game doesn't have and actually has less. Nothing redeemable here but models that look cool.
see that is your problem, you think that talking mid game about rules is "fixing it" its not, the game is complete, its simple and new, I played a few games and the only thing needed fixing was a bigger table, so we combined 2 using portals... Anyways I am going to agree to disagree and wish you all the best in KoW or any other "complete game" and I will go back to thinking up scenarios and unit combos... Best wishes, love you
Orock wrote: And yet, for the opposite reason, I cannot bring myself to play or buy it. The "rules" are the most poorly thought out, lazy excuse for a game I have EVER seen any company put out. Heck even people making their own free game systems for anyone most times have better balance.
Its not a game. Its a model hype system. As is in the book.
, it is horrible.
I disagree the rules are thought out exactly the way they were supposed to be... They are simple, easy to learn, quick to play, its no longer a tabletop war-game, it's more a tabletop war rpg... Which is great imo already got plans for self made scenario but I am waiting for the other forces to be released, warscrolls of the old armies no longer fit in (mostly) and 2 factions is not enough.
The only RPG element in this game is if you win a game you get a bonus next game you play. Can you explain the RPG side of this game? I may be missing something but in the hefty 4 page rule set I saw there was nothing RPG aside from that one singular rule. This game is no more RPG than any other normal wargame.
Other than that he is correct, it's just poorly done rules. I don't blame him for staying clear of them.
you want me to explain the role playing side if this game? Ok... You create an army if goblins and dragons and you play a scenario(dungeon) that has specific themes, goals and setting that you and others enjoy, you role play as your army as a whole instead of an individual and you have many ways to play them in house scenarios and ones you make yourself... The DM is the rulekeeper as he irons out the rules people complain about time "do lance tips count as models" but there is no need for a rules keeper (or dungeon master or scenario lords) if you have sensible like minded players... And your character is your army, your stats are your units etc.. But you are now going to say I am wrong and continue pouring steam out like a Duardin in the realm of Aqshy
Oh... so the same as any other Table Top Wargame then. Get 2 forces of your choosing, battle it out to the death, sometimes with someone helping out with the rules and make a story out of it? What game does not do this? Most games do this and do it better.
Just saying...
As predicted or "just as planned"... Most games are not as heavily into scenarios as AoS and lets be clear...AoS is what? 2 weeks old... Most other games have had plenty of time to iron things out... Yes I see AoS as a whole new game and not 9th fantasy... But you will again say I am wrong like an Aelf at a duardin feast.
No it is not 2 weeks old, it had years to be developed and thought out by one of the biggest table top companies. They likely have the next year or more worth of stuff ready for AOS already. It is only 2 weeks old to us.
Now if AOS radically changes over the next few months I may start paying it, but as it is even with its "2 weeks since release" excuse it is pretty bad. And Flames of War is 100% Scenarios, most games are in fact 100% scenario driven. Infinity is, Black Powder and the list is endless. AOS has next to no decent Scenarios.
I mean, it's ok to like it dude, just be honest about the game...
so I am dishonest now? I am pretty sure its all opinions at this point... Either way, HONESTLY, I love the rules and love the style of game... And In my opinion has RPG like areas not seen on other war-games (some have as well, but scenarios are a key aspect of AoS) but that is just my opinion which you think is dishonest and wrong, no wonder GW needed new players for fantasy, you are as angry as a Khorne daemon at a wood self wedding.
You say it is Scenario Driven like no other game... but how many scenarios are there? You have like 3 in the main book and then the ones in the starter (scenarios that only work if you have X models). How is that a scenario based game? Unless I missed some scenarios. You are saying things about this game that aren't true, it is not Scenario driven at all. Maybe next few months it will be, but at the moment it's use the basic 3 scenario set ups or make your own Scenarios... which ALL games have (most games have better base scenarios and more of them). I think what you say about the game is dishonest, you like the game (fine, odd but fine) but what you are saying about the game is incorrect. It is not scenario driven, it is bring your crap and plonk it front of someone else driven.
I don't play fantasy mate... Played it for a try but that is about it. They needed new players because they don't know how to handle their company I assume, but I cannot be sure.
so you want a 2 week old game to have heaps of scenarios because? Lets ease players in first buddy.. Remember some people do not play tabletop war-games as religiously as you... Scenarios are limited but I bet my gnoblars more will come with more books for each faction... We still have destruction and undead to slaanesh over... Patience is clearly not one of your virtues.
Yea keep insulting me buddy.
Yes I want a 2 week old game to be a complete game. I don't want half written rubbish, I want a ruleset. You know what most games do? Have a finished ruleset, then have suggestions for beginners and then when the beginers are comfortable they can do the advanced stuff... in the same rulebook. Do you know what this does? This means that players of all abilities can enjoy the game. Do you know what that means? You will have more people buying the game. Do you know what that means? You have more people to play and GW has more money to grow instead of the current situation where they are losing money.
But sure man keep trying to tell me when things are new they should not be complete... because that makes total sense. Now if GW released a beta ruleset for us to give them feedback, then maybe these rules would be ok (for now) but they aren't. These are the full rules.
But yea, the game sucks because im not patient enough to wait for them to write a real ruleset. makes sense I guess.
if you feel insulted I apologise, not my intent but you feverously anti AoS and your whole argument is "gw could have done more, the game is incomplete" but the thing is, the game is complete as it should be, the rules are simple because its the way it was designed, you think they are unfinished and I do not but I am somehow wrong and you are right, some of us rather enjoy it... And then you go off on the "gw is taking money" rant which more or less establishes why you have so much khorne in you... No one forced you to buy into their hobby and others are just as expensive
in short, some of us are content with the simplified rules and do not see it as unfinished, some of us so not want to carry around a 200 page books of rules because our hand needs to be held playing and where we as the players cannot work things out with a simple 5min conversation mid game.
GW SHOULD have done more. Why is the game as complete as it should be? Its not complete at all, or people wouldn't be trying to fix it so much right now.
When did I say GW was taking my money? I am only criticizing their rules. And no, no other hobby is as expensive as GW that I do. GW is more expensive than most companies. Not that this has anything to do with their munted rules.
You dont have to carry around 200 pages for a complete ruleset.
Please stop making stuff up man. What game has a 200 page ruleset? GW doesnt even have that many pages of rules in any of their games.
AOS has NOTHING that ANY game doesn't have and actually has less. Nothing redeemable here but models that look cool.
see that is your problem, you think that talking mid game about rules is "fixing it" its not, the game is complete, its simple and new, I played a few games and the only thing needed fixing was a bigger table, so we combined 2 using portals... Anyways I am going to agree to disagree and wish you all the best in KoW or any other "complete game" and I will go back to thinking up scenarios and unit combos... Best wishes, love you
You are wrong dude... At the end of the day at least you enjoy it... love you too.
darkcloak wrote: So how does this relate to AoS? Well longtime fans of WFB will tell you the same thing about their hobby as I have just told you about Conan. WFB was a fun game and it had lots of thinking involved. Fast forward 30 years and what do we have? A watered down ruleset, scale creep (or is that scale steamrolling?), PDF army books, useless accessories, and more of the same shut up and buy attitude.
You could say that GW has done for Warhammer what De'Camp did for Conan.
Good way to convey your dislike for the AoS direction. I'm wondering why you list PDF rule books as a negative aspect of the game. What's wrong with that?
Orock wrote: And yet, for the opposite reason, I cannot bring myself to play or buy it. The "rules" are the most poorly thought out, lazy excuse for a game I have EVER seen any company put out. Heck even people making their own free game systems for anyone most times have better balance.
Its not a game. Its a model hype system. As is in the book.
, it is horrible.
I disagree the rules are thought out exactly the way they were supposed to be... They are simple, easy to learn, quick to play, its no longer a tabletop war-game, it's more a tabletop war rpg... Which is great imo already got plans for self made scenario but I am waiting for the other forces to be released, warscrolls of the old armies no longer fit in (mostly) and 2 factions is not enough.
The only RPG element in this game is if you win a game you get a bonus next game you play. Can you explain the RPG side of this game? I may be missing something but in the hefty 4 page rule set I saw there was nothing RPG aside from that one singular rule. This game is no more RPG than any other normal wargame.
Other than that he is correct, it's just poorly done rules. I don't blame him for staying clear of them.
you want me to explain the role playing side if this game? Ok... You create an army if goblins and dragons and you play a scenario(dungeon) that has specific themes, goals and setting that you and others enjoy, you role play as your army as a whole instead of an individual and you have many ways to play them in house scenarios and ones you make yourself... The DM is the rulekeeper as he irons out the rules people complain about time "do lance tips count as models" but there is no need for a rules keeper (or dungeon master or scenario lords) if you have sensible like minded players... And your character is your army, your stats are your units etc.. But you are now going to say I am wrong and continue pouring steam out like a Duardin in the realm of Aqshy
Oh... so the same as any other Table Top Wargame then. Get 2 forces of your choosing, battle it out to the death, sometimes with someone helping out with the rules and make a story out of it? What game does not do this? Most games do this and do it better.
Just saying...
As predicted or "just as planned"... Most games are not as heavily into scenarios as AoS and lets be clear...AoS is what? 2 weeks old... Most other games have had plenty of time to iron things out... Yes I see AoS as a whole new game and not 9th fantasy... But you will again say I am wrong like an Aelf at a duardin feast.
No it is not 2 weeks old, it had years to be developed and thought out by one of the biggest table top companies. They likely have the next year or more worth of stuff ready for AOS already. It is only 2 weeks old to us.
Now if AOS radically changes over the next few months I may start paying it, but as it is even with its "2 weeks since release" excuse it is pretty bad. And Flames of War is 100% Scenarios, most games are in fact 100% scenario driven. Infinity is, Black Powder and the list is endless. AOS has next to no decent Scenarios.
I mean, it's ok to like it dude, just be honest about the game...
so I am dishonest now? I am pretty sure its all opinions at this point... Either way, HONESTLY, I love the rules and love the style of game... And In my opinion has RPG like areas not seen on other war-games (some have as well, but scenarios are a key aspect of AoS) but that is just my opinion which you think is dishonest and wrong, no wonder GW needed new players for fantasy, you are as angry as a Khorne daemon at a wood self wedding.
You say it is Scenario Driven like no other game... but how many scenarios are there? You have like 3 in the main book and then the ones in the starter (scenarios that only work if you have X models). How is that a scenario based game? Unless I missed some scenarios. You are saying things about this game that aren't true, it is not Scenario driven at all. Maybe next few months it will be, but at the moment it's use the basic 3 scenario set ups or make your own Scenarios... which ALL games have (most games have better base scenarios and more of them). I think what you say about the game is dishonest, you like the game (fine, odd but fine) but what you are saying about the game is incorrect. It is not scenario driven, it is bring your crap and plonk it front of someone else driven.
I don't play fantasy mate... Played it for a try but that is about it. They needed new players because they don't know how to handle their company I assume, but I cannot be sure.
so you want a 2 week old game to have heaps of scenarios because? Lets ease players in first buddy.. Remember some people do not play tabletop war-games as religiously as you... Scenarios are limited but I bet my gnoblars more will come with more books for each faction... We still have destruction and undead to slaanesh over... Patience is clearly not one of your virtues.
Yea keep insulting me buddy.
Yes I want a 2 week old game to be a complete game. I don't want half written rubbish, I want a ruleset. You know what most games do? Have a finished ruleset, then have suggestions for beginners and then when the beginers are comfortable they can do the advanced stuff... in the same rulebook. Do you know what this does? This means that players of all abilities can enjoy the game. Do you know what that means? You will have more people buying the game. Do you know what that means? You have more people to play and GW has more money to grow instead of the current situation where they are losing money.
But sure man keep trying to tell me when things are new they should not be complete... because that makes total sense. Now if GW released a beta ruleset for us to give them feedback, then maybe these rules would be ok (for now) but they aren't. These are the full rules.
But yea, the game sucks because im not patient enough to wait for them to write a real ruleset. makes sense I guess.
if you feel insulted I apologise, not my intent but you feverously anti AoS and your whole argument is "gw could have done more, the game is incomplete" but the thing is, the game is complete as it should be, the rules are simple because its the way it was designed, you think they are unfinished and I do not but I am somehow wrong and you are right, some of us rather enjoy it... And then you go off on the "gw is taking money" rant which more or less establishes why you have so much khorne in you... No one forced you to buy into their hobby and others are just as expensive
in short, some of us are content with the simplified rules and do not see it as unfinished, some of us so not want to carry around a 200 page books of rules because our hand needs to be held playing and where we as the players cannot work things out with a simple 5min conversation mid game.
GW SHOULD have done more. Why is the game as complete as it should be? Its not complete at all, or people wouldn't be trying to fix it so much right now.
When did I say GW was taking my money? I am only criticizing their rules. And no, no other hobby is as expensive as GW that I do. GW is more expensive than most companies. Not that this has anything to do with their munted rules.
You dont have to carry around 200 pages for a complete ruleset.
Please stop making stuff up man. What game has a 200 page ruleset? GW doesnt even have that many pages of rules in any of their games.
AOS has NOTHING that ANY game doesn't have and actually has less. Nothing redeemable here but models that look cool.
see that is your problem, you think that talking mid game about rules is "fixing it" its not, the game is complete, its simple and new, I played a few games and the only thing needed fixing was a bigger table, so we combined 2 using portals... Anyways I am going to agree to disagree and wish you all the best in KoW or any other "complete game" and I will go back to thinking up scenarios and unit combos... Best wishes, love you
You are wrong dude... At the end of the day at least you enjoy it... love you too.
there are no rights and wrongs in a subjective opinions of goblins and dragons games... Ponder that before you pounce on others opinions
Played four more games and watched another on Saturday.
We played an objective from the starter set (swapping the cult for Daemons), two vanilla games, and a three-way King of the Hill. Then helped run/watched the Hold or Die (?) scenario from the new hardcover book.
We all had fun again.
So far we're eyeballing warscrolls and saying "yeah, that looks right".
Scenarios are much better than the tabling mechanic. That said, tabling happens quicker than you'd expect.
The continual 4+ isn't too bad now. As you know your own rolls it gets pretty quick once the old habit breaks. Now it's roll-roll-roll-make your saves.
More terrain the better.
It's all about combinations and buffs. The turn two pile-in is happening less the more we play. Retreating is a valid tactic.
And it does feel like an RTS game.
I am disappointed that there's only eight scenarios in the new book. As that's the main 'exclusive' content (all the warscolls are already free anyway).
As predicted or "just as planned"... Most games are not as heavily into scenarios as AoS and lets be clear...AoS is what? 2 weeks old... Most other games have had plenty of time to iron things out... Yes I see AoS as a whole new game and not 9th fantasy... But you will again say I am wrong like an Aelf at a duardin feast.
To play Devil's Advocate, AOS is a simple set of rules based on two already existing sets (WHFB/40K) that have between them nearly 60 years and 15 editions of design experience, by a design studio that employs 90 staff. Why does it need any 'ironing out'?
I should expect it to be perfect straight out of the gates.
Orock wrote: And yet, for the opposite reason, I cannot bring myself to play or buy it. The "rules" are the most poorly thought out, lazy excuse for a game I have EVER seen any company put out. Heck even people making their own free game systems for anyone most times have better balance.
Its not a game. Its a model hype system. As is in the book.
, it is horrible.
I disagree the rules are thought out exactly the way they were supposed to be... They are simple, easy to learn, quick to play, its no longer a tabletop war-game, it's more a tabletop war rpg... Which is great imo already got plans for self made scenario but I am waiting for the other forces to be released, warscrolls of the old armies no longer fit in (mostly) and 2 factions is not enough.
The only RPG element in this game is if you win a game you get a bonus next game you play. Can you explain the RPG side of this game? I may be missing something but in the hefty 4 page rule set I saw there was nothing RPG aside from that one singular rule. This game is no more RPG than any other normal wargame.
Other than that he is correct, it's just poorly done rules. I don't blame him for staying clear of them.
you want me to explain the role playing side if this game? Ok... You create an army if goblins and dragons and you play a scenario(dungeon) that has specific themes, goals and setting that you and others enjoy, you role play as your army as a whole instead of an individual and you have many ways to play them in house scenarios and ones you make yourself... The DM is the rulekeeper as he irons out the rules people complain about time "do lance tips count as models" but there is no need for a rules keeper (or dungeon master or scenario lords) if you have sensible like minded players... And your character is your army, your stats are your units etc.. But you are now going to say I am wrong and continue pouring steam out like a Duardin in the realm of Aqshy
Oh... so the same as any other Table Top Wargame then. Get 2 forces of your choosing, battle it out to the death, sometimes with someone helping out with the rules and make a story out of it? What game does not do this? Most games do this and do it better.
Just saying...
As predicted or "just as planned"... Most games are not as heavily into scenarios as AoS and lets be clear...AoS is what? 2 weeks old... Most other games have had plenty of time to iron things out... Yes I see AoS as a whole new game and not 9th fantasy... But you will again say I am wrong like an Aelf at a duardin feast.
No it is not 2 weeks old, it had years to be developed and thought out by one of the biggest table top companies. They likely have the next year or more worth of stuff ready for AOS already. It is only 2 weeks old to us.
Now if AOS radically changes over the next few months I may start paying it, but as it is even with its "2 weeks since release" excuse it is pretty bad. And Flames of War is 100% Scenarios, most games are in fact 100% scenario driven. Infinity is, Black Powder and the list is endless. AOS has next to no decent Scenarios.
I mean, it's ok to like it dude, just be honest about the game...
so I am dishonest now? I am pretty sure its all opinions at this point... Either way, HONESTLY, I love the rules and love the style of game... And In my opinion has RPG like areas not seen on other war-games (some have as well, but scenarios are a key aspect of AoS) but that is just my opinion which you think is dishonest and wrong, no wonder GW needed new players for fantasy, you are as angry as a Khorne daemon at a wood self wedding.
You say it is Scenario Driven like no other game... but how many scenarios are there? You have like 3 in the main book and then the ones in the starter (scenarios that only work if you have X models). How is that a scenario based game? Unless I missed some scenarios. You are saying things about this game that aren't true, it is not Scenario driven at all. Maybe next few months it will be, but at the moment it's use the basic 3 scenario set ups or make your own Scenarios... which ALL games have (most games have better base scenarios and more of them). I think what you say about the game is dishonest, you like the game (fine, odd but fine) but what you are saying about the game is incorrect. It is not scenario driven, it is bring your crap and plonk it front of someone else driven.
I don't play fantasy mate... Played it for a try but that is about it. They needed new players because they don't know how to handle their company I assume, but I cannot be sure.
so you want a 2 week old game to have heaps of scenarios because? Lets ease players in first buddy.. Remember some people do not play tabletop war-games as religiously as you... Scenarios are limited but I bet my gnoblars more will come with more books for each faction... We still have destruction and undead to slaanesh over... Patience is clearly not one of your virtues.
Yea keep insulting me buddy.
Yes I want a 2 week old game to be a complete game. I don't want half written rubbish, I want a ruleset. You know what most games do? Have a finished ruleset, then have suggestions for beginners and then when the beginers are comfortable they can do the advanced stuff... in the same rulebook. Do you know what this does? This means that players of all abilities can enjoy the game. Do you know what that means? You will have more people buying the game. Do you know what that means? You have more people to play and GW has more money to grow instead of the current situation where they are losing money.
But sure man keep trying to tell me when things are new they should not be complete... because that makes total sense. Now if GW released a beta ruleset for us to give them feedback, then maybe these rules would be ok (for now) but they aren't. These are the full rules.
But yea, the game sucks because im not patient enough to wait for them to write a real ruleset. makes sense I guess.
if you feel insulted I apologise, not my intent but you feverously anti AoS and your whole argument is "gw could have done more, the game is incomplete" but the thing is, the game is complete as it should be, the rules are simple because its the way it was designed, you think they are unfinished and I do not but I am somehow wrong and you are right, some of us rather enjoy it... And then you go off on the "gw is taking money" rant which more or less establishes why you have so much khorne in you... No one forced you to buy into their hobby and others are just as expensive
in short, some of us are content with the simplified rules and do not see it as unfinished, some of us so not want to carry around a 200 page books of rules because our hand needs to be held playing and where we as the players cannot work things out with a simple 5min conversation mid game.
GW SHOULD have done more. Why is the game as complete as it should be? Its not complete at all, or people wouldn't be trying to fix it so much right now.
When did I say GW was taking my money? I am only criticizing their rules. And no, no other hobby is as expensive as GW that I do. GW is more expensive than most companies. Not that this has anything to do with their munted rules.
You dont have to carry around 200 pages for a complete ruleset.
Please stop making stuff up man. What game has a 200 page ruleset? GW doesnt even have that many pages of rules in any of their games.
AOS has NOTHING that ANY game doesn't have and actually has less. Nothing redeemable here but models that look cool.
see that is your problem, you think that talking mid game about rules is "fixing it" its not, the game is complete, its simple and new, I played a few games and the only thing needed fixing was a bigger table, so we combined 2 using portals... Anyways I am going to agree to disagree and wish you all the best in KoW or any other "complete game" and I will go back to thinking up scenarios and unit combos... Best wishes, love you
You are wrong dude... At the end of the day at least you enjoy it... love you too.
there are no rights and wrongs in a subjective opinions of goblins and dragons games... Ponder that before you pounce on others opinions
There are when someone claims the game has RPG traits and it is a Scenario based game... which are false claims about the game.
So yes there are rights and wrongs when talking about rules that exist.
AoS is not a RPG. Period, hands down. This isn't up to personal opinion, it just isn't. You don't take the role of a general, you move models around in a fixed ruleset to achieve fixed goals. There's nothing RPG in this.The only RPG aspect tabletop games ever had were campaigns where some models of your army continously improved after won battles (unless you're a Necron :( )and in some campaigns, you could even make choices that influenced the rest of the campaign (until it gets retconned).
AoS does not even have campaigns as of now, let alone scenarios.
Give the game time? For what? AoS is a minimum effort game. It was deliberately designed to be as less work as possible for GW, it had years to be developed and the end result is an insult for everyone who seriously designs games. Throwing rules at your customers that don't even cover all basics (!), expecting them to do your work is neither RPG nor good design. It's lazy.
Played my first games of AoS over the weekend, Had some friends round and gave it a go,
Played the first couple of games with the rules as written and it was ok a little clunky at times but we got there. We then had some games using some house rules (measuring base to base, ignoring weapons for line of sight, tweaks to charging) and it worked a lot better for us games seemed to flow and were relatively quick affairs.
I have to say I played these games with like minded friends where we were happy to balance our armies and use common sense and a bit of give and take to ensure we had fun with this ruleset, I feel sorry for guys looking for pickup games as this doesn't feel like that kind of game and I really have no idea how it will be made tournament friendly.
Overall we had fun with it, but I'm not sure if I will still be playing it in a year or two, I think that will depend on GW getting me hooked on an army I want to collect and play with, as all we have is the Sigmarines (kinda meh but good conversion potential) and Khorne (nice minis but not very interesting to me) it would be nice to see the other races new look and see if there is anything I like.
So that's what I think after a weekend of play. I'm sure ymmv
Sigvatr wrote: The only RPG aspect tabletop games ever had were campaigns where some models of your army continuously improved after won battles (unless you're a Necron :( )and in some campaigns, you could even make choices that influenced the rest of the campaign (until it gets retconned).
The qualify as an RPG you really need to play a role and interact with the environment within that role, player progression has little or nothing to do with it. I suppose all wargames are RPG's in a very small and limited way as most of them have you playing the role of some kind of unseen general. There are tabletop RPGs but they are very different beasts.
While its possible to have an RPG with only 4 pages of rules there absolutely needs to be a GM to allow the kind of player freedom that RPGs require.
AoS is definitely not an RPG except in the very loosest of terms.
I feel like I'm beating on a really pulverised horse here, but the other end of it is, tight balanced rules do not prevent role playing or narrative play - it is easier to ignore an element of the rules than to build it yourself.
Trapthem wrote: The new big book worth it if you don't play the two starter box factions?
I'm not sure yet. I'm glad I got it but it is expensive.
It has:
- Fluff of where we're up to in this Age (imagery/presentation heavy)
- Eight new scenarios
- Rules for battles in two of the realms
- Warscrolls (none new; they will always be free online/in the app)
Conan. Yes I read the comics too, or at least as many as I could and marvel did a swell job of making Conan himself again. I didn't mention the comics or movies for the sake of brevity. I could go on at length about the films, the first Dino film was spot on, if a little canonically incorrect. Dino is a big Conan fan and you have to remember that Conan the Destroyer was not supposed to be the same sort of film as Barbarian. It was the 70s, Dino had a lot of great films under his belt and Destroyer was more of an attempted comedy than an actual Conan story. Though I will say that the plot premise for that one was actually quite good. The new Conan film gets passed off as modern day hogwash, but I think that compared to Destroyer its miles better. And how does Conan win in the end of that one? He uses his brains! At any rate Conan went through some bad times thanks to no-name authors and mismanaged property rights, but he is still around and still viable as a storytelling medium.
PDFs. Why do I list these as a bad thing? Because GW is more than capable of giving away free rules, but they can't be bothered to FAQ anything in a timely manner? Some people paid $70 for the new SM dex in which RAW Space Marines can't take vehicles without Chapter Tactics. Don't start a debate about it here. Look in YMDC if that's your gig. So with no quality control for products they expect money for how can we expect any quality from a free product? I also firmly believe that the reason the rules are PDFs are because the old armies and probably AoS itself is destined for specialist game status. Meaning next year there will be no AoS and no Warhammer Fantasy of any kind. The PDFs are a death knell. Y'all just don't know a dying breath when ya hear one.
So if you wanna chat about Conan or something done, PM me. Anything else related to AoS is going to get no attention whatsoever from me. I fully intend to never play the game and I am happy with that because for me, getting into AoS would be like buying Conan pastiches. I also plan on curtailing any GW purchases for a long time. One must speak the language to communicate, after all.
To play Devil's Advocate, AOS is a simple set of rules based on two already existing sets (WHFB/40K) that have between them nearly 60 years and 15 editions of design experience, by a design studio that employs 90 staff. Why does it need any 'ironing out'?
I should expect it to be perfect straight out of the gates.
Exalted because this is spot on. WHFB has existed for going on 30 years and 40k for close to that, yet GW still has no clue have to make a game like this. They change focus midway which is why we get overpowered and underpowered books in 40k all the time. They also have never figured out how to balance or control their games to any real way other than expect people will not be gits and will play to the spirit of the game instead of to the rules as written. AoS is a culmination of their inability to write a decent game, so much so that they have barely written anything. After so many years 40k and WHFB/AoS should be the most perfect ruleset ever, but they are still not even remotely close to being good rules.
And for those who want to once again drag up the "But GW is a model company" BS line they use to excuse their lousy rules, don't bother. The rules have made up such a large part of their bottom line for years, that without the rules being redone over and over and over requiring people to keep rebuying, there would be no GW anymore. Without their games/rules there is no reason for people to buy large quantities of their minis.
I finally came up with an idea of what to do with the Ugly Khorne beasty thing from the box.
Skull skin has mostly been shaved off and will be filled and the left knee will get a spike/horn press molded from the right knee.
It's right hand makes an excellent replacement head once you part it from the armoured bit at the back (it's a bit Predetorish IMHO). I just need a new hand for it now. To the bits box robin!
Sigvatr wrote: The only RPG aspect tabletop games ever had were campaigns where some models of your army continuously improved after won battles (unless you're a Necron :( )and in some campaigns, you could even make choices that influenced the rest of the campaign (until it gets retconned).
The qualify as an RPG you really need to play a role and interact with the environment within that role, player progression has little or nothing to do with it. I suppose all wargames are RPG's in a very small and limited way as most of them have you playing the role of some kind of unseen general. There are tabletop RPGs but they are very different beasts.
While its possible to have an RPG with only 4 pages of rules there absolutely needs to be a GM to allow the kind of player freedom that RPGs require.
AoS is definitely not an RPG except in the very loosest of terms.
when I said AoS is trying to be a "wargame" RPG, I mean in the sense that you really need to play the scenarios, the rules alone only allow for a very basic game where the scenarios enhance the experience, not many tabletop games focus on that as AoS does, its why the books have more scenarios than rules (and the scenarios enhance the game by giving more rules) AoS also focuses a lot of the environment and how its used.. the whole point about it being RPG is not that it is an RPG(role playing, characters, skills, etc) but you have to play it with an RPG mindset i.e you are playing a story not a wargame... if you get what I mean, sure it lacks characters and progression in the same sense as a typical RPG does but the story does progress with the scenarios and I guess over time AoS will bring out many scenarios for each faction and gives you the basics of making your own (or twist a current scenario a bit to suit your needs or take an idea from 2 scenarios and combine them)
more or less I am saying that AoS needs to be played as a "story"/scenario rather than just a war game and in all honesty a GM or SCENARIO LORD (please catch on) is needed as he could be the "decider" of the rules that people are not sure about... it feels as though you get more out of it that way, but nothing stops just 2 people playing it like nothing stops just 2 dudes playing an RPG. but I am not expecting people to understand, it seems to be AoS is like marmite, you either love it or hate it but for some reason those who hate it REALLY hate it... they cannot even find any good qualities about it and the good qualities that exist are not even good enough :/ sad really...
Yes, but I can play WHFB or any other wargame in a campaign or list of scenarios as you describe and get more out of that wargame, but still have a decent game to fall back on in a one-off pick up game.
Saying that "AoS is good if you do X, Y and Z" or saying it's best played a certain way, aren't really good excuses. A wargame should be good straight out of the box. Campaigns and scenarios are meant to add something different to a game, not fix its issues.
Hey ho, just skim read all this to get a feel for the arguments as I'm tempted to play this! Enjoyed WHFB but only got to play rarely so used to get very hacked off with remembering the rules, as every codex seemed to have their own version and we spent half the time looking up rules rather than rolling dice and having fun. So AOS looked good.
In summary, lots of people seem very hacked off with the new simple rules for a variety of reasons, most of which seem to based on a concept of being "owed something" by GW or feeling let down. Lots of these arguments seem to be based on terminology or local play styles, so not sure how relevant they really are, but understand why people are upset.
On the other hand I see a fair few posts by people who have played it and said they had fun, but don't remember seeing that many saying they hated it? So, do we have any idea whether people generally like the game after playing it? Rather than bitching about rules change, And why? And please try to be objective.
Download the rules for free, have a good read and play a couple of games with proxy models.
There is a lot of exaggeration on both sides of the question.
There certainly is a playable game in there. It has some rough spots, the omission of points values or army lists is IMO a serious problem, and arguably it could have been a lot better in various ways. But in itself it can be played and is not difficult to learn.
Inflatable love badger wrote: Hey ho, just skim read all this to get a feel for the arguments as I'm tempted to play this! Enjoyed WHFB but only got to play rarely so used to get very hacked off with remembering the rules, as every codex seemed to have their own version and we spent half the time looking up rules rather than rolling dice and having fun. So AOS looked good.
In summary, lots of people seem very hacked off with the new simple rules for a variety of reasons, most of which seem to based on a concept of being "owed something" by GW or feeling let down. Lots of these arguments seem to be based on terminology or local play styles, so not sure how relevant they really are, but understand why people are upset.
On the other hand I see a fair few posts by people who have played it and said they had fun, but don't remember seeing that many saying they hated it? So, do we have any idea whether people generally like the game after playing it? Rather than bitching about rules change, And why? And please try to be objective.
The rules are objectively bad.
HOWEVER since the rules are free try it for yourself. Play the game as the rules tell you. You will then find hole and flaws that make this game a truly bad game.
Those that like it say that in order to enjoy it you must:
Houserule tha bad rules
Play with like minded friends
Design your own scenarios
So if you want to do that and put in the effort you may find these rules fun. If you just want to play the game out of the book I think you will find few people truly play this game as the rules are written. Sign of bad rules? Yes. But even bad rules are redeemable if you put in the work. However most would argue GW should have put in that work.
Ultimately try the rules as written, then decide if you will move on or edit the rules (or maybe even play the rules as is).
Personally if you like streamlined rules but also enjoy mass battles then look at KOW. They have free rules and outside of personal taste there are no flaws with those (as far as I can tell).
I stopped playing GW games a few years ago now but this is (for a number of reasons) tempting me back.
The discussion about it all though has bizarrely reminded me of a scene from the first Matrix :
Do not try to bend the rules, that's impossible. Instead, only try to realise the truth.
What truth?
There are no rules... Then you will see it is not the rules that bend, it is only ourselves.
For some this is clearly a bad thing but I personally find the concept liberating. Looking forward to getting a demo in and am definitely withholding judgement until then but for now I'm cautiously optimistic.
Chimera_Calvin wrote: I stopped playing GW games a few years ago now but this is (for a number of reasons) tempting me back.
The discussion about it all though has bizarrely reminded me of a scene from the first Matrix :
Do not try to bend the rules, that's impossible. Instead, only try to realise the truth.
What truth?
There are no rules... Then you will see it is not the rules that bend, it is only ourselves.
For some this is clearly a bad thing but I personally find the concept liberating. Looking forward to getting a demo in and am definitely withholding judgement until then but for now I'm cautiously optimistic.
As said by many people though, in a game with rules it is incredibly simple to remove rules. This rule set does nothing but limit options. Instead it would have been better to get real rules and players that like sandbox rules can simply remove rules to fit their needs. Removing rules is easier than adding them.
Chimera_Calvin wrote: I stopped playing GW games a few years ago now but this is (for a number of reasons) tempting me back.
The discussion about it all though has bizarrely reminded me of a scene from the first Matrix :
Do not try to bend the rules, that's impossible. Instead, only try to realise the truth.
What truth?
There are no rules... Then you will see it is not the rules that bend, it is only ourselves.
For some this is clearly a bad thing but I personally find the concept liberating. Looking forward to getting a demo in and am definitely withholding judgement until then but for now I'm cautiously optimistic.
As said by many people though, in a game with rules it is incredibly simple to remove rules. This rule set does nothing but limit options. Instead it would have been better to get real rules and players that like sandbox rules can simply remove rules to fit their needs. Removing rules is easier than adding them.
except that those "many" people, "many of them" complain about the "settra does not kneel" rules :/ saying its "childish" when they can just ignore it, there is literally no pleasing the anti AoS side, to me it seems like most of them are just angry their game of WHFB is gone and they cannot deal with it... play KoW, your models are not wasted, move on, dream on, live, enjoy... AoS is not a bad game no matter how many times you say it the rules are not bad especially if you play it as intended (I mean I enjoyed it and many other people have as well, what are we all mad or wrong for enjoying something?)and GW has said many times "they are a mini company" and that is what they are aiming at, like it or not GW is NOW a mini company with the focus on making minis... heck I would be more than happy for them to get rid of WHFB and 40K rules just to produce miniatures and focus on painting and modelling (having white dwarf be a techniques book with tips etc) and some lore books in between, leave the rules to the great experts at KoW... or other games who created their rules with the players participating, which is exactly what AoS is trying to do, its trying to make YOU make the GAME YOU want... either way sigmarines look bloody awesome and GW still makes the best damn minis out there...
Chimera_Calvin wrote: I stopped playing GW games a few years ago now but this is (for a number of reasons) tempting me back.
The discussion about it all though has bizarrely reminded me of a scene from the first Matrix :
Do not try to bend the rules, that's impossible. Instead, only try to realise the truth.
What truth?
There are no rules... Then you will see it is not the rules that bend, it is only ourselves.
For some this is clearly a bad thing but I personally find the concept liberating. Looking forward to getting a demo in and am definitely withholding judgement until then but for now I'm cautiously optimistic.
As said by many people though, in a game with rules it is incredibly simple to remove rules. This rule set does nothing but limit options. Instead it would have been better to get real rules and players that like sandbox rules can simply remove rules to fit their needs. Removing rules is easier than adding them.
except that those "many" people, "many of them" complain about the "settra does not kneel" rules :/ saying its "childish" when they can just ignore it, there is literally no pleasing the anti AoS side, to me it seems like most of them are just angry their game of WHFB is gone and they cannot deal with it... play KoW, your models are not wasted, move on, dream on, live, enjoy... AoS is not a bad game no matter how many times you say it the rules are not bad especially if you play it as intended and GW has said many times "they are a mini company" and that is what they are aiming at not, like it or not GW is NOW a mini company with the focus on making minis... heck I would be more than happy for them to get rid of WHFB and 40K rules just to produce miniatures and focus on painting and modelling (having white dwarf be a techniques book with tips etc) and some lore books in between, leave the rules to the great experts at KoW... or other games who created their rules with the players participating, which is exactly what AoS is trying to do, its trying to make YOU make the GAME YOU want... either way sigmarines look bloody awesome.
You can always ignore bad rules yes. But you can also ignore any rules so having complete rules is better for this reason.
AOS is a bad game. How is it not? Nobody can say why this game is apparently good, only they say if you do X it can be fun. Even you say if you ignore the childish rules it gets better. Would it not be better if the only rules you had to ignore where ones that you felt like changing for flexibility, instead of AOS where you change them to make the game playable?
How about you try and convince the other guy why the rules are good? After all if they are good it will be easy. I mean, the proof of how bad this game is is how many rules you will ignore and change to play it. Hence why I suggested he plays it.
The lack of rules and structure is quite liberating. Don't fear people so much that you must try and enforce balance via arbitrary rules that can then be lawyered, twisted and manipulated.
That is what the loudest and most vocal complainers are really complaining about, their fear of other people. They fear that someone will get an unfair advantage over them because no rule says they can't. They fear that others might enjoy something without the structure they crave.
They are the epitome of order. Rigid, unbending, unimaginative and doomed to fail in the end times.
AoS and it's fans are Chaos, raw, imaginative, unfettered and free to do what thou wilt.
Move with the times. WHFB and it's structure is dead, it's dull eyed adherents burn their models in protest and wail fruitlessly, railing against the changes. Their noise and thrashing only attracts more interest, more people attracted by their nerdy protests, like sharks around a fat wounded porpoise.
Shoving them aside, the newbies greedily feast on the bright colourful goodies. If you hate AoS and GW, please shout and whine to the four corners, rail harder! It brings more people, hungry from relief from the tedium of dry, boring rulebooks into the fold, eager to buy your discarded toys repaint them in gaudy golds and dance them across a revitalised tabletop war.
No Points, no rules, no problem. ;-)
r_squared wrote: The lack of rules and structure is quite liberating. Don't fear people so much that you must try and enforce balance via arbitrary rules that can then be lawyered, twisted and manipulated.
That is what the loudest and most vocal complainers are really complaining about, their fear of other people. They fear that someone will get an unfair advantage over them because no rule says they can't. They fear that others might enjoy something without the structure they crave.
They are the epitome of order. Rigid, unbending, unimaginative and doomed to fail in the end times.
AoS and it's fans are Chaos, raw, imaginative, unfettered and free to do what thou wilt.
Move with the times. WHFB and it's structure is dead, it's dull eyed adherents burn their models in protest and wail fruitlessly, railing against the changes. Their noise and thrashing only attracts more interest, more people attracted by their nerdy protests, like sharks around a fat wounded porpoise.
Shoving them aside, the newbies greedily feast on the bright colourful goodies. If you hate AoS and GW, please shout and whine to the four corners, rail harder! It brings more people, hungry from relief from the tedium of dry, boring rulebooks into the fold, eager to buy your discarded toys repaint them in gaudy golds and dance them across a revitalised tabletop war.
No Points, no rules, no problem. ;-)
Chimera_Calvin wrote: I stopped playing GW games a few years ago now but this is (for a number of reasons) tempting me back.
The discussion about it all though has bizarrely reminded me of a scene from the first Matrix :
Do not try to bend the rules, that's impossible. Instead, only try to realise the truth.
What truth?
There are no rules... Then you will see it is not the rules that bend, it is only ourselves.
For some this is clearly a bad thing but I personally find the concept liberating. Looking forward to getting a demo in and am definitely withholding judgement until then but for now I'm cautiously optimistic.
As said by many people though, in a game with rules it is incredibly simple to remove rules. This rule set does nothing but limit options. Instead it would have been better to get real rules and players that like sandbox rules can simply remove rules to fit their needs. Removing rules is easier than adding them.
except that those "many" people, "many of them" complain about the "settra does not kneel" rules :/ saying its "childish" when they can just ignore it, there is literally no pleasing the anti AoS side, to me it seems like most of them are just angry their game of WHFB is gone and they cannot deal with it... play KoW, your models are not wasted, move on, dream on, live, enjoy... AoS is not a bad game no matter how many times you say it the rules are not bad especially if you play it as intended and GW has said many times "they are a mini company" and that is what they are aiming at not, like it or not GW is NOW a mini company with the focus on making minis... heck I would be more than happy for them to get rid of WHFB and 40K rules just to produce miniatures and focus on painting and modelling (having white dwarf be a techniques book with tips etc) and some lore books in between, leave the rules to the great experts at KoW... or other games who created their rules with the players participating, which is exactly what AoS is trying to do, its trying to make YOU make the GAME YOU want... either way sigmarines look bloody awesome.
You can always ignore bad rules yes. But you can also ignore any rules so having complete rules is better for this reason.
AOS is a bad game. How is it not? Nobody can say why this game is apparently good, only they say if you do X it can be fun. Even you say if you ignore the childish rules it gets better. Would it not be better if the only rules you had to ignore where ones that you felt like changing for flexibility, instead of AOS where you change them to make the game playable?
How about you try and convince the other guy why the rules are good? After all if they are good it will be easy. I mean, the proof of how bad this game is is how many rules you will ignore and change to play it. Hence why I suggested he plays it.
but here is the thing, no one who I have played with has ignored any of the rules, I actually enjoy the role playing rules, I just see them as auto specials that other characters get, some of them are pretty cool (like bribing your opponent to get to control their unit, always carry a spare £5 JUST in case I say and since its a buddy he usually buys a pack of beer to share) either way I have enjoyed AoS and the only rules I altered are not rules but how we play i.e ignoring lances when LoS etc... but that falls under "THE MOST IMPORTANT RULE" i.e talk to your opponent ... the only thing I say is that AoS needs more environmental rules but I guess that will come with the other realm books, we have been making rules for bridges and rivers etc to play (like any time 2 monsters on a bridge, roll a dice, bridge collapses on x dice) and if there is a river stream any unit that goes over the river rolls a dice x mortal wounds (taken away with the currents)... I am even thinking of making an all air battle scenario where we only use flying units and have air currents and such that enhance speed, slow down, hurt shooting etc... so basically we have been ADDING rules to the game and not taking them away and since its AoS is so simple in nature its so bloody easy to add rules and things..
The most important rule is to talk to your opponent when there is confusion in the rules. Saying spear tips don't count as LOS is not a house rule because of confusion in the rules, it is a house rule to make AOS slightly better to play.
Which is why this ruleset sucks, because that is what most people are doing. Changing bad rules to make the game ok to play.
Are you saying most games need to spell out that you can't hurt someone by shooting his lance, or are saying that good games let you hurt someone by shooting him in the lance?
You can always ignore bad rules yes. But you can also ignore any rules so having complete rules is better for this reason.
how do you ignore rules, if a corrion based undead army wins every game by sudden death? You would either have to remove a unit or house rule the whole sudden death part of the rules.
They fear that someone will get an unfair advantage over them because no rule says they can't.
And you want to tell me they won't? That suddenly people will be runing a normal weak elf lord on a stead instead of a tyrion with a bucket of special rules? In what world does that happen and in which game. Table top games are not RPG. They are played against other people. Two or more people play against each other. Trying to make play it like an RPG won't work, because either someone has to force others to play the game in a certain way, and this means forcing others to spend their money in a way they may not want to, or someone will always have an edge over others.
Shoving them aside, the newbies greedily feast on the bright colourful goodies
Congratulation to you. In my area all it did was to kill WFB, as no new player is going to start a free for all skirmish system without structure. When there are more then 3, in my area, skirmish games that have structure and are crazy free for all rules wise.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Are you saying most games need to spell out that you can't hurt someone by shooting his lance, or are saying that good games let you hurt someone by shooting him in the lance?
Im saying good games dont say that shooting someones lance or charging someones lance is allowed.
Most have guidelines on what should be measured (usually from the base) or what can be used if true line of site is used. Most of us who have played for many years have experience and know that the AOS rules for models and measurements are terrible so we change it. However not all players have experience.
A simple blurb saying measure from the base of the model, and line of site from the main body of the model etc would mean that everyone, new or old would not have to suffer through that kind of stupidity.
So yes, a good ruleset assumes everyone is dumb (because when it comes to learning new things, we are all dumb at one point) and explains these things. A bad rulset assumes the reader knows what they mean when they say silly things like all measurements are done from the model.
I can deal with stupid. Technicly anything can be baned or removed. ETC rule packs, cut slots did that for WFB atleast here. But AoS was suppose to be a new thing and bring new players. How are there suppose to be new players now? They can pick between warmahordes and other skirmish systems. Which are either cheaper or have better rules, or both at the same time. The fluff argument is gone, because the interesting old world is no more. To start aos and have fun they would either have to be super lucky while picking armies, or not be actualy new players, but sesoned veterans of other systems that think about the game the same way.
If one dude buys a box of dwarfs, a warmachine and a leader and the other goes for teclics , tyrion and some phoenix guard. They will soon find out how fun the game is.
IMO the game right now is playable only if one uses scenarios and premade lists. And both players do stupid stuff, no eternals runing away with their flying guys to get sudden death win etc. But then the replayability drops a lot. How many times can one play the same scenarios with the same models with same terrain ? two, maybe three times. And what to do if two players decide to play chaos or eternal, and need an opponent?
I'm not convinced Warmachine "has better rules." Warmachine's rules are super bloated to the point that experienced players regularly fail to remember them accurately. Conciseness is a virtue, especially in a ruleset designed to be run by human beings.
I'm not even convinced measuring from the model is bad. In Warmachine you measure from the base and it leads to stupid situations where two warbeasts are fighting and they're facing backwards because they overhang the base and *can't* be placed in melee range facing each other. I just don't think you're meant to be super hung up on the accuracy of the measurement in AoS.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: I'm not convinced Warmachine "has better rules." Warmachine's rules are super bloated to the point that experienced players regularly fail to remember them accurately. Conciseness is a virtue, especially in a ruleset designed to be run by human beings.
I'm not even convinced measuring from the model is bad. In Warmachine you measure from the base and it leads to stupid situations where two warbeasts are fighting and they're facing backwards because they overhang the base and *can't* be placed in melee range facing each other. I just don't think you're meant to be super hung up on the accuracy of the measurement in AoS.
I disagree wholeheartedly with both points. First of all - WarmaHordes are one of the best, if not best written system. That game, just like Magic: The Gathering focuses on very precise, properly worded short rules and pictograms that each has a fixed, clear meaning. Warmachine doesn't leave any room for interpretation. There's no arguing if that's possible or not - it just works exactly how it's written.
Sure, it might be a bit -too- competitive for some and the rules are sometimes more focused on balanced gameplay than casual fun (guns with 12" range and P+S lower than swords), but it's just the way it was planned by PP - they made a choice for it to be like that and they did it very well.
As for measuring - you can't really use that as an argument - sure, it can be annoying, but it's just a matter of the models being produced, not the rules being flawed. Also saying that you aren't "meant to be super hung up on the accuracy of the measurement in AoS" is kinda silly, because that's the very point of true line of sight. The very idea of TLOS is for it to be less arbitrary and more precise/realistic.
Edit: forgot to say - I don't really mind measuring from models, but it should be clarified, like in 40k, WZ:R and most likely Infinity (assuming because it's similar to WarZone), that measuring from models is limited to the torso, head and limbs, not weapons or other attachments (shooting a marine in the heraldry).Hell, it might even be nice as it's definetely more skirmishy than simple lines of sight.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: I'm not convinced Warmachine "has better rules." Warmachine's rules are super bloated to the point that experienced players regularly fail to remember them accurately. Conciseness is a virtue, especially in a ruleset designed to be run by human beings.
I'm not even convinced measuring from the model is bad. In Warmachine you measure from the base and it leads to stupid situations where two warbeasts are fighting and they're facing backwards because they overhang the base and *can't* be placed in melee range facing each other. I just don't think you're meant to be super hung up on the accuracy of the measurement in AoS.
I disagree wholeheartedly with both points. First of all - WarmaHordes are one of the best, if not best written system. That game, just like Magic: The Gathering focuses on very precise, properly worded short rules and pictograms that each has a fixed, clear meaning. Warmachine doesn't leave any room for interpretation. There's no arguing if that's possible or not - it just works exactly how it's written.
The heart of my perspective here is that being unambiguously written doesn't make a ruleset good. What's good is subjective, and Warmachine's ruleset has negatives that Age of Sigmar's rules do not share - for example, Warmachine's rules are much longer and harder to remember than Age of Sigmar's rules. This is not an insignificant downside, at all - it's just one you have to accept if you want to play Warmachine.
In Warmachine's case in particular, it doesn't really help people a lot if the rules are unambiguous if they still don't understand them because they're so confusing. Like, one of the main reasons an unambiguous ruleset is good is it helps you play the game correctly. If the ruleset is confusing to people (because it's so big, or because different pieces of information that are related are separated) then much of that advantage is lost.
Klerych wrote: As for measuring - you can't really use that as an argument - sure, it can be annoying, but it's just a matter of the models being produced, not the rules being flawed. Also saying that you aren't "meant to be super hung up on the accuracy of the measurement in AoS" is kinda silly, because that's the very point of true line of sight. The very idea of TLOS is for it to be less arbitrary and more precise/realistic.
Edit: forgot to say - I don't really mind measuring from models, but it should be clarified, like in 40k, WZ:R and most likely Infinity (assuming because it's similar to WarZone), that measuring from models is limited to the torso, head and limbs, not weapons or other attachments (shooting a marine in the heraldry).Hell, it might even be nice as it's definetely more skirmishy than simple lines of sight.
The models are made that way for a reason, though, right? Sure, a Bronzeback could fit on the base if it was smaller, but then it wouldn't look as cool. If it could measure melee range from its tusks (and opponents could also measure it to its tusks) then it wouldn't have the issue. I don't think there's a problem with measuring from or to melee weapons in most cases, with some possible dubious exceptions (riflemen firing at raised lances over a wall being an example that someone brought up here somewhere). Like, imagine a pair of duelists standing with swords outstretched but not reaching each other - you'd have no trouble believing they were in combat, I think. Maybe it's just direct-fire ranged weapons that make it weird.
What I meant with the measurement accuracy was I've seen (maybe not here) people saying, well, measuring from the model is dumb because what if you hit the model with a measuring tool and damage it? But really, you can probably eyeball whatever the melee range is well enough for the purposes of the ruleset.
I don't think there is much in it that is objectively bad. The thing that stands out for me is the Initiaiive roll. This can easily lead to one side getting two turns on the run, which can give a huge tactical advantage if it happens at the right time, probably the second or third turn.
I personally don't like the alternating unit placement, but it is an interesting mechanism that isn't bad in itself, and does give some opportunity for players to balance a game out of their collections.
The Sudden Death rule is fairly bad because it clearly is not well thought out.
The rest of it all works OK. I would prefer more sophistication in tactical factors, fewer special rules, a proper game balance system, and a more streamlined movement and combat system.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: for example, Warmachine's rules are much longer and harder to remember than Age of Sigmar's rules. This is not an insignificant downside, at all - it's just one you have to accept if you want to play Warmachine.
This is true but WM doesn't have especially complex rules. I don't like the game but I did go through a brief phase of warmachine a few years ago and I have no recollection of having to flip through rules books or being especially befuddled by rules. From what I recall the game itself seems intuitive and flows well, I just don't like it much.
Posters here may not blink at a huge rulebook but we are hardly representative. I recently tried explaining one of the simplest rulesets I know (Lion Rampant) to someone who does not play many games and ... well, it was an uphill battle. Earlier ITT (or one of the many duplicate threads) someone mentioned how their non-gamer spouse looked at the AoS rules, noted it was not a 300+ page book, and therefore showed interest. Folks who know nothing about the competitiveness of WM/H are turned off simply because the core rules seem overwhelming to them. IME, telling someone "oh it's actually very simple" is not very convincing. I personally do not think WM/H is anything but a complex game, which is not an uncommon attitude even among miniatures gamers. But in any event, the point is not to veer off on a tangent about WM/H so much as to clarify that the pared-down nature of AoS is very much an advantage to certain customers.
Manchu wrote: Posters here may not blink at a huge rulebook but we are hardly representative. I recently tried explaining one of the simplest rulesets I know (Lion Rampant) to someone who does not play many games and ... well, it was an uphill battle. Earlier ITT (or one of the many duplicate threads) someone mentioned how their non-gamer spouse looked at the AoS rules, noted it was not a 300+ page book, and therefore showed interest. Folks who know nothing about the competitiveness of WM/H are turned off simply because the core rules seem overwhelming to them. IME, telling someone "oh it's actually very simple" is not very convincing. I personally do not think WM/H is anything but a complex game, which is not an uncommon attitude even among miniatures gamers. But in any event, the point is not to veer off on a tangent about WM/H so much as to clarify that the pared-down nature of AoS is very much an advantage to certain customers.
100% This.
Played almost as many games of AOS with the misses as we have 40k n WHFB in like 10 years lol Also two of my not BG friends have shown interest when i showed them the booklet, that hasn't happened before, normally its just a joke about the rule book being a bit of a phat beast.
Its a shame they couldnt produce mixed rules format.
One thing I find odd in this whole discussion is how quickly people seem to have forgotten all the things they used to criticise GW for. I am hardly a white knight, indeed I quit GW a few years ago, talked all my gaming buddies into doing the same and only out of idle curiosity did I even take a look at AoS. However, consider the following list of complaints and how AoS has addressed them:
Too expensive : you now have free rules and unit stats and a lower model count.
Too complex : the rules are now only 4 pages plus warscrolls.
Poorly balanced : there are no points values to form the basis of an argument.
To an independent observer it would appear that GW has in fact been responsive to its customers demands. Whilst healthy cynicism assures me that this is all about the money Lebowski it is hard to deny that these three issues have indeed been addressed.
Could things have been done differently? Absolutely - but if so do we as a community genuinely believe that the result would have been no arguments? That everyone would have welcomed 9th edition as the answer to all our gaming prayers? Of course not! All that would have happened is more of the same that we have had for a decade or more - unit x is undercosted, unit y is broken, rule z makes no sense, more YMDC, more codex creep.
If nothing else this new version changes the conversation. For years GW has nailed its colours to the mast and said their games are built for scenarios and narrative gaming, not competitive rigour. Now the abolition of points has forced the issue.
The question now is how will the gaming community approach this new system. As an opportunity to do something different and fun? Or yet another attempt to force something to do a job it was never designed for? Me, I'm going to give it a try on it's own merits. If I want competitive I'll play Infinity or Kings of War; I've no desire to bang a square peg into a round hole...
Manchu wrote: Posters here may not blink at a huge rulebook but we are hardly representative. I recently tried explaining one of the simplest rulesets I know (Lion Rampant) to someone who does not play many games and ... well, it was an uphill battle. Earlier ITT (or one of the many duplicate threads) someone mentioned how their non-gamer spouse looked at the AoS rules, noted it was not a 300+ page book, and therefore showed interest. Folks who know nothing about the competitiveness of WM/H are turned off simply because the core rules seem overwhelming to them. IME, telling someone "oh it's actually very simple" is not very convincing. I personally do not think WM/H is anything but a complex game, which is not an uncommon attitude even among miniatures gamers. But in any event, the point is not to veer off on a tangent about WM/H so much as to clarify that the pared-down nature of AoS is very much an advantage to certain customers.
I agree -- I have seen people who are primarily interested in Magic the Gathering who would never think of 40k, FB, or WMH flip through Sigmar because the rules looked simple and the models were nice. I'm not sure what percentage of those turned into sales, but I imagine that some did. I've heard sales reps convincingly speak to potential customers who have never played a wargame or a miniature game but are interested about why AoS might be good for them. They speak favorably about other games too, but the emphasis on Sigmar in a nutshell is definitely "simple rules, really nice models -- look over here, see?".
From a miniature gaming perspective, AoS being a "gateway drug" into the hobby would be a great thing, regardless of what your favorite game is, and whether you like GW or not, because it bakes a bigger pie, instead of just trying to eat more of the existing pie. It's unlikely to steal a large number of gamers or their dollars away from their favorite "complex game", as it's inexpensive enough to own and play in addition to whatever that other game is.
Manchu wrote: Posters here may not blink at a huge rulebook but we are hardly representative. I recently tried explaining one of the simplest rulesets I know (Lion Rampant) to someone who does not play many games and ... well, it was an uphill battle. Earlier ITT (or one of the many duplicate threads) someone mentioned how their non-gamer spouse looked at the AoS rules, noted it was not a 300+ page book, and therefore showed interest. Folks who know nothing about the competitiveness of WM/H are turned off simply because the core rules seem overwhelming to them. IME, telling someone "oh it's actually very simple" is not very convincing. I personally do not think WM/H is anything but a complex game, which is not an uncommon attitude even among miniatures gamers. But in any event, the point is not to veer off on a tangent about WM/H so much as to clarify that the pared-down nature of AoS is very much an advantage to certain customers.
I don't think that's a very good measurement of the quality of AoS as a game. I think you're just looking at the wrong type of people to play miniature wargames.
Let's use sports as a comparable example. The official MLB rulebook - in 2014 - was 120 pages long. How long would it take someone to explain all the intricacies of baseball to someone who had never really expressed interest in the sport at all.
Then explain tag. Short, simple, easy to explain, and probably wouldn't turn a person off during an explanation. It's fun to play, sure - and you can do it drunk for some extra silliness. But will tag continue to be fun after the 20th time you've played it? The 50th? Even with variations like TV tag and freeze tag.
I agree -- I have seen people who are primarily interested in Magic the Gathering who would never think of 40k, FB, or WMH flip through Sigmar because the rules looked simple and the models were nice.
Except that the rules for Magic are extremely complex. There's a reason why a lot of people (both negatively and positively) compare WMH to Magic. These are just people who aren't interested in miniature wargaming in general.
Too expensive : you now have free rules and unit stats and a lower model count.
Too complex : the rules are now only 4 pages plus warscrolls.
Poorly balanced : there are no points values to form the basis of an argument.
£6 for a plastic infantry model? I would class that as expensive, that price would be just about excusable if they were metal.
GW rules have never really been too complex, what they are is obtuse and poorly designed. On the whole GW's games tend to have very simple core rules, especially in recent years. The problem comes from the massive quantities of needless special rule bloat. AoS seems to be loaded down with special rules, in fact I wouldn't be in the least surprised if all the special rules added together came to a great deal more than 4 pages. A game like infinity is complex, 40k hasn't been since 2nd ed and 8th removed what little complexity remained inWHFB.
AoS is amongst the least balanced games that have ever been made simple because there is no functional balancing mechanism at all.
The only good thing that has come from the AoS debacle for me is that GW has finally moved to free, and allegedly living, rulebooks. Aside from that it appears to be business as usual.
except that those "many" people, "many of them" complain about the "settra does not kneel" rules :/ saying its "childish" when they can just ignore it, there is literally no pleasing the anti AoS side, to me it seems like most of them are just angry their game of WHFB is gone and they cannot deal with it... play KoW, your models are not wasted, move on, dream on, live, enjoy... AoS is not a bad game no matter how many times you say it the rules are not bad especially if you play it as intended (I mean I enjoyed it and many other people have as well, what are we all mad or wrong for enjoying something?)and GW has said many times "they are a mini company" and that is what they are aiming at, like it or not GW is NOW a mini company with the focus on making minis... heck I would be more than happy for them to get rid of WHFB and 40K rules just to produce miniatures and focus on painting and modelling (having white dwarf be a techniques book with tips etc) and some lore books in between, leave the rules to the great experts at KoW... or other games who created their rules with the players participating, which is exactly what AoS is trying to do, its trying to make YOU make the GAME YOU want... either way sigmarines look bloody awesome and GW still makes the best damn minis out there...
Sorry, but I've been a wargamer for 38 years now and have played all kinds of games covering multiple historical periods, and different flavors of fantasy and sci-fi. I've played games using minis from 10mm all the way up to 54mm. So I've got lots of experience with a variety of rulesets, some good, some bad, but most adequate. AoS is definitely on the bad side. If you have to modify the rules, or impose house rules and a lot of extra work on the rules to make them work from the beginning, then the ruleset is a bad one. I haven't played WHFB in a good 17+ years, so have no stake whatsoever in that game. I call AoS a lousy game solely because of its own failings.
Not even going to bother to try and discuss the old "GW is a mini company and not a rules company" BS, except to say they have been writing gaming rules for 30 years.
Let's use sports as a comparable example. The official MLB rulebook - in 2014 - was 120 pages long. How long would it take someone to explain all the intricacies of baseball to someone who had never really expressed interest in the sport at all.
Then explain tag. Short, simple, easy to explain, and probably wouldn't turn a person off during an explanation. It's fun to play, sure - and you can do it drunk for some extra silliness. But will tag continue to be fun after the 20th time you've played it? The 50th? Even with variations like TV tag and freeze tag.
Baseball is terribly boring the first time you play it. Your analogy defeats your point.
Let's use sports as a comparable example. The official MLB rulebook - in 2014 - was 120 pages long. How long would it take someone to explain all the intricacies of baseball to someone who had never really expressed interest in the sport at all.
Then explain tag. Short, simple, easy to explain, and probably wouldn't turn a person off during an explanation. It's fun to play, sure - and you can do it drunk for some extra silliness. But will tag continue to be fun after the 20th time you've played it? The 50th? Even with variations like TV tag and freeze tag.
Baseball is terribly boring the first time you play it. Your analogy defeats your point.
Fine. Substitute football (American or European), or rugby, or lacrosse, or field hockey, or Jai alai, or golf, or paintball. The point does remain.
And it must not be terribly boring, if people are following it long enough to play in Little League up to college level and beyond.
GW rules have never really been too complex, what they are is obtuse and poorly designed. On the whole GW's games tend to have very simple core rules, especially in recent years. The problem comes from the massive quantities of needless special rule bloat. AoS seems to be loaded down with special rules, in fact I wouldn't be in the least surprised if all the special rules added together came to a great deal more than 4 pages. A game like infinity is complex, 40k hasn't been since 2nd ed and 8th removed what little complexity remained inWHFB. .
Your definition of complex is hilariously different from a normal (non-wargamer) person's. Roll to hit. Roll to wound. Roll to save? Rank bonuses? Flank? What? I forget what I'm supposed to do with this guy now.
Space Hulk is considered a 'complex' game by many people. For a gamer who is used to Parker Brothers or Milton Bradley-style board games, GW games seem needlessly complex. I can't get my friends and family to take the time to learn how to play any FFG game, let alone a wargame.
Candyland is a successful game because it is a simple way to introduce young, inexperienced players to board games. If AoS works the same way for wargames, that is not a bad thing. If you're an experienced WHFB player, there are already plenty of options for you that you will enjoy.
Maybe I'll get everyone into KoW once they get bored with AoS, but I'll never get them into KoW without some kind of gateway game.
Too expensive : you now have free rules and unit stats and a lower model count.
Too complex : the rules are now only 4 pages plus warscrolls.
Poorly balanced : there are no points values to form the basis of an argument.
£6 for a plastic infantry model? I would class that as expensive, that price would be just about excusable if they were metal.
GW rules have never really been too complex, what they are is obtuse and poorly designed. On the whole GW's games tend to have very simple core rules, especially in recent years. The problem comes from the massive quantities of needless special rule bloat. AoS seems to be loaded down with special rules, in fact I wouldn't be in the least surprised if all the special rules added together came to a great deal more than 4 pages. A game like infinity is complex, 40k hasn't been since 2nd ed and 8th removed what little complexity remained inWHFB.
AoS is amongst the least balanced games that have ever been made simple because there is no functional balancing mechanism at all.
The only good thing that has come from the AoS debacle for me is that GW has finally moved to free, and allegedly living, rulebooks. Aside from that it appears to be business as usual.
My point wasn't that AoS is objectively good in absolute terms, more that it appears to be a genuine attempt at fixing the problems that plagued earlier versions.
Is it cheap? Of course not! You're right that £6 is a ridiculous price for a plastic model but is AoS as a gaming experience cheaper than 8th? Yes, because you don't need an expensive rulebook, expensive army book and enough models to float the Queen Mary.
Is it dumbed down? Arguably so but do X-Wing or Kings of War need 100 pages of rules to be interesting, fun and challenging games? Indeed AoS seems to be following the trend of many recent (and well received) systems with the small core added to by unit specific rules included with the models.
Is there no balance? No! But this is by design. For better or worse GW wants to make a system designed for scenarios and narrative play, not balanced competitive play. This is where my statement about square pegs and round holes is relevant. The most common complaint I've seen so far has nothing to do with whether AoS meets it's own intended goals and everything to do with the fact that it doesn't do things it was never designed for. It's like people complaining that a new motorcycle can't carry a family of four in comfort - it's only a valid criticism if the manufacturer promised this and then failed to deliver, and when did GW EVER promise a balanced and competitive ruleset?
To go back to my point, judge the thing on its own merits
I agree -- I have seen people who are primarily interested in Magic the Gathering who would never think of 40k, FB, or WMH flip through Sigmar because the rules looked simple and the models were nice.
Except that the rules for Magic are extremely complex. There's a reason why a lot of people (both negatively and positively) compare WMH to Magic. These are just people who aren't interested in miniature wargaming in general.
Magic the Gathering is only complex if you choose for it to be.
MtG is very simple if you want to play it that way. Two people can literally buy starter decks and start playing for fun with a few minutes of explanation. I actually know TONS of people like this, who would never, ever win a competitive game of Magic, and who play with decks that have like.... 300 cards (or more!). They REALLY enjoy Magic, and they should not looked down upon as "hobby enthusiasts". I know 60 year old grandmothers who have fun with MtG at the same table as kids and their grandkids, and I think it's a wonderful thing.
Just like other tabletop games, you can choose to ignore whatever rules you want, and you can choose to interpret cards as you wish among your friends, and misplay them, too. Which, I see a lot of in the casual players. I don't even point it out anymore when I play with them -- it's just like, "oh, okay, that's how you play that? sure thing. *mental note*"
Candyland is a successful game because it is a simple way to introduce young, inexperienced players to board games. If AoS works the same way for wargames, that is not a bad thing. If you're an experienced WHFB player, there are already plenty of options for you that you will enjoy.
I hate Candyland, even my 4 year old doesn't like it although he loves Monster Catcher and that's quite a lot more involved.
GW has long needed a new gateway game but did they really need to tear up almost 30 years of wargaming history to do it? If GW had released AoS as a completely new and separate game then there would be a far, far less complaining about it. Its still a poor excuse for a wargame but as something to entice new players its passable (at least from a certain angle, in a certain light). As a replacement for WHFB it is not only completely inadequate it is also insulting to those of use who have invested time and money into that venerable game system. Game systems come and go, I have a big box full of armies for systems that have sunk into the depths, most of which will never see a table again. However I got my first warhammer model when I was 11 and I bought my last when I was about 32, is it any wonder that I am less then impressed with GW? As it happens I would always have had issues with AoS as a game but its clearly not aimed at me.
Something along the lines of Heroquest would have been far better.
fair enough. Hoping to get a demo in this weekend and you never know I might be joining you in thinking it's terrible... Just giving myself a fighting chance with it
Silent Puffin, I too would have preferred they released AoS in addition to WHFB. I really liked the Old World. However, I'm not considering AoS as a replacement for it, but as a third thing unique to itself. Also, as a collector rather than a gamer, I find what I've learned about AoS really appeals to me.
Honestly, I've been toying with the idea of creating super simple (i.e. terrible) rules for my minis to justify ownership of them without having to play the kinds of games that wargamers like. It would have been somewhere between Space Hulk and ...something even simpler. Now that AoS is out and seems to fit my niche, I'm pretty excited about it. I'll see how I feel after getting in a few games when I get a chance.
Manchu wrote: Posters here may not blink at a huge rulebook but we are hardly representative. I recently tried explaining one of the simplest rulesets I know (Lion Rampant) to someone who does not play many games and ... well, it was an uphill battle. Earlier ITT (or one of the many duplicate threads) someone mentioned how their non-gamer spouse looked at the AoS rules, noted it was not a 300+ page book, and therefore showed interest. Folks who know nothing about the competitiveness of WM/H are turned off simply because the core rules seem overwhelming to them. IME, telling someone "oh it's actually very simple" is not very convincing. I personally do not think WM/H is anything but a complex game, which is not an uncommon attitude even among miniatures gamers. But in any event, the point is not to veer off on a tangent about WM/H so much as to clarify that the pared-down nature of AoS is very much an advantage to certain customers.
There absolutely is a place for a simple set of rules to attract newcomers.
There also is a place for a more complex set of rules to satisfy more advanced players.
Let's use sports as a comparable example. The official MLB rulebook - in 2014 - was 120 pages long. How long would it take someone to explain all the intricacies of baseball to someone who had never really expressed interest in the sport at all.
Then explain tag. Short, simple, easy to explain, and probably wouldn't turn a person off during an explanation. It's fun to play, sure - and you can do it drunk for some extra silliness. But will tag continue to be fun after the 20th time you've played it? The 50th? Even with variations like TV tag and freeze tag.
Baseball is terribly boring the first time you play it. Your analogy defeats your point.
Fine. Substitute football (American or European), or rugby, or lacrosse, or field hockey, or Jai alai, or golf, or paintball. The point does remain.
And it must not be terribly boring, if people are following it long enough to play in Little League up to college level and beyond.
Yup, the current FA Handbook (English football association) handbook is 600-odd pages long, and that is just for the English version of the game...
Pretty sure Football is just a little bit popular.
infinite_array wrote: I don't think that's a very good measurement of the quality of AoS as a game. I think you're just looking at the wrong type of people to play miniature wargames.
(1) I did not argue that its concision makes AoS a good game.
(2) People put off by giant rulebooks are not necessarily "the wrong type of people." What we might call the 'heavy rulebook games' are the subject of most conversation on Dakka but are far from the only games out there. And comparing AoS to tag is really weak. The truth is, AoS has tons of rules just like 40k or WM/H, even if the core rules are pretty light, because most of the rules are actually on the war scrolls. So really it is a matter of perception, i.e., marketing.
Kilkrazy wrote: There also is a place for a more complex set of rules to satisfy more advanced players.
A point with which no one disagrees. Is there any concern PP will abandon WM/H in favor of Age of .. er, Menoth (or something)? Complex, tightly-written rules quite obviously have a market. (N.B., WFHB was not serving that market.) What seems less apparent to some posters is the well-established market for more casual (I am now loathe to use that word) miniatures games: if the rulebook isn't 100+ pages, it's just tag?
Manchu wrote: What seems less apparent to some posters is the well-established market for more casual (I am now loathe to use that word) miniatures games: if the rulebook isn't 100+ pages, it's just tag?
Epic is one of the best wargames that I have played, it has maybe 20 pages of rules and the entire game (rules, fluff, modelling guides, tournament rules, scenarios and army lists) fits into a book only slightly thicker than a 40K codex. Mordheim is another example of a very simple game, I seem to manage a full game in about 30-40 minutes, yet it provides some interesting and genuinely tactical games, granted the campaign rules are a little bit shakey but hey ho.
GW can do 'casual' games right, or rather they used to be able to do it.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I really liked the Old World. However, I'm not considering AoS as a replacement for it, but as a third thing unique to itself. .
Given that it follows directly on from the utter travesty that was the End Times and that GW apparently has no plans to release WHFB 9th, I don't see another alternative than to consider WHFB a dead game until such times as GW (or hopefully somebody competent) resurrects it properly.
I do think the Game has become cheaper even though the models are more expensive.
How much does a playable army cost to to plat 8th Edition?
How much does an playable army cost in AoS?
infinite_array wrote: I don't think that's a very good measurement of the quality of AoS as a game. I think you're just looking at the wrong type of people to play miniature wargames.
(1) I did not argue that its concision makes AoS a good game.
(2) People put off by giant rulebooks are not necessarily "the wrong type of people." What we might call the 'heavy rulebook games' are the subject of most conversation on Dakka but are far from the only games out there. And comparing AoS to tag is really weak. The truth is, AoS has tons of rules just like 40k or WM/H, even if the core rules are pretty light, because most of the rules are actually on the war scrolls. So really it is a matter of perception, i.e., marketing.
Sorry, I suppose I shouldn't have made it seem that wargames rules that aren't hundreds of pages long are bad. I just that that at their core, AoS are a bad set of rules, and shouldn't be what we introduce new gamers into the hobby with.
I've had a bunch of fun using 40k models with the One Page 40k ruleset - although the name is sort of deceptive. The base rules do make up one page, and the advance rules (advanced psykery, mysterious terrain, additional missions, bigger games) are a second page. And each faction gets their own page of a few army specific rules and unit profiles. But a "large" unit in 1p40k is 10 guys, and a large game will never have more than two "special units," meaning a combination of Monster, Vehicle, and Walker types. Before KoW2 came along, I was planning on using One Page Fantasy to play Warhammer Fantasy with because, again, unit sizes don't get above 10 models. And that ruleset still manages to get tactical movement, despite only having a single page of basic rules. They also have rules for One Page Killteam and Mordheim, along with rules for campaign in which units can gain experience and get new skills (which put them solidly above AoS in the "narrative" category).
So I've nothing against small, easy to comprehend rulesets. I just like them to be quality small, easy to comprehend rulesets that are developed as a way to actually play games.
Manchu wrote: What seems less apparent to some posters is the well-established market for more casual (I am now loathe to use that word) miniatures games: if the rulebook isn't 100+ pages, it's just tag?
Epic is one of the best wargames that I have played, it has maybe 20 pages of rules and the entire game (rules, fluff, modelling guides, tournament rules, scenarios and army lists) fits into a book only slightly thicker than a 40K codex. Mordheim is another example of a very simple game, I seem to manage a full game in about 30-40 minutes, yet it provides some interesting and genuinely tactical games, granted the campaign rules are a little bit shakey but hey ho.
GW can do 'casual' games right, or rather they used to be able to do it.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I really liked the Old World. However, I'm not considering AoS as a replacement for it, but as a third thing unique to itself. .
Given that it follows directly on from the utter travesty that was the End Times and that GW apparently has no plans to release WHFB 9th, I don't see another alternative than to consider WHFB a dead game until such times as GW (or hopefully somebody competent) resurrects it properly.
I am not disagreeing with that. WHFB is dead. AOS is here. But AOS is not trying to be WHFB. To me, it is not a replacement, so much as something GW developed to fill the slot where WHFB used to be, the same way the show that followed Firefly after its cancellation was not a replacement for Firefly.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Anpu42 wrote: I do think the Game has become cheaper even though the models are more expensive.
How much does a playable army cost to to plat 8th Edition?
How much does an playable army cost in AoS?
I personally dislike this argument. I don't buy games by the army. I buy minis.
For dedicated gamers it seems like a powerful argument. Too bad Age of Sigmar killed their dogs and burnt down their homes.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think there is much in it that is objectively bad. The thing that stands out for me is the Initiaiive roll. This can easily lead to one side getting two turns on the run, which can give a huge tactical advantage if it happens at the right time, probably the second or third turn.
I personally don't like the alternating unit placement, but it is an interesting mechanism that isn't bad in itself, and does give some opportunity for players to balance a game out of their collections.
The Sudden Death rule is fairly bad because it clearly is not well thought out.
The rest of it all works OK. I would prefer more sophistication in tactical factors, fewer special rules, a proper game balance system, and a more streamlined movement and combat system.
But overall it all works as a game.
AoS definitely works as a game, and it's actually better balanced than one might guess. GW is going with non-traditional, non-numerical balancing, and that is throwing pepole like you for a loop. GW is also going for a "looser", more dynamic game, with the historical constraints of a Igo-Ugo system to allow for large multi-player per sides.
The Initiative roll is good because it gives a certain compensation to the player that last lost the roll and had to go second. The only way a player gets a double turn is if the opponent had the initialtive in that round. That is, B has a potential double turn, after the previous round went A-B, resulting in A-B-B-A. From a game theory standpoint, ABBA is far more fair than ABAB when we consider that ABAB allows A to always have an initiative at attritting B's forces. Furthermore, that ABBA sequence is likely to end up reversing to AB-BA-AB or AB-BA-BA-AB at some point, giving A a double turn after B takes a double turn. Tactically, players aren't used to this mechanic, so they need to consider the 50% chance that the opponent Steals the Initiative.
The alternating unit deployment couples with First Turn and Sudden Death as a pair of balancing mechanics. As a group, it's quite good, as players balance their forces (or not), and the First Turn compensates for potentially not having as many models on the board. Similarly, Sudden Death for the opponent going overboard with units.
There are more layers of strategy during the game compared to what we had before, precisely due to the deployment, First Turn, Sudden Death and Turn Initiative mechanics. Over the next several months, this will become a lot clearer as people actually play the game, versus thinking it needs to be WFB8+.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Silent Puffin? wrote: Mordheim is another example of a very simple game, I seem to manage a full game in about 30-40 minutes, yet it provides some interesting and genuinely tactical games, granted the campaign rules are a little bit shakey but hey ho.
You're aware that Mordheim is actually the Campaign, and that the Battle is relatively unimportant, right?
If you talk of playing a "full game" of Mordheim, you have to do the injuries and exploration, not just the fight - the treasure hunting is the best part of the game!
AoS definitely works as a game, and it's actually better balanced than one might guess. GW is going with non-traditional, non-numerical balancing, and that is throwing pepole like you for a loop. GW is also going for a "looser", more dynamic game, with the historical constraints of a Igo-Ugo system to allow for large multi-player per sides..
And you people like you don't get is some of us play game with no point value. GW failed at this concept, it not hard to see.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Silent Puffin? wrote: Mordheim is another example of a very simple game, I seem to manage a full game in about 30-40 minutes, yet it provides some interesting and genuinely tactical games, granted the campaign rules are a little bit shakey but hey ho.
You're aware that Mordheim is actually the Campaign, and that the Battle is relatively unimportant, right?
If you talk of playing a "full game" of Mordheim, you have to do the injuries and exploration, not just the fight - the treasure hunting is the best part of the game!
How does that change tactical depth Mordheim has while playing again? What was your point, exactly?
I like the game itself but I wish that it was developed along side WFB instead of replacing it.
As it is I think the lack of points is its main weakness, But not a crippling one. My friend and I have become very adept at deploying even armies without consulting the other player about "fairness"
What I would like to see is more rules and scenarios for the game to add depth. I understand that it is a skirmish game now but I think it would hugely benifit from a formation system. What i mean by that is a way to reform your soldiers to give them specific buffs or abilities. Example being a phalanx, Arrow head, firing lines, or marching formations.
AoS definitely works as a game, and it's actually better balanced than one might guess. GW is going with non-traditional, non-numerical balancing, and that is throwing pepole like you for a loop. GW is also going for a "looser", more dynamic game, with the historical constraints of a Igo-Ugo system to allow for large multi-player per sides..
And you people like you don't get is some of us play game with no point value.
Can you translate that broken English into standard English, using shorter sentences that actually makes some sense to someone who natively reads English? Thanks.
Anpu42 wrote: I do think the Game has become cheaper even though the models are more expensive.
How much does a playable army cost to to play 8th Edition?
How much does an playable army cost in AoS?
I personally dislike this argument. I don't buy games by the army. I buy minis.
For dedicated gamers it seems like a powerful argument. Too bad Age of Sigmar killed their dogs and burnt down their homes.
That is you.
One of the reason I never started WHFB is the start up cost. I do not have the hundreds of dollars laying around to not play a game that was 90% dead in my area. I am not sure I would if it was a healthy WHFB environment.
Like I have stated elsewhere, the thing I like the most is I and my buddy can play it for under $100 and that is of we only use GW models. 3 1/2 decades worth of miniatures out there to play AoS with if I want to [and I do want to]. I am sure there are a lot of others out there that feel the same way.
Anpu42 wrote: One of the reason I never started WHFB is the start up cost. I do not have the hundreds of dollars laying around to not play a game that was 90% dead in my area. I am not sure I would if it was a healthy WHFB environment.
Like I have stated elsewhere, the thing I like the most is I and my buddy can play it for under $100 and that is of we only use GW models. 3 1/2 decades worth of miniatures out there to play AoS with if I want to [and I do want to]. I am sure there are a lot of others out there that feel the same way.
Note that AoS supports ALL GW Fantasy product ever produced, precisely because "points" don't have to be assigned. If you have de-supported Chaos Dorfs, Dogs of War, Fimir, and/or other ancient stuff predating WFB6, you can play AoS without worrying about the details of points costing.
AoS definitely works as a game, and it's actually better balanced than one might guess.
AoS is not really balanced. It is scenarized. That's not the same.
Beside, the rules do have a particular vision - the GW vision of what is a game. They do not really change from WFB, honestly, because the core idea of the game is still here; you still roll to hit, to wound and the opponent can roll to save, you play your whole turn before your opponent do the same, you roll plenty of dice because it's fun in itself (and it seems like random tables will not disappear soon from the rules)...
GW is going with non-traditional, non-numerical balancing, and that is throwing pepole like you for a loop.
Well, yes, it's quite a change. At least for those who didn't see what GW made in the very beginning.
I can see that "old spirit" behind AoS, and I understand why they try to get rid of the "point cost". But I also understand people (who are usually fond of the WFB rules for a very long time) who get upset by that change. We'll see in the future if that was a good idea...or not. Depends from how well AoS will really sell worldwide,as a whole.
GW is also going for a "looser", more dynamic game, with the historical constraints of a Igo-Ugo system to allow for large multi-player per sides.
I think you are fooling yourself on that point. Why? Because an "Igo-Ugo" isn't really dynamic. You have to wait for your turn to really play, otherwise you only react to your opponent's actions. And it can still take longer, as before in WFB. A bad habit some of my fellow players used to GW games is that they are "going out for a smoke" while I'm playing my turn. That says a lot in itself. When I play another game who alternate activations rather than playing a whole turn, the waiting time is much smaller and thus, they can't "go out for a smoke" because it will be their turn much sooner than they were used to.
Beside, AoS isn't great for multi-player, especially the "free for all" version. Mainly because of that old "Igo-Ugo" system - you have to wait everyone else has played their turn before you do. And that takes a lot longer because there are a lot more people. Waiting to play is usually not fun.
The Initiative roll is good because it gives a certain compensation to the player that last lost the roll and had to go second. The only way a player gets a double turn is if the opponent had the initialtive in that round. That is, B has a potential double turn, after the previous round went A-B, resulting in A-B-B-A. From a game theory standpoint, ABBA is far more fair than ABAB when we consider that ABAB allows A to always have an initiative at attritting B's forces. Furthermore, that ABBA sequence is likely to end up reversing to AB-BA-AB or AB-BA-BA-AB at some point, giving A a double turn after B takes a double turn. Tactically, players aren't used to this mechanic, so they need to consider the 50% chance that the opponent Steals the Initiative.
The Initiative roll is a bad mechanism in AoS because of the "Igo-Ugo" system - it is something meant for a game that uses alternation in a faster fashion (on activations or even on phases). Here, it is not about fairness ; it is about waiting time before actually playing (and not just reacting to your opponent's play). Having the opponent playing twice his turn in a row just because he got lucky on a single dice roll at the beginning of the turn is not fun; it's just frustrating.
On the other hand, that means you have more time to smoke if that happens.
The alternating unit deployment couples with First Turn and Sudden Death as a pair of balancing mechanics. As a group, it's quite good, as players balance their forces (or not), and the First Turn compensates for potentially not having as many models on the board. Similarly, Sudden Death for the opponent going overboard with units.
There are more layers of strategy during the game compared to what we had before, precisely due to the deployment, First Turn, Sudden Death and Turn Initiative mechanics. Over the next several months, this will become a lot clearer as people actually play the game, versus thinking it needs to be WFB8+.
There are strategies to play, of course. But honestly...the Sudden Death is barely working on the long term. It's just something very basic and not really thought that much - mainly because it's really easy to abuse. Basing everything on the number of figurines while being aware a Bloddthirster is the same as a goblin in that statement isn't a great idea to make a challenging and balanced game. In fact, the ball is in the hands of the players - the question is to see if the players will use it or just throw it away to take another ball more suited to them (or better in their eyes).
You're aware that Mordheim is actually the Campaign, and that the Battle is relatively unimportant, right?
If you talk of playing a "full game" of Mordheim, you have to do the injuries and exploration, not just the fight - the treasure hunting is the best part of the game!
Mordheim is just a game full of random tables. A true GW game, thus.
It was great because you could really write a story about your small warband and see it gaining experience from their fights.
The rules in themselves weren't that extraordinary (some were really bad, IMHO). But players weren't really bothered because they usually made their own rules/scenarios in their own campaign. Like a RPG.
I think AoS is similar in that spirit; use the rules you like and change the others, so that it can fits your own story with your army. I wouldn't be surprised if a true campaign mode with experience and skills to gain appear in the future for that; honestly. That could be interesting.
I'm sure GW will do a scenario book for AoS,with restrictions and requirements for each force, along with scenario objectives. That's the only way this game works.
I'm also sure GW will have a campaign book, because, as you note, GW loves campaigns and tables. Plus, it lets them run off another round of those hexagons with a book.
And it's great that AoS is flexible to allow the player to do something with the game. I'm just not convinced that the things people are complaining about are actual problems. Aside from the terrain rules, which is non-obvious and scales poorly.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I'm sure GW will do a scenario book for AoS,with restrictions and requirements for each force, along with scenario objectives. That's the only way this game works.
Totally. So far, we don't really have that, but the game is still young. Since GW has a fast schedule (a bit too fast for me, but that's because I'm a bit "old school" I guess ), they can quickly fill the gap - even with the White Dwarf, using it as it was in the old times with new scenarios and special rules attached to them.
And yeah, GW like campaigns as much as random tables. Or should I say the Studio. Who makes the best campaigns? The players, obviously, because they make what suits them the best. So, giving them tools to do that is certainly a good way to do it.
And it's great that AoS is flexible to allow the player to do something with the game. I'm just not convinced that the things people are complaining about are actual problems. Aside from the terrain rules, which is non-obvious and scales poorly.
I think most people complain because they don't recognize themselves anymore in what they were used to play before. I can totally understand that...a lot of WFB players were convinced AoS would be WFB 9th edition. They didn't believe it could be something completely different. They didn't want to believe the End Times series was here to put an end to the WFB "old universe" as we knew it. And GW didn't clearly say it that way before, so they just had this false hope until now.
Some still try to say AoS is the "continuation" of WFB. I say it's not; this is a whole new game, with a new universe and new factions/models. So far, there are a few winks to the "old times" and there are rules to play your sweet old figurines, and everything is made so that the changes can happen smoothly.
But I'm pretty sure it's temporary, just the time so that players get used to AoS. Things will disappear, that's for sure - some maybe completely. The future will tell how much, in good or bad. We'll see in the following months.
So far, the main advantage of AoS is its simplicity - and thus, it's easy to change the rules or make your own. It can bring a whole lot of different experiences because of that spirit it tries to give to the players. Some will like it, others will not. I wasn't sure at the beginning but now...I'm taking the game as it is, and not as it "should be". A lot of things become clearer that way, IMHO.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Huh? Storm of Chaos was great! Dogs of War were still a faction and they did their part.
Storm of Chaos was awesome - until GW retconned everything and spat on everyone's face :(
some people like to be spat on...
I'm sorry, did your post have a point? Sigvatr pointed out what GW did with Storm of Chaos (ie rest on away the entire story when the results didn't go the way they wanted), and you responded how?
He wouldn't touch 40k/Warhammer previous with a barge pole.
He does play MTG.
The simplied rules and warscrolls caught his attention.
Will see what he says later on today. Not convinced by how much £££ an audience such as that would bring in. Unless GW are aiming for a £50-80 drop every quarter from the main players (as MTG does).
JohnHwangDD wrote: Huh? Storm of Chaos was great! Dogs of War were still a faction and they did their part.
Storm of Chaos was awesome - until GW retconned everything and spat on everyone's face :(
some people like to be spat on...
I'm sorry, did your post have a point? Sigvatr pointed out what GW did with Storm of Chaos (ie rest on away the entire story when the results didn't go the way they wanted), and you responded how?
does yours?
and yes.. some people enjoy having sudden changes in lore and stories, I liked end times... deal with it.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Huh? Storm of Chaos was great! Dogs of War were still a faction and they did their part.
Storm of Chaos was awesome - until GW retconned everything and spat on everyone's face :(
some people like to be spat on...
I'm sorry, did your post have a point? Sigvatr pointed out what GW did with Storm of Chaos (ie rest on away the entire story when the results didn't go the way they wanted), and you responded how?
does yours?
and yes.. some people enjoy having sudden changes in lore and stories, I liked end times... deal with it.
What does any of that have to do with Storm of Chaos?...Do you even know what we're talking about?
He wouldn't touch 40k/Warhammer previous with a barge pole.
He does play MTG.
The simplied rules and warscrolls caught his attention.
Will see what he says later on today. Not convinced by how much £££ an audience such as that would bring in. Unless GW are aiming for a £50-80 drop every quarter from the main players (as MTG does).
well that would be better than what WHFB has been bringing in before AoS...
JohnHwangDD wrote: Huh? Storm of Chaos was great! Dogs of War were still a faction and they did their part.
Storm of Chaos was awesome - until GW retconned everything and spat on everyone's face :(
some people like to be spat on...
I'm sorry, did your post have a point? Sigvatr pointed out what GW did with Storm of Chaos (ie rest on away the entire story when the results didn't go the way they wanted), and you responded how?
does yours?
and yes.. some people enjoy having sudden changes in lore and stories, I liked end times... deal with it.
What does any of that have to do with Storm of Chaos?...Do you even know what we're talking about?
(FYI: it has nothing to do with the End Times.)
I believe the "spat" in their face comment is in regards to end times and how storm of chaos was great and end times was not... hence my comment, seriously do you have anything to contribute or are you just going to critique what I type... its ok, if you enjoy that sort of thing go for it... I am cleaning my classic metal minis for fantasy because AoS is awesome as we type so its no dandruff off my shoulders... and if I am mistaken on the storm of chaos/end times I apologies to the person I quoted in question, but not to you, you are very petty and have wasted 3 posts attacking me instead of correcting me like a gentleman would, sad really... as sad a nurgling in a tub of disinfectant .
I believe the "spat" in their face comment is in regards to end times and how storm of chaos was great and end times was not... hence my comment, seriously do you have anything to contribute or are you just going to critique what I type... its ok, if you enjoy that sort of thing go for it... I am cleaning my classic metal minis for fantasy because AoS is awesome as we type so its no dandruff off my shoulders.
So you read the post totally wrong, and then get offended when someone points out you read it wrong?
I think it's hilarious you say I have nothing to contribute when all you've been doing is gakking on people for making comments about GW that don't fit with your little dogma.
I am pretty positive all that was said was the Storm of Chaos was retconned away at the conclusion of the campaign, and that was lousy for ALL the work people put into that global campaign. Had nothing to do with End TImes or AOS, but you seem to think this is about that game. I find it strange seeing these diehard AOS fans who seem to know nothing about what WHFB was before the game came around, short of parroting "WHFB had no future, AOS was the only way forward."
I believe the "spat" in their face comment is in regards to end times and how storm of chaos was great and end times was not... hence my comment, seriously do you have anything to contribute or are you just going to critique what I type... its ok, if you enjoy that sort of thing go for it... I am cleaning my classic metal minis for fantasy because AoS is awesome as we type so its no dandruff off my shoulders.
So you read the post totally wrong, and then get offended when someone points out you read it wrong?
no, I am not offended, not in the slightest but instead of humping my posts and wasting posts the dude could have corrected me and explained my error instead of just being a douche, like you are... instead of correcting me you are being a douche... good job, by the way.
peace and love
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Accolade wrote: I think it's hilarious you say I have nothing to contribute when all you've been doing is gakking on people for making comments about GW that don't fit with your little dogma.
I am pretty positive all that was said was the Storm of Chaos was retconned away at the conclusion of the campaign, and that was lousy for ALL the work people put into that global campaign. Had nothing to do with End TImes or AOS, but you seem to think this is about that game. I find it strange seeing these diehard AOS fans who seem to know nothing about what WHFB was before the game came around, short of parroting "WHFB had no future, AOS was the only way forward."
now was that hard to do the first time? and next time try sounding less like a douche... just because you do not like AoS just does mean I cannot state my opinion... good luck in life... ps - you can understand my mistake, its a discussion on AoS and people are talking about an old campaign, either way, my apologies to the person I quoted, but not you..
I believe the "spat" in their face comment is in regards to end times and how storm of chaos was great and end times was not... hence my comment, seriously do you have anything to contribute or are you just going to critique what I type... its ok, if you enjoy that sort of thing go for it... I am cleaning my classic metal minis for fantasy because AoS is awesome as we type so its no dandruff off my shoulders.
So you read the post totally wrong, and then get offended when someone points out you read it wrong?
no, I am not offended, not in the slightest but instead of humping my posts and wasting posts the dude could have corrected me and explained my error instead of just being a douche, like you are... instead of correcting me you are being a douche... good job, by the way.
peace and love
OR you could have just started at the very beginning by not making douchey comments about Sigvatr's point about Storm of Chaos. I don't know why you would expect people to respond kindly when your posts are typically condescending, and worse, often uninformed.
EDIT: eh whatever, it's not really worth carrying this conversation on.
I believe the "spat" in their face comment is in regards to end times and how storm of chaos was great and end times was not... hence my comment, seriously do you have anything to contribute or are you just going to critique what I type... its ok, if you enjoy that sort of thing go for it... I am cleaning my classic metal minis for fantasy because AoS is awesome as we type so its no dandruff off my shoulders.
So you read the post totally wrong, and then get offended when someone points out you read it wrong?
no, I am not offended, not in the slightest but instead of humping my posts and wasting posts the dude could have corrected me and explained my error instead of just being a douche, like you are... instead of correcting me you are being a douche... good job, by the way.
peace and love
OR you could have just started at the very beginning by not making douchey comments about Sigvatr's point about Storm of Chaos. I don't know why you would expect people to respond kindly when your posts are typically condescending, and worse, often uninformed.
EDIT: eh whatever, it's not really worth carrying this conversation on.
all I said is that some people like to be spat on NOT being douche or trying to destroy his comment, just joining the conversation, which was a mistake, if I knew that you would hump my posts like so I would have not... either way it was my mistake and I apologies to him for a third time and not in any way a douche comment not unlike you have been giving me simply because I enjoy AoS and you do not...
storm of chaos, heard about it... I guess it was the valten one, GW did something after it, I guess the spat in their face which does not make sense, GW can do whatever it wants with its lore... .still if we want to be pedantic like you are, what does storm of chaos have to do with AoS and our opinions, impressions, reviews of it? or do you just like to throw sand in GWs face every chance you get.
ps - I think I have a valten mini somewhere? have to dig in storage again :/ found my necromancer though
JohnHwangDD wrote: I'm sure GW will do a scenario book for AoS,with restrictions and requirements for each force, along with scenario objectives. That's the only way this game works.
I'm also sure GW will have a campaign book, because, as you note, GW loves campaigns and tables.
The first campaign book they've released has these scenarios but there's no restrictions or requirements for each force.
The only thing is says in some cases is that if you're the larger force you have to take role X (attacker/defender) in this scenario.
bitethythumb wrote: still if we want to be pedantic like you are, what does storm of chaos have to do with AoS and our opinions, impressions, reviews of it? or do you just like to throw sand in GWs face every chance you get.
The quote was originally confronting a claim that GW "loves campaigns and tables." While they certainly love tables - especially when populated with GW battleboards and terrain - their only campaign didn't end they way they wanted it to, so instead of following through with the results as promised, it was completely scrapped and thrown out. So hoping for GW to run another campaign seems like a poor place to put one's confidence.
I believe the "spat" in their face comment is in regards to end times and how storm of chaos was great and end times was not... hence my comment, seriously do you have anything to contribute or are you just going to critique what I type...
Just read the posts you're replying too and you won't have people jumping at your throat. If you read such a post:
bitethythumb wrote: still if we want to be pedantic like you are, what does storm of chaos have to do with AoS and our opinions, impressions, reviews of it? or do you just like to throw sand in GWs face every chance you get.
The quote was originally confronting a claim that GW "loves campaigns and tables." While they certainly love tables - especially when populated with GW battleboards and terrain - their only campaign didn't end they way they wanted it to, so instead of following through with the results as promised, it was completely scrapped and thrown out. So hoping for GW to run another campaign seems like a poor place to put one's confidence.
makes sense now, good point, my mistake still, campaigns are really pointless if you ask me...they serve no purpose especially if they somehow affect the universe in question, which I guess why GW did the turn around
I believe the "spat" in their face comment is in regards to end times and how storm of chaos was great and end times was not... hence my comment, seriously do you have anything to contribute or are you just going to critique what I type...
Just read the posts you're replying too and you won't have people jumping at your throat. If you read such a post:
JohnHwangDD wrote: Huh? Storm of Chaos was great! Dogs of War were still a faction and they did their part.
Storm of Chaos was awesome - until GW retconned everything and spat on everyone's face :(
...and then think that the post was about End Times or anything...well...don't be surprised at people doubting your posting capabilities.
you can doubt... you can also explain the mistake in a polite and friendly manner instead of just "what are you contributing" I mean I said nothing insulting or tried to in any way.... was my comment a mistake, sure, but you do not have to hump my post like I am a plague.... anyways, back to topic if you please, this conversation has ran its course
The structure of the new setting seems flexible enough that campaigns could have an effect without really having any effect, sort of like 40k (which I think was part of the plan of course).
Manchu wrote: The structure of the new setting seems flexible enough that campaigns could have an effect without really having any effect, sort of like 40k (which I think was part of the plan of course).
Easily! There are seven elemental planes to play with, each of which apparently is infinite. GW can do a campaign on the plane of fire, and if it goes very well for Chaos, an Order attack can start to overwhelm the plane of water.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I'm sure GW will do a scenario book for AoS,with restrictions and requirements for each force, along with scenario objectives. That's the only way this game works.
I'm also sure GW will have a campaign book, because, as you note, GW loves campaigns and tables.
The first campaign book they've released has these scenarios but there's no restrictions or requirements for each force.
The only thing is says in some cases is that if you're the larger force you have to take role X (attacker/defender) in this scenario.
Well, that is a bit of a bummer.
I had reckoned that at least the official scenarios would give us a guide on unit strength and match ups.
But it sounds like these 'scenarios' are very limited. What is in them if not an order of battle? Just a sort of objective?
Manchu wrote: The structure of the new setting seems flexible enough that campaigns could have an effect without really having any effect, sort of like 40k (which I think was part of the plan of course).
how so? I can sorta get 40k working (its so bloody big that anything can happen on any planet and have 0 affect on any other planet, apart from nids) like that and maybe AoS a little bit (Realms having their own conflicts etc, but its still limited... personally after reading some things I am not that pleased with the space station realms, would have made more sense to move everything to the warp and just have the map of the warp and each god/gods have their own territories always in conflict
JohnHwangDD wrote: I'm sure GW will do a scenario book for AoS,with restrictions and requirements for each force, along with scenario objectives. That's the only way this game works.
I'm also sure GW will have a campaign book, because, as you note, GW loves campaigns and tables.
The first campaign book they've released has these scenarios but there's no restrictions or requirements for each force.
The only thing is says in some cases is that if you're the larger force you have to take role X (attacker/defender) in this scenario.
I haven't seen the book, but that is disappointing if they aren't leveraging the keywords to create scenarios. Consider the classic 7 Samurai scenario - specify exactly 7 non-Monster Characters for the one side. How hard is that? or a Monster Hunter scenario where it specifies exactly 1 Monster for the side. I'm rather shocked GW doesn't have this, because it drives sales of extra Characters in the first case and/or a Monster in the second.
Oh well, it's not like players can't create something.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I'm sure GW will do a scenario book for AoS,with restrictions and requirements for each force, along with scenario objectives. That's the only way this game works.
I'm also sure GW will have a campaign book, because, as you note, GW loves campaigns and tables.
The first campaign book they've released has these scenarios but there's no restrictions or requirements for each force.
The only thing is says in some cases is that if you're the larger force you have to take role X (attacker/defender) in this scenario.
I haven't seen the book, but that is disappointing if they aren't leveraging the keywords to create scenarios. Consider the classic 7 Samurai scenario - specify exactly 7 non-Monster Characters for the one side. How hard is that? or a Monster Hunter scenario where it specifies exactly 1 Monster for the side. I'm rather shocked GW doesn't have this, because it drives sales of extra Characters in the first case and/or a Monster in the second.
Oh well, it's not like players can't create something.
There's a hint of that in one of the new scenarios. One requires two generals and another has a bonus if you take a Totem.
I expect it'll be more common as new models are realised.
Edit: If you have any specific questions on those scenarions, ask away.
AoS definitely works as a game, and it's actually better balanced than one might guess. GW is going with non-traditional, non-numerical balancing, and that is throwing pepole like you for a loop. GW is also going for a "looser", more dynamic game, with the historical constraints of a Igo-Ugo system to allow for large multi-player per sides..
And people like you don't get is some of us play game with no point value.
Can you translate that broken English into standard English, using shorter sentences that actually makes some sense to someone who natively reads English? Thanks.
As in there are many non-point system out there, has been for years. So it is not hard to see how bad GW failed at AoS using the same concept. We already seen what AoS idea of missions is. GW failed.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I'm sure GW will do a scenario book for AoS,with restrictions and requirements for each force, along with scenario objectives. That's the only way this game works.
I'm also sure GW will have a campaign book, because, as you note, GW loves campaigns and tables.
The first campaign book they've released has these scenarios but there's no restrictions or requirements for each force.
The only thing is says in some cases is that if you're the larger force you have to take role X (attacker/defender) in this scenario.
I haven't seen the book, but that is disappointing if they aren't leveraging the keywords to create scenarios. Consider the classic 7 Samurai scenario - specify exactly 7 non-Monster Characters for the one side. How hard is that? or a Monster Hunter scenario where it specifies exactly 1 Monster for the side. I'm rather shocked GW doesn't have this, because it drives sales of extra Characters in the first case and/or a Monster in the second.
Oh well, it's not like players can't create something.
I think the whole point is for players to make their own, the first book has a solo play scenario of no quarter that could easily be adapted into 7 samurai style (great movie choice by the way)
I read the scenarios from the book and yes, they are quite generic. To be honest, that's nothing really astounding - and nothing any player with a few imagination can write by himself.
Anyone can do the job of the Studio, now. To be honest, I feel like the books they will produce for AoS will only have an interest for the background. Everything else, you can do it by yourself - yes, even the warscrolls.
Rules for the "realms" are the same, IMHO.
I think I will just take the models. That's the only thing I can't make by myself...for now.
About campaigns...the first interest of a campaign is to have a background and linked games, telling a story by playing them after the other. It has, of course, a beginning and an end. Most campaigns are local, made by players for players, and generally the story is also local - it can have an impact on the Warhammer universe, but since it is local, another player group can have a very different story.
That's why most campaigns usually happen in a remote location or a totally new continent (sometimes, even a different world). The GW Studio loves campaigns; you can see they are used to play games that have a story behind and may be linked together. Maybe you don't remember the other campaign books they released (no, there wasn't "just" Storm of Chaos), but I do.
The thing behind Storm of Chaos was to make a world event. Like all campaigns, it had a beginning and an end. And even so its ending wasn't kept in the following books...it was mostly because they "stopped" the story just before the events of Storm of Chaos. So that players could redo their own campaign on that event, with a different ending. Maybe.
That was also the same for the Nemesis Crown campaign. The ending wasn't "world breaking" as well. End Times series was, on the other hand...and you could say it was a campaign in design.
Yes, GW loves campaigns. That's not for nothing they keep talking about "Forging the Narrative". Rules aren't important in a campaign...it's the story told through the battles that matters. Yeah, sure, it's not always written in all the books...but it's remembered by the main actors; the players who played it. And that's all that is really important.
@Sarouan - I agree: glancing through the book, the most value seems to be the fluff/background.
This is not really that different from a lot of the other campaign sets from GW -- even when they have rules, the rules are a miniscule portion of the "value" (yes, you really want the formation... but it's one page out of 200).
I agree with you totally that GW loves its campaigns Which is okay with me, though in 40k, we prefer to create our own than to play the GW ones. In AoS, if we ever do really spend a significant amount of time playing it, I imagine it would be the same. However, if we *don't* spend a lot of time playing it, there is the possibility that a premade campaign that we can just chip away at every now and then without a lot of planning and forethought would be fun to do.
Yes, maybe I expected too much from their big book. It's really too generic to me...sure, we have rules to play battles in the Realms of Fire and Life, but I wanted more from the scenarios. Not just generic ones that tell me the same things than in the main rules; "play whatever you want".
I'd like to answer to GW: "Thank you, Captain Obvious. I'm not paying you for that."
I hope they will not do what I think they're trying to; big books with warscrolls only to be found in those and the same generic scenarios so that "everyone can play whatever they want". If they really wish to take the "no points" road, then they better go at full speed on it and give real tools so that we can enjoy what they want us to truly enjoy - not that half-assed attitude.
Rules of AoS are fine as long as they are free. If we have to pay for them...that's a completely different question; because they're not worth paying anything. And yes, that include the warscrolls, scenarios and "realm rules". However, new background, awesome drawing, tools for true campaigns making...a bit like a RPG Game Master's Guide, now that will be really interesting to buy.
These are all very good points about how GW could have done this and that in their campaign books to boost sales of such and such but, to be honest, I think the main aim of these campaign books is not to sell more models but to sell more, well, campaign books. GW can produce these books at little time or money expense and I'm sure they'll be making a decent profit. People will buy them, so they'll just keep on churning out generic campaign at silly prices.
Sarouan wrote: I read the scenarios from the book and yes, they are quite generic. To be honest, that's nothing really astounding - and nothing any player with a few imagination can write by himself.
Anyone can do the job of the Studio, now. To be honest, I feel like the books they will produce for AoS will only have an interest for the background. Everything else, you can do it by yourself - yes, even the warscrolls.
Players can create warscrolls, made easier because GW released a full range of warscrolls that define the characteristics of various units from grot to giant. I'm in the process of creating and Alpha-testing a set of Dogs of War warscrolls for my personal use, corresponding to the models I own. It wasn't too difficult at all, but it sure would have been nice if GW had just released the blank unit warscroll templates.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sarouan wrote: Rules of AoS are fine as long as they are free. If we have to pay for them...that's a completely different question; because they're not worth paying anything. And yes, that include the warscrolls, scenarios and "realm rules".
As I said earlier, I would gladly have paid $25 to have GW print and bind *ALL* of the AoS materials into a single A4-sized volume. It would have saved me a lot of trouble downloading and printing. My time and eyesight are worth that much.
My buddy and I played an incredibly disorganized and random game of the new rules to try them out. On my side was: a chaos sorcerer lord, 10 chaos warriors with hand weapons and shields, 10 marauders with flails, and a gorebeast chariot. My friend put down 10 gladeguard, 5 chaos knights, a khorne lord on a juggernaut, and 10 skeletons. We weren't really aiming at balance or armies that made sense, we just threw down some things we had lying around.
My/our thoughts:
-The simplification of the to hit and wound rolls wasn't noticeably bad at all.
-It wasn't terrible. The way I felt about the game after it was over was that had I never played warhammer before and had no previous expectations or experience, I would not have said I had a bad time.
-Pretty much every infantry option fielded was terrible. The marauders were abysmal. They ended up fighting the glade guard and lost due to the gladeguard being able to attack essentially twice a round, once shooting in combat and once in the actual melee. The skeletons were similarly bad, however their high bravery meant that at least they didn't just melt in the battleshock phase (which is pretty ironic, given that's what they used to do through their mediocre combat ability and instability). We messed up with the warriors, not realising that they had 2 wounds each, which meant that they were destroyed by the knights rather quickly. However even had we played it correctly, their ability to put out damage with the hand weapon option was pretty disappointing. Their shields did not seem like a great advantage over having another weapon type.
-The chaos knights were totally ridiculous. Three wounds each and putting out 5 attacks each saw them melt anything they hit. We both agreed they were way too good compared to everything else.
-The characters didn't have a huge impact. His lord died to a combination of lucky rolling by the chariot and being finished off by a magic missile from the sorcerer. Once he had eliminated the other character, the sorcerer seemed pretty inconsequential. The magic missile only really seemed worth using on characters or monsters. The armour buff seemed like a better option. The particular chaos buff spell didn't seem effective. However I noticed after about summoning...
-...which is totally ridiculous. The summoning rules are absolutely over the top. All you have to do is roll a 6 on two dice and suddenly you have 10 bloodletters? Huh? A 9 and you have a lord of change? I don't see how this is "fair" to anyone except GW stockholders.
-There is no more balance. We had read of people talking about using wound counts for balance, however even that seemed ineffective. There was no way that three gladeguard/skeletons/marauders were comparable to a chaos knight, and don't even get me started on models like nagash.
-Being unable to predict who would go first in the charging phase made movement pretty weird. You were sort of at a loss as to whether you should position your unit to charge or not. However, as it seemed that charging itself was relatively inconsequential, barring for units with charge related rules. The careful position and movement of fantasy seemed pretty much dead, replaced by: "do I want this unit in combat? yes? move forward. no? stay back." I realise that with the retreat rule and counter engaging with fresh units, there is a tiny degree of nuance. But it is a pale shadow to what warhammer used to be.
-The game seemed really, really simple. With movement all but unimportant and psychology/fleeing gone, the game didn't seem like much beyond smushing units together and trying to out roll your opponent. I was trying to imagine how scenarios would improve the game, but again, due to the simple movement and psychology rules, I don't see how every game isn't just going to turn into a series of slow boring combats.
All in all, I now recognize how someone who just wanted a really simple game or someone who had never played warhammer before might like this game. However, I'm at a loss as to how anyone who liked what warhammer was before would enjoy AoS. It was not warhammer. Nothing about it except the unit names was warhammer'y, and even that seems to be on the chopping block as GW's release schedule advances over the next two years.
Jojo, thanks for the insight.
A major issue is that maneuvering important in Fantasy is gone and what the new game has to offer is large combat phases.
This is what the game makes boring. Scenarios as in WMH, steamroller, might be useful.
-...which is totally ridiculous. The summoning rules are absolutely over the top. All you have to do is roll a 6 on two dice and suddenly you have 10 bloodletters? Huh? A 9 and you have a lord of change? I don't see how this is "fair" to anyone except GW stockholders.
summoning is risky because at the end of the game they count as lost dead units even if they all remain standing, making summoning very tricky, you CAN summon and kill your opponent but you will more or less lose the game itself, if you count how many dead on each side that is... if that was your means of deciding who wins.
IMO opinion it made summoning better as now you have to think carefully about what you summon and why because at the end they are lost points.... I do agree (after a few more games) that it does become a free for all pile in but I am looking more and more at little things (like keeping units closer when away from melee, like ranked, to keep them further away getting shot, and then spreading them out when nearer to melee to block paths etc) that enhance/change tactics... I am also looking at combining or mixing units of different armies for different effects... like VC necromancers and TK skeletons (achers, tomb guard, riders) as a wound damper... as well as using terrain rules to change things up.
That's a really good rebuttal. I had not thought about any of that. I guess it raises hope that with scenarios the game might become more fleshed out.
I'm sort of on the fence about the game though. My buddy and I both pretty much agreed that unless buying the new stuff coming out (Sigmarines or the not warriors of chaos warriors of chaos), there isn't much incentive to buy anything right now. My understanding of the first AoS book is that the scenarios are only for the two new factions. That is worrying for the game going forward.
I'm presently debating selling off all of my chaos dwarfs for a clean slate. I do feel a bit dirty at the prospect of making a new big investment from GW after their invalidating my existing army as a supported thing. A part of me is debating simply leaving gaming. Warhammer was my toe in the sand holding me from drifting away on the current. Now it's done...
That's a really good rebuttal. I had not thought about any of that. I guess it raises hope that with scenarios the game might become more fleshed out.
I'm sort of on the fence about the game though. My buddy and I both pretty much agreed that unless buying the new stuff coming out (Sigmarines or the not warriors of chaos warriors of chaos), there isn't much incentive to buy anything right now. My understanding of the first AoS book is that the scenarios are only for the two new factions. That is worrying for the game going forward.
I'm presently debating selling off all of my chaos dwarfs for a clean slate. I do feel a bit dirty at the prospect of making a new big investment from GW after their invalidating my existing army as a supported thing. A part of me is debating simply leaving gaming. Warhammer was my toe in the sand holding me from drifting away on the current. Now it's done...
Don't leave wargaming. Outside the GW bubble its a golden age of gaming. There are so many awesome games from companies that don't actually despise you.
I'm presently debating selling off all of my chaos dwarfs for a clean slate. I do feel a bit dirty at the prospect of making a new big investment from GW after their invalidating my existing army as a supported thing. A part of me is debating simply leaving gaming. Warhammer was my toe in the sand holding me from drifting away on the current. Now it's done...
I see I'm not the only one who feels that way. Sad, ain't it?
jojo_monkey_boy wrote: I do feel a bit dirty at the prospect of making a new big investment from GW after their invalidating my existing army as a supported thing.
You don't have to buy from GW. There's a huge second hand market out there waiting for your investment. Alternatively...well...the three gaming clubs of us make scheduled appointments when all members (~80-100) hand in lists and order at...Asian...sellers.
2nd hand is very good too, though, if you don't want to wait for the long shipping times.
That's a really good rebuttal. I had not thought about any of that. I guess it raises hope that with scenarios the game might become more fleshed out.
I'm sort of on the fence about the game though. My buddy and I both pretty much agreed that unless buying the new stuff coming out (Sigmarines or the not warriors of chaos warriors of chaos), there isn't much incentive to buy anything right now. My understanding of the first AoS book is that the scenarios are only for the two new factions. That is worrying for the game going forward.
I'm presently debating selling off all of my chaos dwarfs for a clean slate. I do feel a bit dirty at the prospect of making a new big investment from GW after their invalidating my existing army as a supported thing. A part of me is debating simply leaving gaming. Warhammer was my toe in the sand holding me from drifting away on the current. Now it's done...
No, each scenario is preceded by a fluff section describing an instance of a battle using the scenario (the Sigmarines are assaulting a Khornate watchtower, for the Watchtower scenario), but the rules are fluff-agnostic. That is, nothing about the scenario says "use 5 Sigmarines and 20 Khorne Bloodmen". Several of the scenarios even give a reassuring "don't worry, we say that the Bloodmarines fought the Sigmarian Titans here, but you can also fight with, IDK, dwarfs or whatever against orcs".
Jojo - Mantic have a fully supported Abyssal Dwarf list that you should be able to work your Chaos Dwarves into without problem. At least give it a try before selling the minis or quitting.
My advise, too. Using Mantic rules and Old World fluff actually supports some WHFB armies better than GW has done, and the Mantic switch costs Warhammer players absolutely nothing right now, and only 40 bucks for both lists and full rules when the hardcover rules (less for softcover) come out in a month.
If you want to keep playing Age of Sigmar you could just write up your own battlescrolls for your chaos dwarf units. Since there aren't any points costs you can't really get it wrong unless you somehow make a unit unbeatable.
Well, for foreseeable future you can use official scrolls for chaos dwarfs once FW puts them up. As for later... wait and see what happens with dwarfs in AoS.
(be careful not to notice how much further one of you might manage to send them. Best to wear blindfolds while playing)
