If GW wants anyone to be able to pick a box of the shelf and have a playable unit then each box is going to have a warscroll with the unit size being the box contents..
In which case nearly everything will need reboxing (unless the power levels are very homogenised), as 16 High Elf Spearmen don't equal 20 Goblins don't equal 10 State Troops ect. Then there's the issue of newer kits without duplicate sprues, they can't really be reboxed with a different mini count so you're left with fixed unit sizes.
I think I've seen statements from people who were right about the AoS contents saying that the stats/powers/abilities of the old units in AoS many well not be what we expect based on their WFB stat/pwers/abilities
if so it's not impossible that 'boxes' can be balances to at least the level of old points based units (which were, we know, not very balanced)
Yeah, that certainly possible, it just means that a lot of flavour might be lost; there's a reason 1 Elf costs 3 Skaven or whatever, bringing them that so much closer just to balance boxes seems a mistake to me.
Then again, if army sizes are more consistent then that could explain the pretty extreme rules for being outnumbered.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: I think I've seen statements from people who were right about the AoS contents saying that the stats/powers/abilities of the old units in AoS many well not be what we expect based on their WFB stat/pwers/abilities
if so it's not impossible that 'boxes' can be balances to at least the level of old points based units (which were, we know, not very balanced)
Impossible? No.
But why would they suddenly start to care about balance, when they didn't back when they had (or still have in 40K) points. Look at the recent 40K stuff. Free equipment for AdMech, Skyhammer, D-Weapon-bonanza for Eldar, etc.., etc.., etc..
And now, after taking the points away, which even in 40K today are mostly a meaningless "legacy-feature", they're to start working on balance again? With the added handicap of no points, which they just removed?
Colour me disappointed. I suppose I fall into the camp of, "people who played WFB already and were hoping for more of the same, albeit with some its major failings addressed."
I can understand why GW would go in the direction they seem to be going. Their tiny window of pre-release information already makes it look like they're aiming at knee-jerk purchases. This game seems to empower that sort of buying. Any models can seemingly be fielded together, less emphasis on points values and more on random assortments of models, rules cards come with models (I may be wrong on this?).
There were rumours a while ago that GW was wanting to move towards a release model where they brought out new products for a window of time, then stopped selling them. What I'm reading sounds in that vein.
Outside of potentially alienating some of your existing customers, it's a pretty smart move:
-There's no longer the burden of stocking and supporting older armies/models, as "armies" as we formerly understood them, no longer exist. This in turn empowers them to continue with their current pricing model whereby old releases don't see their prices raised, but new releases of similar products are constantly sliding up in price. Eventually those older models are no longer restocked and there's no giant price increase to offend the client.
-The random assembly of models for play places less of a burden on players to stick with one army, thus making new releases always potentially desirable.
-They can mess around with the game "meta," by which I mean rolling out progressively overpowered models which are then countered by other newer overpowered models. This makes for easy sales.
All of this wouldn't be so disappointing if the game didn't sound so absolutely different than what we're already playing and if they hadn't absolutely destroyed the background setting. Oh well.
With WH-AOS sounding like a dramatically simplified game, where you can take any units you want, it's sounding a lot like a Warhammer: All Stars sort of game, perhaps emulating League of Legends or Blizzard's Heroes of the Storm.
In fact, I wonder if they'll take the same route as Heroes and make it so you can use ANY Games-Workshop model (excluding LOTR), and make one super game of "play anything you want!" Maybe there really was credence to those old rumors of Space Marines versus High Elves
Accolade wrote:With WH-AOS sounding like a dramatically simplified game, where you can take any units you want, it's sounding a lot like a Warhammer: All Stars sort of game, perhaps emulating League of Legends or Blizzard's Heroes of the Storm.
jojo_monkey_boy wrote:-They can mess around with the game "meta," by which I mean rolling out progressively overpowered models which are then countered by other newer overpowered models. This makes for easy sales.
I've been thinking about potential balance acts in WHAoS, and how the meta could be 'patched' as it goes to adjust for imbalances - or on the darkside, tweak things to promote poor sellers, though likely not while demoting power sellers.
Anyway, I was reminded of this comic:
Not 100% inapplicable, but we'll see how things shake out.
Ok so no points but we have not seen the Scrolls yet, also Sales reps are probably clueless with the gaming side of things?
I think there will be 2 outcomes for me on this.
- I enjoy the game and keep on expanding my collections on my own bubble of preferences
- I do not enjoy it and will keep on collecting stuff for other games, prev editions included
GW seems more interested in giving us minis, so as long as there are good minis to buy I will collect them.
Is it sad that all is discarded? Not ideal I can guarantee you that but at the end of the day Im lucky that this is just a hobby for me and I take control to where I want to take it.
OrlandotheTechnicoloured wrote: I think I've seen statements from people who were right about the AoS contents saying that the stats/powers/abilities of the old units in AoS many well not be what we expect based on their WFB stat/pwers/abilities
if so it's not impossible that 'boxes' can be balances to at least the level of old points based units (which were, we know, not very balanced)
While I agree that "balancing by stats" is what is most likely to occur, I also don't see a way some armies survive this with their "feel" at all intact. I mean, horde armies were just that "we have lots of little guys so that we can equal one big guy eventually!". But if a warscroll is a box's contents, 20 skaven suddenly equaling a monster feels... wrong. Consider just clan rats vs skaven slaves. They come from the same box, but slaves are 1/2 a clan rat.
I mean, we'll see on Friday I guess, but so far things are seriously sketchy.
If GW wants anyone to be able to pick a box of the shelf and have a playable unit then each box is going to have a warscroll with the unit size being the box contents..
In which case nearly everything will need reboxing (unless the power levels are very homogenised), as 16 High Elf Spearmen don't equal 20 Goblins don't equal 10 State Troops ect. Then there's the issue of newer kits without duplicate sprues, they can't really be reboxed with a different mini count so you're left with fixed unit sizes.
High Elf Spearmen are webstore exclusives, so I wouldn't be surprised to see them get "reboxed"--but more likely we'll see a new kit, given that the High Elf Spearmen, Archers, and Silver Helms are crap sculpts.
Da Boss wrote: Smug posters like you are just as bad as any hyperbolic "hater", JohnnyHell. We're making judgements based on the information we have. If you are happy to wait til later to see the full rules, go do that.
What is amusing to me is seeing the acceptance of KOW style rules by many who had decried KOW as "too simple" and lacking in depth. I guess it's different if it comes from GW rather than Mantic, right?
I thought people were saying the rules were similar to Wrath of Kings, not Kings of War (those two names do really blend together)?
Or does KoW and WoK both have similar rules?
Yes, it sounds MUCH more similar to Wrath of Kings than Kings of War.
Kings of War is very similar to existing WHFB (at least the earlier versions, I haven't played in a long time) with some tweaked rules. Block troops, point costs for balance, move/shoot/attack, players take turns activating everything.
Wrath of Kings has no point costs - models are divided into roughly equivalent categories of type and level, e.g. level 1 infantry or level 2 character and there's a flat exchange of 2 level 1 for 1 level 2 of the same type if you want to upgrade. All of the models have special rules on a card for their own unique abilities based on fluff, which are generally variations of a dozen or so basic modifications, and for their defensive chart. Players alternate actions rather than entire turns (it sounds like this is only true for combat is AoS?) everything does its own movement, no blocks, but leaders can activate a group as a single action giving them a special minor boost if they are of a compatible type. The one thing WoK has that AoS apparently doesn't is their attack/defense mechanism where each model has a unique chart for defending which can be modified by the attacker, which is very clever and nicely done. I'm also not sure how well you can keep any sort of balance if you were talking about using the system for many hundreds of model types, I'd guess there are 60-80 types in WoK currently.
So when we say "any units you want" does that mean potentially we could see a list of an Ork hero with a goblin unit, a scaven unit and a bunch of Chaos Dwarf war machines?
Dark Lord Seanron wrote: So when we say "any units you want" does that mean potentially we could see a list of an Ork hero with a goblin unit, a scaven unit and a bunch of Chaos Dwarf war machines?
Yeah, I think that's definitely part of the goal of the new game.
Dark Lord Seanron wrote: So when we say "any units you want" does that mean potentially we could see a list of an Ork hero with a goblin unit, a scaven unit and a bunch of Chaos Dwarf war machines?
or a bunch of trolls and troll slayers led by an elf wizard?
I will get into this on the condition that there is some sort of system to balance armies. It's honestly really disappointing, as I was down with pretty much everything else. I love the idea of stripped down, streamlined rules that are easy for newcomers to pickup and play with a small number of models. Sounded like the perfect way to introduce my friends to the game. Then they just have to throw a massive spanner in the works with this 'no points, no FOG, no masters' system, which is so typically GW; they have plenty of nice ideas, and then they ruin it all with one awful one. In my honest opinion, at least...
Maybe gw are using the cost of the models as a points value? Turn up at the Store and put down your £150 army verses an opponents £150 army worst would come if a unit was found too powerful and had to have its points/price increased
RiTides wrote: timetowaste, it seems like your source was a little off about this... emphasis mine:
timetowaste85 wrote: I'm chiming in that Age of Sigmar's is actually a board game. Told it's something like space hulk. The source that told me 7/11 was release day also told me this. So I'll run with it.
timetowaste85 wrote: My source said 9th at the same time. But AoS is a board game. So I've been told.
TimW wrote: Has anyone considered that Warhammer: Age of Sigmar is a different game from Warhammer Fantasy Battle and that we may still see a new edition of Warhammer Fantasy Battle come out, alongside the new skirmish sized game?
Plus Age of Signar could actually be something akin to Space Hulk. A stand alone game, all inclusive. I'm just guessing here...
That's actually what my source told me: a game similar to Space Hulk or the assassin one that just came out. Bunch of models for a stand alone game that CAN port directly into the mass battle thing when it hits.
I guess it's a bit open to interpretation, though - maybe this sort of is like Space Hulk in a sense? Rules are in the box, all you need to play... but there is definitely no board like Space Hulk or the Assassins game. So yeah, hard to judge.
And I tracked both of them already. timetowaste85 is at two false.
edlowe wrote: Maybe gw are using the cost of the models as a points value? Turn up at the Store and put down your £150 army verses an opponents £150 army worst would come if a unit was found too powerful and had to have its points/price increased
Though, considering the average cost of a WHFB army the new adjusted points cost wouldn't be too far off from what they were before.
Nothing GW do these days convinces me they will ever release a decent set of rules again.
Ironically, Dreadfleet may have been the last time they attempted anything fresh, but it just wasn't what people were expecting/wanted, so it sunk (ho ho).
Time to invest in other games methinks. I'm already enjoying X-Wing and Dropzone Commander while Tabletop Gaming Magazine was full of stuff I'd like to have a crack at. Guildball is looking interesting...
I hope at the very least certain units will have some sort of animosity towards each other a la Come the Apocalypse in 40K. I'd like the idea of certain units have either synergy or animosity with other units e.g. a unit of Empire Knights would get a bonus for being within 6" of other units with the (Empire) faction, but would receive penalties/would attack units with the (Chaos) faction if they are within 6". Something like that could be interesting as you could expand it to certain specific units (e.g. a unit of HElf archers could gain bonuses for standing behind a unit of spearmen). This could add a lot of tactical depth to the game whilst still allowing the player a large degree of choice when it comes to units WARNING, THIS IS JUST ME THEORIZING, NOT RUMOURS
Flashman wrote: Nothing GW do these days convinces me they will ever release a decent set of rules again.
Ironically, Dreadfleet may have been the last time they attempted anything fresh, but it just wasn't what people were expecting/wanted, so it sunk (ho ho).
Time to invest in other games methinks. I'm already enjoying X-Wing and Dropzone Commander while Tabletop Gaming Magazine was full of stuff I'd like to have a crack at. Guildball is looking interesting...
Yeah, the Dreadfleet thing kills me.
The models for it were quite nice, but the game seems to have some issues. But worse than any of that, apparently GW didn't do any market research to determine if a one-off fantasy fleet all-stars (since you got one ship per faction) game would be something that would be well-received. The same problem went for WHFB- you had models that look great (i.e. new Wood Elves were quite popular), but there were substantial issues with the game itself, possibly including things such as the game costing too much to get into. It seems that instead of trying to tackle what concerns there might be regarding the game itself, the plan is just to shoehorn all models into purchasability and expect people to jump into it. I don't feel that is the best plan of action by any means.
His Master's Voice wrote: No, because Chaos Dwarfs are very unlikely to get stat cards. Substitute them for some HE chariots and you're golden.
I only used Chaos Dwarves as an example cause I'm still bitter
Hey, I'm holding out hope that FW's chaos dwarf line will get warscrolls. How else would FW continue to be able to sell them? I guess we'll see on Saturday and soon thereafter...
I'm looking forward to trying the AoS. It has been obvious for years that WHFB is/was a dying game. Compared to 40K, it is a very small part of GW's bottom line. The End Times releases invigorated the fantasy line, and maybe this will help it further. If it is a game that can bring new people into the table-top miniatures hobby, then I'm all for it.
Based on that evidence, and using Occam's razor as a guide, you can reasonably conclude that this is shaping up to be a steaming pile of horse gak
Not quite yet. It very well could be... be we really need to see some Warscrolls first.
It sounds like GW is trying to emulate Wrath of Kings, I have no idea if they can pull it off. Unlike some people in this thread, I genuinely hope they do.
I'm firmly in the "wait and see" camp.
A lot of GW defenders criticise their fellow gamers for the flak they give GW, but it's because they LOVE the games so much, that these people react in such an angry manner. People genuinely want the AOS to be a cracking game, only a tiny minority want it to crash and burn.
Sadly, the evidence points to this going downhill, and that's why people engage in nerd rage.
I see more nerd rage from the neckbeards who are already gak talking a game system that even isn't out yet than I do people raging about how good the game is...
I'm looking forward to the game and already have a copy held for me at the LGS and I honestly don't care wether or not anyone on here gets it or not, my store already has its orders booked up with people who are coming back to Fantasy because of AoS. Just seems a lot of people on here like to complain just because they can't deal with change. Ah well, I'll enjoy AoS while everyone keeps crying on this thread pretending that their whining will make a difference.
Flashman wrote: Nothing GW do these days convinces me they will ever release a decent set of rules again.
Ironically, Dreadfleet may have been the last time they attempted anything fresh, but it just wasn't what people were expecting/wanted, so it sunk (ho ho).
Time to invest in other games methinks. I'm already enjoying X-Wing and Dropzone Commander while Tabletop Gaming Magazine was full of stuff I'd like to have a crack at. Guildball is looking interesting...
Yeah, the Dreadfleet thing kills me.
The models for it were quite nice, but the game seems to have some issues. But worse than any of that, apparently GW didn't do any market research to determine if a one-off fantasy fleet all-stars (since you got one ship per faction) game would be something that would be well-received. The same problem went for WHFB- you had models that look great (i.e. new Wood Elves were quite popular), but there were substantial issues with the game itself, possibly including things such as the game costing too much to get into. It seems that instead of trying to tackle what concerns there might be regarding the game itself, the plan is just to shoehorn all models into purchasability and expect people to jump into it. I don't feel that is the best plan of action by any means.
Wood Elves weren't plagued by the game itself, rather the fact that they had a crummy book with very few stand-out units.
It wasn't until Khaine that I started seeing Wood Elves played, aside from my own, locally.
Flashman wrote: Ironically, Dreadfleet may have been the last time they attempted anything fresh, but it just wasn't what people were expecting/wanted, so it sunk (ho ho).
That and the game just didn't sound any fun to play, either. I don't remember seeing very many reviews of it but all I remember is the game was apparently so pointlessly random that you had very little control over what played out on the table, to the point where you couldn't even move where you wanted to as wind currents would just blow you all over the place. Almost like the game played itself, you just set it up and the dice do everything else.
NAVARRO wrote: Damn, this is still a quite nerve wrecking ride!
Ok so no points but we have not seen the Scrolls yet, also Sales reps are probably clueless with the gaming side of things?
I think there will be 2 outcomes for me on this.
- I enjoy the game and keep on expanding my collections on my own bubble of preferences
- I do not enjoy it and will keep on collecting stuff for other games, prev editions included
GW seems more interested in giving us minis, so as long as there are good minis to buy I will collect them.
Is it sad that all is discarded? Not ideal I can guarantee you that but at the end of the day Im lucky that this is just a hobby for me and I take control to where I want to take it.
They should make 40k rules free too.
That's my stance as well.
I'm "lucky" enough to not have a gaming community large enough to support pick up games.
This means I don't have to worry about having a globally accepted game system. I can collect whatever minis I want and use whatever rules I want with my small group of friends. I will continue collecting WHFB armies. Maybe I'll play 6th edition. Maybe I'll play KoW. Maybe I'll play Mayhem, or Armies of Arcana, or Hail Caesar, or Pike & Shotte. Maybe if I feel like doing a fantasy skirmish I'll play AoS. Or maybe it will be Song of Blades and Heroes or Wrath of Kings or whatever.
To me it looks like AoS will have an evolving story line. As this is really the very beginning of whatever may come. It would be like releasing 40k but starting in the great crusade?
Zwan1One wrote: To me it looks like AoS will have an evolving story line. As this is really the very beginning of whatever may come. It would be like releasing 40k but starting in the great crusade?
Or moving the Warhammer World forward, starting with the return of Nagash.
Flashman wrote: Ironically, Dreadfleet may have been the last time they attempted anything fresh, but it just wasn't what people were expecting/wanted, so it sunk (ho ho).
That and the game just didn't sound any fun to play, either. I don't remember seeing very many reviews of it but all I remember is the game was apparently so pointlessly random that you had very little control over what played out on the table, to the point where you couldn't even move where you wanted to as wind currents would just blow you all over the place. Almost like the game played itself, you just set it up and the dice do everything else.
Random, random, random.
That's a huge exaggeration. Yes, the wind direction changes randomly, but it's just a Speed bonus/penalty depending on a ship's orientation. And half the ships in the game don't even move under wind power. Yes, there are maaaybe 6 random event cards that can cause one or both fleets to just explode. Remove those and you have a fun game with exemplary clean mechanics.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Based on that evidence, and using Occam's razor as a guide, you can reasonably conclude that this is shaping up to be a steaming pile of horse gak
With a shovel.
For folks to use when looking for the pony.
I can't even build up a whole lot of enthusiasm for the figures in the box. There are just not enough of the ones I can even tolerate to make me willing to spend the money. (After painting up an island of Blood set for a commission, I had to admit that the Elves included were damned spiffy. The Skaven... with a few exceptions, were not all that good.)
The Auld Grump
The thing that surprises me is people's reaction to unbound being in this game. 40k has unbound, it sold reasonably well, why wouldn't GW transfer that over to fantasy.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Flashman wrote: Nothing GW do these days convinces me they will ever release a decent set of rules again.
Ironically, Dreadfleet may have been the last time they attempted anything fresh, but it just wasn't what people were expecting/wanted, so it sunk (ho ho).
Time to invest in other games methinks. I'm already enjoying X-Wing and Dropzone Commander while Tabletop Gaming Magazine was full of stuff I'd like to have a crack at. Guildball is looking interesting...
What's everybody got against Dreadfleet? I swear to God, I must be the only person on Dakka that actually enjoyed playing it
Yes, I made loads of money snapping up copies and selling them later on at vastly inflated prices
But I do genuinely enjoy dreafleet, and I still have a copy that I bring out now and again.
Flashman wrote: Ironically, Dreadfleet may have been the last time they attempted anything fresh, but it just wasn't what people were expecting/wanted, so it sunk (ho ho).
That and the game just didn't sound any fun to play, either. I don't remember seeing very many reviews of it but all I remember is the game was apparently so pointlessly random that you had very little control over what played out on the table, to the point where you couldn't even move where you wanted to as wind currents would just blow you all over the place. Almost like the game played itself, you just set it up and the dice do everything else.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The thing that surprises me is people's reaction to unbound being in this game. 40k has unbound, it sold reasonably well, why wouldn't GW transfer that over to fantasy.
Which part is surprising?
It doesn't surprise me if we get unbound in WHFB. I won't like it, but it won't surprise me if we get it.
Also, what makes you think "it sold reasonably well"? It seems to me that GW's financials were pretty flat in the period when 7th came out and it seemed there were plenty of people who didn't like it and didn't buy it.
The fluff about the demi-gods being past champions but each time they die they are brought back a little 'less,' is that a rumour/wishlisting or is that confirmed? That would be some awesome fluff, wonder if we get to see some of the past heroes reveal themselves.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The thing that surprises me is people's reaction to unbound being in this game. 40k has unbound, it sold reasonably well, why wouldn't GW transfer that over to fantasy.
Which part is surprising?
It doesn't surprise me if we get unbound in WHFB. I won't like it, but it won't surprise me if we get it.
Also, what makes you think "it sold reasonably well"? It seems to me that GW's financials were pretty flat in the period when 7th came out and it seemed there were plenty of people who didn't like it and didn't buy it.
I was under the impression that 40k was propping up the whole company, and if that starts to sink, GW will be looking for a parachute.
Interesting, so the split does go right down the middle of the shoulder pad. I thought they tried to avoid that sort of thing.
They need to sell liquid green stuff somehow!
Also, not sure why they did not put one of the sigmarines as the free model, since it is the "newest" look, and presumably the mary-sue-marine of the new fantasy world (also, strange that they seem to have some kind of Necron reanimation protocol memory drain thing going on when they get killed... kind of sad when you just resurrect your entire army after it has been killed and turn what were once mighty heroes into even more mindless zombies).
The fluff about the demi-gods being past champions but each time they die they are brought back a little 'less,' is that a rumour/wishlisting or is that confirmed? That would be some awesome fluff, wonder if we get to see some of the past heroes reveal themselves.
Sounds like the Beric Dondarrion concept from A Song of Ice and Fire.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The thing that surprises me is people's reaction to unbound being in this game. 40k has unbound, it sold reasonably well, why wouldn't GW transfer that over to fantasy.
Just because Unbound is in the rules for 40K does not mean that it was a primary reason people chose to buy the rulebook. I don't know anyone in my circle of friends that play unbound, I haven't heard of any tournaments in my area (Seattle) that use unbound. From my perspective, the rules for Unbound might as well not be in the book for all the impact they have on my local metagame.
People are saying maybe the game will be balanced by how many models are on each scroll, like 3 chaos warriors = 10 goblins or whatever, but surely that only works for units? Because a Skaven Cheiftain would be one scroll, and a high elf Lord on dragon would be one scroll (maybe two? One for the Lord and one for the dragon) but there's no way 1-2 Cheiftains would be equal to a dragon elf Lord...
Couldn't they be equal though? People are familiar with old metrics... but if said Dragon Elf Lord is a close-combat monster, while the Skaven Chief buffed the hell out of all Skaven within 12" (and buffed them enough to have an interesting chance against said Elf Lord), aren't they earning the battle-field value in potentially "equal" but different ways?
I'm definitely filing this all under the reasonable "wait and see". If Warscroll interactions really do resemble Warmachine or Malifaux, this could yet work out just fine. I think those most confident that this will be unplayable are just doing so being their context is so deeply rooted in the old WHFB, which sadly, is just plain GONE.
Luckily a lot of very good rules sets exist to be mass-battles homes for the exact models already in your collections, and hopefully this game does something interesting. Again... all we can do now is wait a week.
Would be cool to see a multi-tiered system where they roll points values in to size 'o game. For example, <500 play as Mordheim (awesome game!), 500-2500 as 8th, >2500 apocalypse/endtimes-esque. I don't care what happens rules wise provided I can still play a mass fantasy game.
(Though mostly confirming I need to see those unit cards to know anything )
- Salvage
"The Most Important Rule In a game as detailed and wide ranging as WH-AoS, there may be times when you are not sure how exactly 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 sense to you both. If no solution presents itself, roll a dice... highest decides what happens"
It makes sense that with 4 whole pages of rules, sometimes those little details in the rules become overwhelming and confusing
1. So the mount is called a "dracoth". Definitely not a giant cat.
2. Looks like bound spells still exist in a form. "The Lord-Relictor carries a glorious reliquary to raise high above the ranks of his men - within it is locked energy that can rouse fallen Stormcast Eternals from death, or sap the enemy of their life essence."
All models are described by warscrolls, which provide all of the rules for using them in the game. You will need warscrolls for the models you want to use.
Models fight in units. A unit can have one or more models, but cannot include models that use different warscrolls
So models and units are not the same thing?
If I understand this correctly, units may have no size limit (as rumored). But to add more models to a unit, you need more warscrolls... since "you will need warscrolls for the models you want to use"
I don't know. We still need to see what warscrolls look like.
(Though mostly confirming I need to see those unit cards to know anything )
- Salvage
Oddly, if this has any kind of balancing mechanic I could love this. Simple, fast, easy, still based on units so it can play quick. Seems they do have unit types based on the victory conditions so there is still some hope.
nudibranch wrote: You know what excites me the most?.. THE WHIPPY STICKS ARE BACK!!!
Actually, to be fair, game-wise I think the only people who look like they will be happy with this are those sat on the floor, dribbling, holding the sticks and saying "HUR HUR whippy sticks!!"
Some of those miniatures look gorgeous, very stylised. But, if the game is a rotten dog, It's going to be a Porsche with a mis-firing three cylinder, 1ltr engine (to paraphrase GW's own analogy).
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I hope I'm wrong, but is that sudden death rule turning out to be a load of gak?
It says that if your opponent outnumbers you by a third, you get a sudden death condition.
By the letter of the rules, 10 bloodthirsters are outnumbered by 100 Brettonian peasants
The best one is the survival one. Watch in awe as the mighty array of dragon riders spend 6 turns hiding in corners and running away from the horde of night Goblins, then somehow win because... errm... They weren't tabled? VICTORY!
That or the 'kill a unit of more than 5 models' one. Marvel as 10 Bloodthirsters go after a unit of clanrats and wipe them out, pulling a shocking turn-1 victory from the jaws of... Equally certain victory! Hooray!
Oddly, if this has any kind of balancing mechanic I could love this. Simple, fast, easy, still based on units so it can play quick. Seems they do have unit types based on the victory conditions so there is still some hope.
I agree with you.
I feel like adding a force org and getting rid of the sudden death victories are two easy things that any tournament organizer is going to do.
Oddly, if this has any kind of balancing mechanic I could love this. Simple, fast, easy, still based on units so it can play quick. Seems they do have unit types based on the victory conditions so there is still some hope.
I agree with you.
I feel like adding a force org and getting rid of the sudden death victories are two easy things that any tournament organizer is going to do.
Alternatively, as we talked about previously, adding points to each Scroll would be an easy way to take GW out of the balance equation and make a slick game.
In other news, those are officially Sigmarines. Huge shoulder pads with squadron identifying iconography, ludicrous quasi Latin names because IP reasons, ridiculously oversized armor(which is majorly lacking details for demigod warriors).
And yet again, Khorne models that can't be used as any non Khorne based soldier without a doctorates in miniatures sculpting.
So some warscrolls are limited to 1 model, others have no model range at all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Aerethan wrote: In other news, those are officially Sigmarines. Huge shoulder pads with squadron identifying iconography, ludicrous quasi Latin names because IP reasons, ridiculously oversized armor(which is majorly lacking details for demigod warriors).
Dr. Delorean wrote: So if one army has a 1/3rd more models than the other, you can attempt a sudden death victory.
Doing so allows you to immediately claim a major victory when the objective is achieved.
Then it says 'if your army won a major victory -in its previous battle-, roll a dice and look up the result on the triumph table on the right.'
Either they meant 'battle round' in that last part or this ruleset is designed for some kind of campaign play.
I don't think campaigns are involved at all. It's one of those things that a group of friends would be able to keep track of, but a tournament's first round would be a bloody nightmare.
streetsamurai wrote: Wow, that sounds like absolute garbage. Let's hope that the real rules (as in the big rulebook that is rumoured to come out) are more interesting than this. At this point, I might buy the set to convert the mini into cultist, but I sure wont play a game where the rules are that simple and boring.
A game shop owner who posts here (Mikhalia?) says this is it. GW has told him there is NO big rulebook coming.
It wouldn't be the first time GW has lied to independent shops, but... given that this reads like a stripped down version of the 40K rules, it seems VERY plausible.
All models are described by warscrolls, which provide all of the rules for using them in the game. You will need warscrolls for the models you want to use.
Models fight in units. A unit can have one or more models, but cannot include models that use different warscrolls
So models and units are not the same thing?
If I understand this correctly, units may have no size limit (as rumored). But to add more models to a unit, you need more warscrolls... since "you will need warscrolls for the models you want to use"
I don't know. We still need to see what warscrolls look like.
It's kind of interesting... I assumed the new Warhammer would be bad, as that's the direction GW has been headed in for many years now. However, I am absolutely blown away by how astoundingly bad Warhammer AoS actually is. GW exceeded my expectations entirely. The game is obviously designed as an afterthought to the miniatures. It's literally "put your favorite Citadel miniatures on the table"... quite literally. From any army, as many models as you want.
I just remember Dark Vengeance.. did the starter book for that tell you to pick this and that.. and have you do very specific things?
I'm not saying it isn't either the bigger game or the smaller game or whatever but it just strikes me that this seems dumbed down to starter set level.
Also.. what if this is WHFB Apocalypse.. Just play whatever.. and the game we thought was the "smaller" game is really closer to 90s to early 2k era WHFB.
It's kind of interesting... I assumed the new Warhammer would be bad, as that's the direction GW has been headed in for many years now. However, I am absolutely blown away by how astoundingly bad Warhammer AoS actually is. GW exceeded my expectations entirely. The game is obviously designed as an afterthought to the miniatures. It's literally "put your favorite Citadel miniatures on the table"... quite literally. From any army, as many models as you want.
Honestly, the game play looks like it would be solid, fun, and fast. It's only the lack of a balancing mechanism that fails it. It'd be great with friends who plan games and horrible outside of any specific group
I think that Mikhaila's GW reps are pulling the old 'focus on what is in front of them'.
They are just trying to sell him AOS and not talking about what's next. Even if that is points on warscrolls that get loaded to the site.
Honestly, the game play looks like it would be solid, fun, and fast. It's only the lack of a balancing mechanism that fails it. It'd be great with friends who plan games and horrible outside of any specific group
Really?
Game looks like garbage, even with points. Units stuck in combat can still shoot in the shooting phase, possible at something other than the unit they are fighting. Other units can shoot into CC. Distances measured from any-little-something on the model ignoring any and all bases (modelling-for-advantage-for-the-win). Auto-lock in CC if you come within 3" of some speartip by the enemy. Etc.., etc..
Static to-hit and to-wound stats are awesome too. A Blood Warrior fighting a Skeleton? Hit on 3+, wound on 4+. A Blood Warrior fighting Phoenix Guard? Hit on 3+, wound on 4+. A Blood Warrior fighting Glottkin? Hit on 3+, wound on 4+. Yeah!!
I'm betting there is a big book in the works.. just not ready yet so they're not saying anything. maybe not a ginormous-bible like the previous ones but I could see them doing something along the lines of apocalypse rules for playing big battles or something like that.
Frankly, Swedish comp could be rebuilt to point WHAOS games out, shooting for a 10-14 band for events (or whatever range is preferred), as it was developed pretty much ignoring armybook points values and replacing them with its own system of costs based on in-game performance. It'll take some time to calibrate, and won't work as well in unbound situations, but I'd warrant any competitive event won't be unbound
MLaw wrote: Has anyone considered that this is specific to the starter set?
That would be the reasonable explanation. We don't know if GW knows that.
Actually thinking about it, DV didnt have any points costs as well.
Its entirely possible this is only for the box set and that eventually when other boxes for the individuals inside get released there will be points.
BUUUUUUT we have a heaping pile of we dont know. :/
That makes sense and is very GW-ish.. it keeps you from being able to play the actual game without buying the overpriced army books and restricts you to the dumbed down starter game.
I'm fairly certain that it's not the end of the release cycle for AoS. However, if there's no proper "advanced" rulebook that includes balanced army building rules within the next two-four weeks, I guess we can mark this one down as a stillborn.
It's kind of interesting... I assumed the new Warhammer would be bad, as that's the direction GW has been headed in for many years now. However, I am absolutely blown away by how astoundingly bad Warhammer AoS actually is. GW exceeded my expectations entirely. The game is obviously designed as an afterthought to the miniatures. It's literally "put your favorite Citadel miniatures on the table"... quite literally. From any army, as many models as you want.
What specific problems do you have with the ruleset apart from the lack of points? Haven't had time to read it yet.
MLaw wrote: Has anyone considered that this is specific to the starter set?
That would be the reasonable explanation. We don't know if GW knows that.
Actually thinking about it, DV didnt have any points costs as well.
Its entirely possible this is only for the box set and that eventually when other boxes for the individuals inside get released there will be points.
BUUUUUUT we have a heaping pile of we dont know. :/
Then the rulebook would mention points cost... instead, it says just put down models until you feel like stopping or you run out.
This is only true if GW wants us to have to buy an actual rulebook instead of using the starter one. If the starter one isn't suitable for actual games of the new edition and only as a overview. IMO, 4 pages of rules + dumbed down unit entries.. we're looking at a pared down starter box meant to drive post starter sales.
Description - A Lord-Relictor is a single model. He is armed with a Relic Hammer.
Lightning Storm - In your hero phase you can declare that the Lord-Relictor will pray for a lightning storm. If you do so, pick an enemy unit what is within 12" of this model and roll a dice. On a roll of 3 or more then unit your picked suffers D3 mortal wounds and your opponent must subtract 1 from all hit rolls for the unit until your next hero phase. A Lord-Relictor cannot pray for a lightning storm and a healing storm in the same turn.
Healing storm - In your hero phase, you can declare that this model is praying for a healing storm. If you do so, pick a friendly model with the STORMCAST ETERNAL keyword that is within 12" of this model and roll a dice. On a roll of 3 or more ou can heal up to D3? wounds that have been suffered by the model that you picked. A lord-relictor cannot pray for a Healing Storm and a Lightning Storm in the same turn.
Description - A Lord-Celestant is a single model. He is armed with a Tempestuous Hammer and rides a Draktoh. The Drakoth fights with its __ Claws and Fangs.
Inescapable Vengence = If this model made a charge move this turn, it also makes D3? extra attacks with its T? Hammer.
Indescribable Damage - If the wound roll for the Drakoth's Claws and Fangs attack is 4 or more, then the attack has a Damage characteristic of d6 rather than 1.
Storm Breath - You can make a storm breath attack with this model in your shooting phase. To do so, pick a point on the battlefield that is within 12" of this model. Roll a dice for each unit (friend or foe) that is within 2" of the point that you picked. On a roll of 4 or more, that unit being rolled for suffers D3 mortal wounds.
Command Ability: Lord of the ? - If this model is your general and uses this ability, until your next hero phase you do not have to make a battleshock test for this model or any friendly unit with the STORMCAST ETERNAL keyword that is within 24" of this model at the start of the battleshock phase.
Game looks like garbage, even with points. Units stuck in combat can still shoot in the shooting phase, possible at something other than the unit they are fighting. Other units can shoot into CC. Distances measured from any-little-something on the model ignoring any and all bases (modelling-for-advantage-for-the-win). Auto-lock in CC if you come within 3" of some speartip by the enemy. Etc.., etc..
I think the shooting thing is very intentional. Also, how would you move within 3" of something and get locked in? You can't move within 3" if you're not charging.
streamdragon wrote: Storm Breath - You can make a storm breath attack with this model in your shooting phase. To do so, pick a point on the battlefield that is within 12" of this model. Roll a dice for each unit (friend or foe) that is within 2" of the point that you picked. On a roll of 4 or more, that unit being rolled for suffers D3 mortal wounds.
Whoa, did I just realize there are no templates in this edition? No templates or points?? *hides in corner, clutching 40k 3E grey plastic flame template and his handy calculator*
Description - A unit of Prosecutors can have any number of models. They are armed with Celestial Hammers. Celestial Hammers can be used as either a missile weapon or a melee weapon and can be used as both in the same turn.
Prosecutor Prime - The leader of this unit is the Prosecutor Prime. A Prosecutor Prime makes 3 melee attacks rather than 2 when he uses his Celestial Hammer as a melee weapon.
Fly - Prosecutors can fly.
Heralds of Righteousness - Roll 3 dice instead of 2 dice when determining the charge move for this unit. In addition, you can declare a charge with this unit if it is within 18" of the enemy rather than 12".
Celestial Hammers - You can reroll hit rolls of 1 for models from this unit.
Mymearan wrote: What specific problems do you have with the ruleset apart from the lack of points? Haven't had time to read it yet.
Wonderwolf has covered most of my dislikes so far
Wonderwolf wrote: Game looks like garbage, even with points. Units stuck in combat can still shoot in the shooting phase, possible at something other than the unit they are fighting. Other units can shoot into CC. Distances measured from any-little-something on the model ignoring any and all bases (modelling-for-advantage-for-the-win). Auto-lock in CC if you come within 3" of some speartip by the enemy. Etc.., etc..
- No more than X Warscrolls allowed (varies depending on game size)
- No more than Y Warscrolls can have the Hero, Monster, etc. keyword
- Warscrolls with more than 10 models counts as an additional warscroll for every 10 models above 10.
Game looks like garbage, even with points. Units stuck in combat can still shoot in the shooting phase, possible at something other than the unit they are fighting. Other units can shoot into CC. Distances measured from any-little-something on the model ignoring any and all bases (modelling-for-advantage-for-the-win). Auto-lock in CC if you come within 3" of some speartip by the enemy. Etc.., etc..
I think the shooting thing is very intentional. Also, how would you move within 3" of something and get locked in? You can't move within 3" if you're not charging.
Fair enough with the 3". But the shooting bugs me (maybe it's the 40K conditioning).
So that Archer is face-to-face with a crazed Khorne Berzerker Blood Warrior, but quietly takes his bow, shoots an arrow at the Bloodletters over yonder, before getting back to fighting the Blood Warrior?
And yea, fixed to-hit/to-wound. I get that it is simple, but the same guy hitting/wounding a rotten skelly and the Avatar of Khaine himself with equal easy/difficulty in a sword-fight isn't doing much for suspension of disbelief.
Wonderwolf wrote: Fair enough with the 3". But the shooting bugs me (maybe it's the 40K conditioning).
So that Archer is face-to-face with a crazed Khorne Berzerker Blood Warrior, but quietly takes his Bow, shoots an arrow at the Bloodletters over yonder, before getting back to fighting the Blood Warrior?
On the other hand, if there's a bunch of khorne dudes right in front of you, you're gonna shoot them with your bows before getting cut down and keep shooting until you are.
- No more than X Warscrolls allowed (varies depending on game size)
- No more than Y Warscrolls can have the Hero, Monster, etc. keyword
- Warscrolls with more than 10 models counts as an additional warscroll for every 10 models above 10.
Boom.
exactly. GW provide something that we can make rule around.
Why try and make it good, and still comped, if you can just make a blank canvas, and let people decide how they wanna comp it.
- No more than X Warscrolls allowed (varies depending on game size)
- No more than Y Warscrolls can have the Hero, Monster, etc. keyword
- Warscrolls with more than 10 models counts as an additional warscroll for every 10 models above 10.
Boom.
exactly. GW provide something that we can make rule around.
Why try and make it good, and still comped, if you can just make a blank canvas, and let people decide how they wanna comp it.
I think the Swedish thing mentioned a bit back is probably most likely.
- No more than X Warscrolls allowed (varies depending on game size)
- No more than Y Warscrolls can have the Hero, Monster, etc. keyword
- Warscrolls with more than 10 models counts as an additional warscroll for every 10 models above 10.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The thing that surprises me is people's reaction to unbound being in this game. 40k has unbound, it sold reasonably well, why wouldn't GW transfer that over to fantasy.
there are also a lot of folks that loathe Unbound.
For me, Unbound was the straw that broke the camel's back - and why, after collecting Dark Angels since 1st edition 40K, I finally sold them off.
And if what I am seeing locally is true elsewhere... it is why a lot of folks dropped the game at the same time.
At least for Fantasy, there are games with decent rules that the figures can be used with - 40K is not as well covered. (Warpath is fun, but it is in no way in a position to take over people's 40K collections.)
A lot of local folks gave up on Warhammer with the most recent edition, as well, moving en masse to Kings of War.
I really do not see Age of Sigmar reversing the situation. I think Warhammer is done.
And, yes, you really are one of the few people that I have heard say anything nice about Dreadfleet. (Well, aside from the
figures - I have seen few if any complaints about the minis; it is the rules that made people give it a big thumbs down. The figures are fine.)
- No more than X Warscrolls allowed (varies depending on game size)
- No more than Y Warscrolls can have the Hero, Monster, etc. keyword
- Warscrolls with more than 10 models counts as an additional warscroll for every 10 models above 10.
Boom.
10 Warriors of Chaos = 1 Warscroll
10 goblins = 1 Warscroll
Balance!
wow, you're lucky ; you've seen the warscroll before everyone else of goblins and WoC?
who said all scroll would be 10 man? from what we seen on the AoS box, they range from 3 to 10 models, at the very least.....
Agamemnon2 wrote: Good god. You went and blew it up, you maniacs! Damn you! Damn you all to hell!
Ahem. I've been away from the hobby for a while. Regardless, this is horrendously disappointing. Warhammer Fantasy was doing poorly, we all knew it, but this? This is madness.
Wonderwolf wrote: Fair enough with the 3". But the shooting bugs me (maybe it's the 40K conditioning).
So that Archer is face-to-face with a crazed Khorne Berzerker Blood Warrior, but quietly takes his Bow, shoots an arrow at the Bloodletters over yonder, before getting back to fighting the Blood Warrior?
On the other hand, if there's a bunch of khorne dudes right in front of you, you're gonna shoot them with your bows before getting cut down and keep shooting until you are.
I agree, adds to the strategy. Do you sacrifice your bowmen to shoot the bloodletters moving in on a more valuable unit knowing the Blood warriors are going to destroy them if the bowmen dont shoot them first?? Options! I like it.
- No more than X Warscrolls allowed (varies depending on game size)
- No more than Y Warscrolls can have the Hero, Monster, etc. keyword
- Warscrolls with more than 10 models counts as an additional warscroll for every 10 models above 10.
Boom.
10 Warriors of Chaos = 1 Warscroll
10 goblins = 1 Warscroll
Balance!
wow, you're lucky ; you've seen the warscroll before everyone else of goblins and WoC?
who said all scroll would be 10 man? from what we seen on the AoS box, they range from 3 to 10 models, at the very least.....
Read the Warscrolls that have been posted. They have literally no number ranges beyond "1" or "1 or more". The model counts have, as far as we can tell, pretty much nothing to do with the Warscroll beyond "do you have at least 1".
So the idea that "Warscrolls with more than 10 models counts as an additional warscroll for every 10 models above 10" would mean that a Warscroll with only 10 models should be equivalent to any other Warscroll of 10 models. And since we're limiting by Warscrolls in the post I quoted, I'm demonstrating why that doesn't work.
Wonderwolf wrote: Fair enough with the 3". But the shooting bugs me (maybe it's the 40K conditioning).
So that Archer is face-to-face with a crazed Khorne Berzerker Blood Warrior, but quietly takes his Bow, shoots an arrow at the Bloodletters over yonder, before getting back to fighting the Blood Warrior?
On the other hand, if there's a bunch of khorne dudes right in front of you, you're gonna shoot them with your bows before getting cut down and keep shooting until you are.
I agree, adds to the strategy. Do you sacrifice your bowmen to shoot the bloodletters moving in on a more valuable unit knowing the Blood warriors are going to destroy them if the bowmen dont shoot them first?? Options! I like it.
Or just field ten thousand bowmen models. Or more!
Sad to say the points thing for me is a deal breaker if there is no explanation on it but I imagine there will be some balancing, problem solving, helpful statement that will clear our minds, theres just gotta be, tell me its gonna be alright.
Other than the 5 already posted and the rulebook posted?
Work blocks most image sharing sites. I could see the ones in pretre's post for some reason. I guess I can't see some others.
For example, in your "Ta daa" post... that's all I see.. not even a broken image or something. So if there's something else there, I can't see it at all.
My apologies, I'll try to check them out tonight.
Judging from how others are reacting... it doesn't look good.
Not sure if posted yet (haven't seen it) but here is what the future may hold about the product range and GW as a whole
via an anonymous source on Faeit 212
No doubt you get many emails claiming to know all sorts of information from
secret sources and the like, so here’s another one for you to add to the
collection. I’ve become somewhat cynical with how things are currently
being run in the design studio, specifically with the direction of
Warhammer Fantasy, I will be following the lead of others and won’t be
staying for much longer, I’ve one final project that I’ve always wanted to
be involved with and that I want to see through. As something to provide an
initial point of reference, Jervis has been reading Paradise Lost recently,
last Thursday (the last time I was in the office) a copy was sat on his
desk under a 10-up Space Marine helmet he uses as a paper weight.
It has been interesting watching from the inside looking out. Particularly
over the last few days, all those leaked bits of information really seem to
have got a lot of people talking. The reasons for the changes to Warhammer
are well documented, and they were not something that was decided in a whim
on a rainy Thursday morning. The End Times were there to let us wrap things
up, try out a few new things and then draw a line under what has gone
before. Personally I loved End Times and would have liked this period of
the game to have continued for longer and really explored.
The new start that begins imminently is just that, a new start for
everyone, will we lose existing players? Almost certainly. Will be attract
new players? We wouldn’t have entered into this project if we didn’t think
we could. This is not an evolution as we’ve had with previous editions,
this is a whole new beast, think Christopher Nolan’s Batman trilogy
compared to what had gone before. Some won’t like the new look of the
miniatures, or the rule set, the role of magic and spells is certainly
going to be something that divides the community, I miss the old system and
think we’ve got the changes to magic wrong.
So why come out of the shadow, I’m bound by a contract, I can’t be giving
clues as to what you’re going to see next month or the month after, what I
want to do is to say that not everyone working on this project agrees with
the way things have gone. I’m quite happy to tell anyone that will listen
that I don’t like the aesthetic or direction that the imagery has moved in,
I’m not the only one, many of those I work feel the same, many have had
models that they have spent hours and hours creating and rendering canned
because they don’t fit with the imagery going forwards. Artwork that will
never see the light of day and narratives that will never be used..
I want the community to bear in mind that store managers have not been involved in
the process, ranting at them because you don’t like this or that in the new
game really isn’t helpful and isn’t fair on them, they are doing their job,
many I know will openly tell you what they think of the new game, this
isn’t Company policy, we’re not the Thought Police, we can’t control what
people say, not yet anyway.
Oh and while I’m out of my shackles, something to ponder on, all the “new
Forces” have not been completed, can you imagine how much work needs to go
into restarting a game like Warhammer. No, what you’ll see over the coming
weeks and months are selected highlights from the next 9-12 months, the
success of the initial releases will determine the rate at which subsequent
releases are made and the development of the range as a whole. Numbers have
been thrown around internally as to what sort of sales need to be made in
the first month for the AoS release to be called a success, our jobs depend
on this success, we have not developed a product that is designed to fail
as come have commented recently.
A final glancing blow, the AoS rules and what they will build into in the
future are not designed for peoples existing miniature collections. That
wasn’t part of the remit, my advice is to use existing collections to proxy
the new range, the material to be released for existing armies has not been
extensively tested mainly because in the process of testing we found that
too much work was needed to get things right. The nature of the new game
makes certain units redundant as they don’t offer any real advantage over
other units anymore. The webstore will be running down stock levels over
the next 3-4 months, recent print runs will keep popular parts of the range
available for much longer than that so no need to panic buy, unless you
love your square bases that is
Feel free to use whatever information you see fit from my ramblings. The
whole 9 realms that are being reported elsewhere is total rubbish, as are
those names of the factions and races, do people really think we're that
dumb?
migooo wrote: That's suspicious sorry a GW insider probably wouldn't comment on it.
Just passing along leaks, comments etc that people might find interesting. Could be legit, might not be too who knows but it gives us something to think about
TL;DR: I work at the studio, AoS is controversial, Jervis has a Space Marine hat as a paperweight, everything will become awesome, we totally tried to make an awesome game.
RoninXiC wrote: All scrolls are:
1 Model = 1 Scroll
1 unit = 1 Scroll
It doesnt matter what kind of unit. All units we've seen so far CAN BE AS BIG AS YOU WANT.
Well, except for the ones that are 1 and only 1 model like the Lord-Relictor or the Lord whateverman and his Drakoth.
Isnt that what I wrote?
1 Scroll is either 1 dude or an unlimited number of models in 1 unit.
Ah, yes, I misunderstood your post then. When you said "All units we've seen so far can be as big as you want", I was clarifying that some units can't. They are limited to 1 model.
Thud wrote: TL;DR: I work at the studio, AoS is controversial, Jervis has a Space Marine hat as a paperweight, everything will become awesome, we totally tried to make an awesome game.
RoninXiC wrote:"comp"? Make it functional. MAKE IT WORK?!
For those who haven't been playing WHFB during 8E, we learned a long time ago that the game needed some limitations placed on it to make it functional in a competitive sense. First thing to go was random terrain, then it was restrictions of various severity, and here at the end we've sort of settled into ETC (restrictions + house rules in regards to terrain LOS and the magic phase, mostly) and Swedish comp.
pretre wrote:I think the Swedish thing mentioned a bit back is probably most likely.
In Swedish comp, you can make an army out of whatever is legal to your army (so in WHAOS that's I guess everything) up to a decided points level, but everything you take has a price in points associated with it. These points are determined based on the effectiveness of troops and options and synergies in the game itself, so more effective things (which in an unrestricted meta hit the table with unfortunate regularity) cost more points and less effective things cost less. Once you've got a big tally of the points your choices cost, you subtract that from 300 and divide by 10, giving you a Swedish comp score vaguely from 0-30, though it's possible to go negative and impossible to stay at 30.
From there, an event can do stuff like declare only armies of X or higher points can play, give bonus victory points for softer (higher score) armies fighting harder ones, and so on. Swedish comp can be another set of restrictions (with the X points min thing), but also a true comp score, which I know is a dirty word to probably every 40k player journeying into these previously-square-based lands.
To adapt Swedish we'll need to do a lot of grinding to get good Swe points associated with stuff, but given GW's track record making armies I'm sure Obvious Things will arise very quickly. The real issue is going to be dictating what a competitive army size is (by number of warscrolls I guess), and then restricting the pool of units one army can be drawn from, at the least to one realm or faction or whatever.
Thud wrote: TL;DR: I work at the studio, AoS is controversial, Jervis has a Space Marine hat as a paperweight, everything will become awesome, we totally tried to make an awesome game.
That's not what I read. To me it was more... "Yup, this is going to piss people off and a lot of you will go away now. We're trying something new and we have our fingers crossed that people will like it. If they don't then we all lose our jobs."
Thud wrote: TL;DR: I work at the studio, AoS is controversial, Jervis has a Space Marine hat as a paperweight, everything will become awesome, we totally tried to make an awesome game.
You forgot: "your old models and armies are after thoughts that we don't really plan to support"
Description - A unit of Prosecutors can have any number of models. They are armed with Celestial Hammers. Celestial Hammers can be used as either a missile weapon or a melee weapon and can be used as both in the same turn.
Prosecutor Prime - The leader of this unit is the Prosecutor Prime. A Prosecutor Prime makes 3 melee attacks rather than 2 when he uses his Celestial Hammer as a melee weapon.
Fly - Prosecutors can fly.
Heralds of Righteousness - Roll 3 dice instead of 2 dice when determining the charge move for this unit. In addition, you can declare a charge with this unit if it is within 18" of the enemy rather than 12".
Celestial Hammers - You can reroll hit rolls of 1 for models from this unit.
Thud wrote: TL;DR: I work at the studio, AoS is controversial, Jervis has a Space Marine hat as a paperweight, everything will become awesome, we totally tried to make an awesome game.
That's not what I read. To me it was more... "Yup, this is going to piss people off and a lot of you will go away now. We're trying something new and we have our fingers crossed that people will like it. If they don't then we all lose our jobs."
It's all made-up BS anyway, so it doesn't really matter.
Thud wrote: TL;DR: I work at the studio, AoS is controversial, Jervis has a Space Marine hat as a paperweight, everything will become awesome, we totally tried to make an awesome game.
You forgot: "your old models and armies are after thoughts that we don't really plan to support"
That's the only believable part about the whole thing.
1 Warscroll = 10+ (no upper limit) Warriors of Chaos.
1 Warscroll = 10+ (no upper limit) Goblins.
Check the post I quoted:
- Warscrolls with more than 10 models counts as an additional warscroll for every 10 models above 10.
That was offered as "balance" for balancing Warscrolls, because Warscrolls are innately ... I don't want to say unbalanced, because that implies an attempt at balance that failed. Warscrolls are "balanceless". Using "Number of Warscrolls" doesn't work since 1 Goblin Warrior is a Warscroll and 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Stormtalon Chainyankers is a Warscroll.
Warscrolls aren't FoC slots; they're unit descriptions.
RoninXiC wrote:"comp"?
Make it functional. MAKE IT WORK?!
For those who haven't been playing WHFB during 8E, we learned a long time ago that the game needed some limitations placed on it to make it functional in a competitive sense. First thing to go was random terrain, then it was restrictions of various severity, and here at the end we've sort of settled into ETC (restrictions + house rules in regards to terrain LOS and the magic phase, mostly) and Swedish comp.
pretre wrote:I think the Swedish thing mentioned a bit back is probably most likely.
In Swedish comp, you can make an army out of whatever is legal to your army (so in WHAOS that's I guess everything) up to a decided points level, but everything you take has a price in points associated with it. These points are determined based on the effectiveness of troops and options and synergies in the game itself, so more effective things (which in an unrestricted meta hit the table with unfortunate regularity) cost more points and less effective things cost less. Once you've got a big tally of the points your choices cost, you subtract that from 300 and divide by 10, giving you a Swedish comp score vaguely from 0-30, though it's possible to go negative and impossible to stay at 30.
From there, an event can do stuff like declare only armies of X or higher points can play, give bonus victory points for softer (higher score) armies fighting harder ones, and so on. Swedish comp can be another set of restrictions (with the X points min thing), but also a true comp score, which I know is a dirty word to probably every 40k player journeying into these previously-square-based lands.
To adapt Swedish we'll need to do a lot of grinding to get good Swe points associated with stuff, but given GW's track record making armies I'm sure Obvious Things will arise very quickly. The real issue is going to be dictating what a competitive army size is (by number of warscrolls I guess), and then restricting the pool of units one army can be drawn from, at the least to one realm or faction or whatever.
- Salvage
Before you good even begin playtesting games to develop point costs for Swedish comp you would first have to determine unit sizes for every non character/monster unit. All the warscrolls we've seen for multi-model units from the AoS set have no model limit for unit size. If a given warscroll/unit can have anywhere from 2 to 100+ models then how do you choose a unit size to playtest and award points? If you have to essentially redesign the entire game in order to comp it, your time is better spent just picking a different game to play.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The thing that surprises me is people's reaction to unbound being in this game. 40k has unbound, it sold reasonably well, why wouldn't GW transfer that over to fantasy.
there are also a lot of folks that loathe Unbound.
For me, Unbound was the straw that broke the camel's back - and why, after collecting Dark Angels since 1st edition 40K, I finally sold them off.
And if what I am seeing locally is true elsewhere... it is why a lot of folks dropped the game at the same time.
At least for Fantasy, there are games with decent rules that the figures can be used with - 40K is not as well covered. (Warpath is fun, but it is in no way in a position to take over people's 40K collections.)
A lot of local folks gave up on Warhammer with the most recent edition, as well, moving en masse to Kings of War.
I really do not see Age of Sigmar reversing the situation. I think Warhammer is done.
And, yes, you really are one of the few people that I have heard say anything nice about Dreadfleet. (Well, aside from the
figures - I have seen few if any complaints about the minis; it is the rules that made people give it a big thumbs down. The figures are fine.)
The Auld Grump
I love dreadfleet. I'm not ashamed to admit it! They can have my copy of Dreadfleet when they prise it from my cold, dead hands!!
I think the new version of Spacehulk was GW's highwater mark for me - awesome game, but I do like moving the ships around in Dreadfleet.
Anyway, back OT.
A lot of people are saying that the community will fix AOS. It shouldn't have to be this way. When I buy a brand new car, I don't expect to have to purchase a steering wheel or an engine from somebody else.
has anybody seen anywhere that each MODEL gets an attack or attacks?
or is it per unit specified on the warscroll
(which would mean a unit of umpteen hundred celestials would be no better than one of 3, with the extra minis merely being bling)
Since the champions all get extra attacks, it's pretty safe to say each model gets to attack separately. Actually the attack rules are by model, range being measured (yes for melee attacks) from a model.
Trying to fix this isn't worth the effort. Either GW will do it or it will die, whatever.
What I want to know is, what fantasy thing can I use the winged guys for as proxies? I really like those models. So far I've heard Basilean Angels in KoW. Any other options? (first person to say Assault Marines gets buried in the woods behind my house)
Wonderwolf wrote: Fair enough with the 3". But the shooting bugs me (maybe it's the 40K conditioning).
So that Archer is face-to-face with a crazed Khorne Berzerker Blood Warrior, but quietly takes his Bow, shoots an arrow at the Bloodletters over yonder, before getting back to fighting the Blood Warrior?
On the other hand, if there's a bunch of khorne dudes right in front of you, you're gonna shoot them with your bows before getting cut down and keep shooting until you are.
I agree, adds to the strategy. Do you sacrifice your bowmen to shoot the bloodletters moving in on a more valuable unit knowing the Blood warriors are going to destroy them if the bowmen dont shoot them first?? Options! I like it.
Or just field ten thousand bowmen models. Or more!
What does that even mean? I think your responding to the wrong conversation
lord_blackfang wrote: Trying to fix this isn't worth the effort. Either GW will do it or it will die, whatever.
What I want to know is, what fantasy thing can I use the winged guys for as proxies? I really like those models. So far I've heard Basilean Angels in KoW. Any other options? (first person to say Assault Marines gets buried in the woods behind my house)
lord_blackfang wrote: Trying to fix this isn't worth the effort. Either GW will do it or it will die, whatever.
What I want to know is, what fantasy thing can I use the winged guys for as proxies? I really like those models. So far I've heard Basilean Angels in KoW. Any other options? (first person to say Assault Marines gets buried in the woods behind my house)
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I was under the impression that 40k was propping up the whole company, and if that starts to sink, GW will be looking for a parachute.
While I do understand what you actually mean, I suspect your post is a bit ironically prophetic. I could see GW's response to a shinking ship be to design a parachute despite the at best uselessness or at worst increased risk of drowning that would actually cause (similar to the "unbound" solution to a "problem" that nobody but GW thought existed).
Prestor Jon wrote: Before you good even begin playtesting games to develop point costs for Swedish comp you would first have to determine unit sizes for every non character/monster unit. All the warscrolls we've seen for multi-model units from the AoS set have no model limit for unit size. If a given warscroll/unit can have anywhere from 2 to 100+ models then how do you choose a unit size to playtest and award points? If you have to essentially redesign the entire game in order to comp it, your time is better spent just picking a different game to play.
The final 8E Swedish Comp pack lives here. If you have a look, you'll see that units acquire Swe points based on their size - once they pass outside of the final bracket (so like "35+") you take a hit per model added, not just a range of models.
In other words, naw, it's mostly ok already. Time will tell what a unit of 100 Things does vs a unit of 20 Things - in 8E size certainly mattered, but only to an extent. Oh, and I've played almost the entirety of 8E under tournament-imposed unit caps (either 450 points or 60 models), so no stranger to size control
EDIT
Two examples related to stuff people have been shouting in here:
Skullcrushers of Khorne
3 -24
4 -34
5 -44
6 -55
Each model in the unit after 6 -15
2nd unit -5 (-10 if more than 6 Skullcrushers in the army)
So a unit of 15 8E Skullcrushers kicks you down to a comp score of 11. You're not fielding much else besides those if you need to hit 10.
Peasant Bowmen
10-13 -2
14-18 -2
19-23 -3
24-28 -4
29 -5
Each model in the unit after 35 -1
Flipside, a massive unit of 224 8E Bret Bowmen sets you back to a comp score of 10. A far cry from the 1000 archers cited, and no idea how that storm of arrows matches up against the 'Crushers - in 8E though my moneys on the juggers, but in 8E both 'armies' are illegal, due to necessity of taking 1 hero + 3 units. One can assume an event could dictate minimums as well, warscrolls or whatever.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I was under the impression that 40k was propping up the whole company, and if that starts to sink, GW will be looking for a parachute.
While I do understand what you actually mean, I suspect your post is a bit ironically prophetic. I could see GW's response to a shinking ship be to design a parachute despite the at best uselessness or at worst increased risk of drowning that would actually cause (similar to the "unbound" solution to a "problem" that nobody but GW thought existed).
Sadly, all this could have been avoided. I've never designed a game before in my life, but even I couldn't feth things up this bad.
If this starter set tanks, and the evidence suggests it will, then...
I've been playing warhammer fantasy for twenty odd years...
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The thing that surprises me is people's reaction to unbound being in this game. 40k has unbound, it sold reasonably well, why wouldn't GW transfer that over to fantasy.
there are also a lot of folks that loathe Unbound.
For me, Unbound was the straw that broke the camel's back - and why, after collecting Dark Angels since 1st edition 40K, I finally sold them off.
And if what I am seeing locally is true elsewhere... it is why a lot of folks dropped the game at the same time.
At least for Fantasy, there are games with decent rules that the figures can be used with - 40K is not as well covered. (Warpath is fun, but it is in no way in a position to take over people's 40K collections.)
A lot of local folks gave up on Warhammer with the most recent edition, as well, moving en masse to Kings of War.
I really do not see Age of Sigmar reversing the situation. I think Warhammer is done.
And, yes, you really are one of the few people that I have heard say anything nice about Dreadfleet. (Well, aside from the
figures - I have seen few if any complaints about the minis; it is the rules that made people give it a big thumbs down. The figures are fine.)
The Auld Grump
I love dreadfleet. I'm not ashamed to admit it! They can have my copy of Dreadfleet when they prise it from my cold, dead hands!!
I think the new version of Spacehulk was GW's highwater mark for me - awesome game, but I do like moving the ships around in Dreadfleet.
Anyway, back OT.
A lot of people are saying that the community will fix AOS. It shouldn't have to be this way. When I buy a brand new car, I don't expect to have to purchase a steering wheel or an engine from somebody else.
I am glad that you like Dreadfleet - though I wish that I had an alternate game to suggest in its place. (I used to play Wooden Ships and Iron Men... I like my rules a bit... less random than Dreadfleet.)
I do not know if you ever look at Jake Thornton's Blog - but he was working on rebalancing the game at one point.
I hope you managed to grab a few copies before GW scuttled the ship.
Back to back on topic - I agree, in regards to folks having to work on balancing the game themselves being... kind of hard to understand. 'We can't balance rules, so we aren't gonna try', maybe?
Thud wrote: TL;DR: I work at the studio, AoS is controversial, Jervis has a Space Marine hat as a paperweight, everything will become awesome, we totally tried to make an awesome game.
....without a balancing mechanic....
Dangit, now I've gotten bitter and cynical!
Prepare to start getting personally insulted for not towing the line!!
TheAuldGrump wrote: I am glad that you like Dreadfleet - though I wish that I had an alternate game to suggest in its place. (I used to play Wooden Ships and Iron Men... I like my rules a bit... less random than Dreadfleet.)
You could try to do multi-unit battle scrolls by wounds per model. 1 wound can go up to 20 models, 2 wounds up to 10, and 3 wounds up to 5. We'll have to see the rest of the battle scrolls, but you may be able to balance it this way.
Regarding statements like "the community can fix this" and "tournaments can impose restrictions for balance.
Really, why bother. Even if it's possible to get some structure in this shamble of a system it's hardly less work then just starting from scratch. So many additions and restrictions would be needed than any participant would more or less have to learn an additional system anyhow.
Why not run tournaments under a gamesystem that work in the first place?
I actually like these rules short and to the point and as i dont play asshats the spammy stuff wont happen (or more than once anyway). Its fast easy and does open up options on the tt.
sure its not fantasy as was but its now fantasy as is. The old is dead and gone its a whole diffrent game now.
gradam01 wrote: You could try to do multi-unit battle scrolls by wounds per model. 1 wound can go up to 20 models, 2 wounds up to 10, and 3 wounds up to 5. We'll have to see the rest of the battle scrolls, but you may be able to balance it this way.
20 wounds of night goblins vs 20 wounds of chaos warriors..............
If they just had a ppm value then everything would be ok. That would be the balancing this game needs. To just say "any number of models" is foolish. Once everything comes together ill be looking for comps online
A model's base isn't considered a part of the model -- it's just there to help the model stand up -- so don't include it when measuring distances.
So how do you measure for movement in this game?
repost of the rules from WD including the movement phase, rules don't specify the point from which you measure but they state that no part of the model can move farther than its move characteristic from its warscroll
Based on that evidence, and using Occam's razor as a guide, you can reasonably conclude that this is shaping up to be a steaming pile of horse gak
Not quite yet. It very well could be... be we really need to see some Warscrolls first.
It sounds like GW is trying to emulate Wrath of Kings, I have no idea if they can pull it off. Unlike some people in this thread, I genuinely hope they do.
I'm firmly in the "wait and see" camp.
A lot of GW defenders criticise their fellow gamers for the flak they give GW, but it's because they LOVE the games so much, that these people react in such an angry manner. People genuinely want the AOS to be a cracking game, only a tiny minority want it to crash and burn.
Sadly, the evidence points to this going downhill, and that's why people engage in nerd rage.
I see more nerd rage from the neckbeards who are already gak talking a game system that even isn't out yet than I do people raging about how good the game is...
I'm looking forward to the game and already have a copy held for me at the LGS and I honestly don't care wether or not anyone on here gets it or not, my store already has its orders booked up with people who are coming back to Fantasy because of AoS. Just seems a lot of people on here like to complain just because they can't deal with change. Ah well, I'll enjoy AoS while everyone keeps crying on this thread pretending that their whining will make a difference.
/rage away now fellas.
So a setting and a game I have lot of money invested in being blown up out of a blue and replaced with something entirely different, leaked rules and rumors of no balace at all are not enough as a base for critique? You must be the guy that thanks the waiter for spitting in the soup and a chef for keeping a burger down his pants to warm it.
Congratulations on the worst post Ive seen in a while. FYI, I dont have a neckbeard, dont nerdrage as I dont care for a while already and I'll tel you this - your game system is most probably going to end up as pathetic garbage. Hahahaha.
I'm excited for AoS! It's been a roller coaster ride of emotion, but I am now ready. Embrace it all! Circle bases, no points EMBRACE IT ALL!!!!!
(And if you did want to balance it for a game, easiest way is to say a number of scrolls and a model count limit. "Let's play 5 scrolls each and no more than 50 models. Cool?")
Thud wrote: TL;DR: I work at the studio, AoS is controversial, Jervis has a Space Marine hat as a paperweight, everything will become awesome, we totally tried to make an awesome game.
That's not what I read. To me it was more... "Yup, this is going to piss people off and a lot of you will go away now. We're trying something new and we have our fingers crossed that people will like it. If they don't then we all lose our jobs."
It's all made-up BS anyway, so it doesn't really matter.
Oh. I didn't realize that it had already been debunked.
namiel wrote: 20 wounds of night goblins vs 20 wounds of chaos warriors..............
Psst - Swedish comp tells you 20 8E Chaos Warriors are 12 comp points, while 20 8E Goblins are 1 comp point. There is no reason that can't be adjusted to 9E Chaos Dudes vs 9E Goblinoids given a handful of playtests
namiel wrote: 20 wounds of night goblins vs 20 wounds of chaos warriors..............
Psst - Swedish comp tells you 20 8E Chaos Warriors are 12 comp points, while 20 8E Goblins are 1 comp point. There is no reason that can't be adjusted to 9E Chaos Dudes vs 9E Goblinoids given a handful of playtests
- Salvage
wouldn't it just be easier to put a ppm value on these things? Each scroll comes standard with a unit champ and at min size for x points like in 40k then y points per model beyond the minimum
Did anyone take from the Wizards section of the rules that if no opposing wizard is within 18" of your casting wizard they cant dispel the spell its casting?
RoninXiC wrote: I put my miniature on a 10" base. Enemies cannot physically move over my base but are too far away to be in melee with the mini.
They can move on top of your base though. No rule I see prevents them from moving physically over/on your base.
Indeed, shoving your own models really, really, really tight together might help get more models from large units into the 3" sweet-spot (not recommended for nicely painted minis). There're apparently no templates anyway.
RoninXiC wrote: I put my miniature on a 10" base. Enemies cannot physically move over my base but are too far away to be in melee with the mini.
They can move on top of your base though. No rule I see prevents them from moving physically over/on your base.
Indeed, shoving your own models really, really, really tight together might help get more models from large units into the 3" sweet-spot (not recommended for nicely painted minis). There're apparently no templates anyway.
I would rage if someone shoved their mini over the top of my decorated bases. That being said, if I put a standard infantry guy on a 10" base I would probably deserve to have my stuff ruined..
Since distances are now measured from the model itself, say you have pikemen who are pointing their pikes out and you go into combat, would you be in range 3" away from the pike tip and therefore in combat? I know it doesnt really create complications ruleswise as the pikemen are too technically in range then but wouldnt it just look wierd when you have guys punching you in the face when they are at your pike/spear tip?
I'm sorry that this has probably already been thoroughly beat to death, but in filtering the thread for Salvage's posts I can't see any analysis of it other than the below comp solution, and he's my go-to source
If you don't want to do the below (add comp system) is there any reason not to take literally as many models as you can in a unit?
Prestor Jon wrote: Before you good even begin playtesting games to develop point costs for Swedish comp you would first have to determine unit sizes for every non character/monster unit. All the warscrolls we've seen for multi-model units from the AoS set have no model limit for unit size. If a given warscroll/unit can have anywhere from 2 to 100+ models then how do you choose a unit size to playtest and award points? If you have to essentially redesign the entire game in order to comp it, your time is better spent just picking a different game to play.
The final 8E Swedish Comp pack lives here. If you have a look, you'll see that units acquire Swe points based on their size - once they pass outside of the final bracket (so like "35+") you take a hit per model added, not just a range of models.
In other words, naw, it's mostly ok already. Time will tell what a unit of 100 Things does vs a unit of 20 Things - in 8E size certainly mattered, but only to an extent. Oh, and I've played almost the entirety of 8E under tournament-imposed unit caps (either 450 points or 60 models), so no stranger to size control
EDIT
Two examples related to stuff people have been shouting in here:
Skullcrushers of Khorne
3 -24
4 -34
5 -44
6 -55
Each model in the unit after 6 -15
2nd unit -5 (-10 if more than 6 Skullcrushers in the army)
So a unit of 15 8E Skullcrushers kicks you down to a comp score of 11. You're not fielding much else besides those if you need to hit 10.
Peasant Bowmen
10-13 -2
14-18 -2
19-23 -3
24-28 -4
29 -5
Each model in the unit after 35 -1
Flipside, a massive unit of 224 8E Bret Bowmen sets you back to a comp score of 10. A far cry from the 1000 archers cited, and no idea how that storm of arrows matches up against the 'Crushers - in 8E though my moneys on the juggers, but in 8E both 'armies' are illegal, due to necessity of taking 1 hero + 3 units. One can assume an event could dictate minimums as well, warscrolls or whatever.
wouldn't it just be easier to put a ppm value on these things? Each scroll comes standard with a unit champ and at min size for x points like in 40k then y points per model beyond the minimum
I thought GW would have each scroll with a fixed unit size. That would simplify making army lists.
Since GW didn't do it, I still think it'd be the easiest way to balance the game.
Eventually (and hopefully) standardized unit sizes would be accepted per warscroll.
I'm sure some the ETC or Swede geniuses already thought of that. Until a standardized method becomes accepted, I know that's how my group is going to play. We'll tweak the unit sizes as we play games.
RiTides wrote: I'm sorry that this has probably already been thoroughly beat to death, but in filtering the thread for Salvage's posts I can't see any analysis of it other than the below comp solution, and he's my go-to source
If you don't want to do the below (add comp system) is there any reason not to take literally as many models as you can in a unit?
Prestor Jon wrote: Before you good even begin playtesting games to develop point costs for Swedish comp you would first have to determine unit sizes for every non character/monster unit. All the warscrolls we've seen for multi-model units from the AoS set have no model limit for unit size. If a given warscroll/unit can have anywhere from 2 to 100+ models then how do you choose a unit size to playtest and award points? If you have to essentially redesign the entire game in order to comp it, your time is better spent just picking a different game to play.
The final 8E Swedish Comp pack lives here. If you have a look, you'll see that units acquire Swe points based on their size - once they pass outside of the final bracket (so like "35+") you take a hit per model added, not just a range of models.
In other words, naw, it's mostly ok already. Time will tell what a unit of 100 Things does vs a unit of 20 Things - in 8E size certainly mattered, but only to an extent. Oh, and I've played almost the entirety of 8E under tournament-imposed unit caps (either 450 points or 60 models), so no stranger to size control
EDIT
Two examples related to stuff people have been shouting in here:
Skullcrushers of Khorne
3 -24
4 -34
5 -44
6 -55
Each model in the unit after 6 -15
2nd unit -5 (-10 if more than 6 Skullcrushers in the army)
So a unit of 15 8E Skullcrushers kicks you down to a comp score of 11. You're not fielding much else besides those if you need to hit 10.
Peasant Bowmen
10-13 -2
14-18 -2
19-23 -3
24-28 -4
29 -5
Each model in the unit after 35 -1
Flipside, a massive unit of 224 8E Bret Bowmen sets you back to a comp score of 10. A far cry from the 1000 archers cited, and no idea how that storm of arrows matches up against the 'Crushers - in 8E though my moneys on the juggers, but in 8E both 'armies' are illegal, due to necessity of taking 1 hero + 3 units. One can assume an event could dictate minimums as well, warscrolls or whatever.
Anyway, numbers and balance and comp and things.
- Salvage
Yeah, make your army consist solely of long range shooting, but keep the model count as low as possible, always be outnumbered below the threshold, pick the assassinate sudden death victory condition on turn one, kill your opponent's hero (which, as far as I can make out, cannot join units) and win the game. Narrative: Forged!
RoninXiC wrote: I put my miniature on a 10" base. Enemies cannot physically move over my base but are too far away to be in melee with the mini.
They can move on top of your base though. No rule I see prevents them from moving physically over/on your base.
Indeed, shoving your own models really, really, really tight together might help get more models from large units into the 3" sweet-spot (not recommended for nicely painted minis). There're apparently no templates anyway.
I would rage if someone shoved their mini over the top of my decorated bases. That being said, if I put a standard infantry guy on a 10" base I would probably deserve to have my stuff ruined..
Probably.
Still, I have that mental image of a guy placing his 167-model strong unit of unpainted-grey-orks in a half-sphere around his opponent's custom-painted vintage Sisters of Twilight on Dragon in metal and pressing really, really hard so they are all in 3".
It's a surprisingly tough game for "collectors" to get into
Yeah, make your army consist solely of long range shooting, but keep the model count as low as possible, always be outnumbered below the threshold, pick the assassinate sudden death victory condition on turn one, kill your opponent's hero (which, as far as I can make out, cannot join units) and win the game. Narrative: Forged!
Except it will be up to your opponent if you have the Sudden Death Victory by placing enough units. Not you.
Yeah, make your army consist solely of long range shooting, but keep the model count as low as possible, always be outnumbered below the threshold, pick the assassinate sudden death victory condition on turn one, kill your opponent's hero (which, as far as I can make out, cannot join units) and win the game. Narrative: Forged!
Except it will be up to your opponent if you have the Sudden Death Victory by placing enough units. Not you.
Interesting... and since deployment is alternating and stop-whenever you like... does it become a meta-game of deciding when you think you have enough to beat you opponent, only after seeing what the other has brought?
Yeah, make your army consist solely of long range shooting, but keep the model count as low as possible, always be outnumbered below the threshold, pick the assassinate sudden death victory condition on turn one, kill your opponent's hero (which, as far as I can make out, cannot join units) and win the game. Narrative: Forged!
Except it will be up to your opponent if you have the Sudden Death Victory by placing enough units. Not you.
Then go to plan B:
If your opponent stops deploying units, keep adding more long range fire power and just table him on turn one instead. Narrative: Re-forged!
Yeah, make your army consist solely of long range shooting, but keep the model count as low as possible, always be outnumbered below the threshold, pick the assassinate sudden death victory condition on turn one, kill your opponent's hero (which, as far as I can make out, cannot join units) and win the game. Narrative: Forged!
Except that your opponent gets to choose your target for the assassination and since you're outnumbered he'd have the option to just hide that unit in the back behind all of his troops.
Chopxsticks wrote: Are there no leaked photos of the Chaos brute looking thing?
Not that I saw, also oddly enough...no images of the chaos guy with the banner/ or the dude with the flesh hound. Also no close ups of the marauders...which take up the majority of the Khorne force...kind of bewildered...someone took the time to take images of everything else though!
This could be, I wouldnt play a game unless there was a decided on number of models however. Power issues aside, until we know more, I wouldnt agree to a whatever you bring. It would be simple, no more than say 30 models thats the limit. Seems pretty easy to me.
Chopxsticks wrote: Are there no leaked photos of the Chaos brute looking thing?
Not going to lie, I mostly just want this box for Mordheim and to have that guy as a giant Possessed (with actual cultist models squeee).
Speaking of old rules.. if you guys don't like the new version, just play the old version that you do like but with shiny new models.. It's how I've been playing 40k and nobody has hauled me off yet
Ya, im interested in adding to my Chaos Army. HOWEVER I am really interested to see what giant center piece model the Sigmarites get later in release. Cuss you know they are gonna get a glotkin/nagash sized model, they just have to!
If your opponent stops deploying units, keep adding more long range fire power and just table him on turn one instead. Narrative: Re-forged!
This.
If you stop deploying and go for the underdog, models wise, the opponent could just pile on everything he has and overwhelm you. No point in holding back. Always have 20-200,000 or so Bloodthirsters ready hidden up your sleeve, in case your opponent stops deploying!!
Chopxsticks wrote: This could be, I wouldnt play a game unless there was a decided on number of models however. Power issues aside, until we know more, I wouldnt agree to a whatever you bring. It would be simple, no more than say 30 models thats the limit. Seems pretty easy to me.
Chopxsticks wrote: This could be, I wouldnt play a game unless there was a decided on number of models however. Power issues aside, until we know more, I wouldnt agree to a whatever you bring. It would be simple, no more than say 30 models thats the limit. Seems pretty easy to me.
Ok. I'll bring 30 Bloodthirsters.
Still as simple?
Limit warscrolls and models. "Let's play 5 warscrolls, 30 models max".
If your opponent stops deploying units, keep adding more long range fire power and just table him on turn one instead. Narrative: Re-forged!
This.
If you stop deploying and go for the underdog, models wise, the opponent could just pile on everything he has and overwhelm you. No point in holding back. Always have 20-200,000 or so Bloodthirsters ready hidden up your sleeve, in case your opponent stops deploying!!
The first rule of AoS is you can only field as many blood thirsters as you can fit in your deployment zone :-p
I just wrote the following on Facebook... and it should be noted that James Hewitt... yes, GW Design-Team James Hewitt, immediately "liked" my posting...
"Right now the only "balance" mechanism seems to be the tremendously powerful "sudden victory" mechanic, and how it interplays with deployment. Once you have seen each-other's "army" you alternate deploying units, stopping whenever you like. Its like a weird bid/gamble system where you stop when you feel you have "enough" to win, knowing your opponent would be leery of going 30% over you in pure numbers... I don't "quite" get it yet... but there is a kind of meta-play there.
You and your opponent pick an upper limit... say 100 models. But then, the meta-game of deployment kicks in, and you might stop at say 40-models, essentially bidding on your ability to have "enough" to pull of whatever sudden victory you get."
Pepticsalve wrote: That really does stink - so what we can field high elves *and* dark elves in the same army. They freaking HATE each other?
Actually, most of the Dark Elves got over that once the High Elves finally acknowledged Malekith as the rightful Phoenix King in the End Times. Not sure how the High Elves feel about it...
As someone that writes simple and short rulesets I must say that GW really dropped the ball with AoS.
The ruleset spends too much space in explaining things that don't really matter, and not enough space going over the fundamentals. Add to that the fact that there is no balancing system of any kind, and this release is just baffling! There is a part of me that really hopes that this is only a small part of something bigger, but I am skeptical since its GW we are talking about...
Chopxsticks wrote: This could be, I wouldnt play a game unless there was a decided on number of models however. Power issues aside, until we know more, I wouldnt agree to a whatever you bring. It would be simple, no more than say 30 models thats the limit. Seems pretty easy to me.
Ok. I'll bring 30 Bloodthirsters.
Still as simple?
Limit warscrolls and models. "Let's play 5 warscrolls, 30 models max".
Now you've just made every low-quality model useless. "You brought those Khorne Cultist dudes from the starter box? Oh, that's cute, 'cause I've only brought the, ya'know, good models."
There's a reason why other games have point systems. Not all models are equally good, nor should they be equally good, but they still need to function within the same rule set without taking the bad models just being shooting yourself in the foot.
Chopxsticks wrote: This could be, I wouldnt play a game unless there was a decided on number of models however. Power issues aside, until we know more, I wouldnt agree to a whatever you bring. It would be simple, no more than say 30 models thats the limit. Seems pretty easy to me.
Ok. I'll bring 30 Bloodthirsters.
Still as simple?
Limit warscrolls and models. "Let's play 5 warscrolls, 30 models max".
Lets say someone brings 5 bloodthirsters, the other guy brings 30 skullcrushers, is that fair? Will it be balanced? Who can say if it is without a guideline? The only way to see if its a fair match up is by playing, but that shouldnt be the point of the game.
I can see a lot of initial debating and argueing for a game that is designed to just be picked up and played right off the bat.
I'm convinced the lack of points is just a starter set thing. In the break down for how war scrolls work, they talk about in the description were you find the find of upgrades the unit can take.
That's my only hope for Saturday.. if all the 8th units turn up the same as the ones in the box.. I think I'm done.. unless GW turns up with something else down the line.
Chopxsticks wrote: This could be, I wouldnt play a game unless there was a decided on number of models however. Power issues aside, until we know more, I wouldnt agree to a whatever you bring. It would be simple, no more than say 30 models thats the limit. Seems pretty easy to me.
Ok. I'll bring 30 Bloodthirsters.
Still as simple?
Limit warscrolls and models. "Let's play 5 warscrolls, 30 models max".
Now you've just made every low-quality model useless. "You brought those Khorne Cultist dudes from the starter box? Oh, that's cute, 'cause I've only brought the, ya'know, good models."
There's a reason why other games have point systems. Not all models are equally good, nor should they be equally good, but they still need to function within the same rule set without taking the bad models just being shooting yourself in the foot.
Yeah, this just results in players trying to develop a balancing act with what should be fair against something else. Kind of gives you the feeling of just making up rules, and taking the "game" aspect out of the game.
Lockark wrote: I'm convinced the lack of points is just a starter set thing. In the break down for how war scrolls work, they talk about in the description were you find the find of upgrades the unit can take.
Lockark wrote: I'm convinced the lack of points is just a starter set thing. In the break down for how war scrolls work, they talk about in the description were you find the find of upgrades the unit can take.
How can you buy upgrades with no points?
This is what confused me, then perhaps it could just say only one model in the unit can say be a champion, take a special weapon? If the no points value was just for the starter set then wouldnt it be impossible to field sigmarites in an Empire army?
I think I've worked it out, somebody at gw corporate heard that people were complaining they needed too many points to play a game of wfb so they demanded these point things were removed so people could buy more figures, problem solved
I actually think there were some good ideas in w:aos developement but they seem to have been invalidated by the lack of balance. The battle scrolls could have been a great idea and still could be if they only contained a way of building a balanced force.
OnePageAnon wrote: As someone that writes simple and short rulesets I must say that GW really dropped the ball with AoS.
The ruleset spends too much space in explaining things that don't really matter, and not enough space going over the fundamentals. Add to that the fact that there is no balancing system of any kind, and this release is just baffling! There is a part of me that really hopes that this is only a small part of something bigger, but I am skeptical since its GW we are talking about...
Frankly I am impressed that they managed to stuff a Mysterious Terrain table and a campaign system in there.
Technically, running out of space in your deployment zone isn't an issue since the rules don't say that I can't have my army start piled up in a huge vertical stack.
Lockark wrote: I'm convinced the lack of points is just a starter set thing. In the break down for how war scrolls work, they talk about in the description were you find the find of upgrades the unit can take.
How can you buy upgrades with no points?
you cant buy upgrades.................
Im sure the bit about warscrolls in the white dwarf talked about the warscroll containing any details of upgrades that a model/unit may be able to take.
OnePageAnon wrote: As someone that writes simple and short rulesets I must say that GW really dropped the ball with AoS.
The ruleset spends too much space in explaining things that don't really matter, and not enough space going over the fundamentals. Add to that the fact that there is no balancing system of any kind, and this release is just baffling! There is a part of me that really hopes that this is only a small part of something bigger, but I am skeptical since its GW we are talking about...
Frankly I am impressed that they managed to stuff a Mysterious Terrain table and a campaign system in there.
"So... without seeing the scenario book, maybe we have our terminology wrong... With units having no upper limit size, per se... maybe the scenarios say, "Each player may bring 5 War-scrolls", and then the model limit is whatever upper bound the players previously agreed to. The "5 War Scrolls" limit would be the balance that would keep someone from bringing a potential pool of 30 Nagash models, to a "30 model max" friendly game? James... blink once if I am on to something? tongue emoticon"
To which he simply responded with a wink emote.
Its as close to SOMETHING from GW as we've got on the matter at the moment.
Lockark wrote: I'm convinced the lack of points is just a starter set thing. In the break down for how war scrolls work, they talk about in the description were you find the find of upgrades the unit can take.
How can you buy upgrades with no points?
Alternate weapons configurations.
Let's say there are points on future warscrolls.
There's nothing in the rulebook that says anything about points.
How do you use points then
NewTruthNeomaxim wrote: I just wrote the following on Facebook... and it should be noted that James Hewitt... yes, GW Design-Team James Hewitt, immediately "liked" my posting...
"Right now the only "balance" mechanism seems to be the tremendously powerful "sudden victory" mechanic, and how it interplays with deployment. Once you have seen each-other's "army" you alternate deploying units, stopping whenever you like. Its like a weird bid/gamble system where you stop when you feel you have "enough" to win, knowing your opponent would be leery of going 30% over you in pure numbers... I don't "quite" get it yet... but there is a kind of meta-play there.
You and your opponent pick an upper limit... say 100 models. But then, the meta-game of deployment kicks in, and you might stop at say 40-models, essentially bidding on your ability to have "enough" to pull of whatever sudden victory you get."
Which only works as a bidding mechanism if the two bidding currencies are the same. From what we can see, it's "models" that count. Presumably the SuperDuperSigmarites(tm) are more powerful model-for-model than, say, Skaven (or Thugs, or Skinks, or Goblins, or you name it...) so stopping when you have "enough" models is very easy if you're using the SuperDuperSigmarites(tm)
Kinda like saying, "I'm betting with Dollars and you'e betting with Pesos" but only the final number on the bills counts, not either value...
"So... without seeing the scenario book, maybe we have our terminology wrong... With units having no upper limit size, per se... maybe the scenarios say, "Each player may bring 5 War-scrolls", and then the model limit is whatever upper bound the players previously agreed to. The "5 War Scrolls" limit would be the balance that would keep someone from bringing a potential pool of 30 Nagash models, to a "30 model max" friendly game? James... blink once if I am on to something? tongue emoticon"
To which he simply responded with a wink emote.
Its as close to SOMETHING from GW as we've got on the matter at the moment.
It's hilarious, but that's the best indication we have that there will indeed be some kind of balancing mechanic in the game. I'm back to being hopeful!
Chopxsticks wrote: This could be, I wouldnt play a game unless there was a decided on number of models however. Power issues aside, until we know more, I wouldnt agree to a whatever you bring. It would be simple, no more than say 30 models thats the limit. Seems pretty easy to me.
Ok. I'll bring 30 Bloodthirsters.
Still as simple?
Actually I dont see why not. We have no idea what units synergize with each other, If your a tool who spent that much money on 30 Bloodthirsters to be that tool who puts 30 of them down on the table then so be it I guess, For all we know though some unit may have an ability that says if a Bloodthirster is within 12" Auto kill it. Then what??
Lockark wrote: I'm convinced the lack of points is just a starter set thing. In the break down for how war scrolls work, they talk about in the description were you find the find of upgrades the unit can take.
Chopxsticks wrote: This could be, I wouldnt play a game unless there was a decided on number of models however. Power issues aside, until we know more, I wouldnt agree to a whatever you bring. It would be simple, no more than say 30 models thats the limit. Seems pretty easy to me.
Ok. I'll bring 30 Bloodthirsters.
Still as simple?
Limit warscrolls and models. "Let's play 5 warscrolls, 30 models max".
Now you've just made every low-quality model useless. "You brought those Khorne Cultist dudes from the starter box? Oh, that's cute, 'cause I've only brought the, ya'know, good models."
There's a reason why other games have point systems. Not all models are equally good, nor should they be equally good, but they still need to function within the same rule set without taking the bad models just being shooting yourself in the foot.
Indeed. As long as there is no mechanic that lets you have more of the lesser models such as goblins, there will never be an in-game reason for taking them,
Yes it does feel that elite armies are much more benefitted, as you get so much more bang for your buck on Warscroll, Model and Sudden Death terms. Not sure how it will work, but can only imagine Nagash and other big baddies are now much easier to kill by grunts.
Bottle wrote: Yes it does feel that elite armies are much more benefitted, as you get so much more bang for your buck on Warscroll, Model and Sudden Death terms. Not sure how it will work, but can only imagine Nagash and other big baddies are now much easier to kill by grunts.
D3 mortal wound per caster per turn can make one sad Nagash/Glottkin
But we have not seen all the cards........ For all we know the lesser units buff the elite units.
And people keep throwing our stupid numbers for models. Of course GW wants you to buy 30 Bloodthirsters, they are $115 each... But seriously who is going to. And then what shop is going to OK it. How hard is it just to have a list of models that you are only allowed 1 on the table at the time of deployment...
Chopxsticks wrote: This could be, I wouldnt play a game unless there was a decided on number of models however. Power issues aside, until we know more, I wouldnt agree to a whatever you bring. It would be simple, no more than say 30 models thats the limit. Seems pretty easy to me.
Ok. I'll bring 30 Bloodthirsters.
Still as simple?
Actually I dont see why not. We have no idea what units synergize with each other, If your a tool who spent that much money on 30 Bloodthirsters to be that tool who puts 30 of them down on the table then so be it I guess, For all we know though some unit may have an ability that says if a Bloodthirster is within 12" Auto kill it. Then what??
30 Bloodthirsters was an extreme example to underline my point; if your best counter-argument is "lol you're silly for buying expensive models" you might want to try to think of something better.
Also, if there really is a wargear that auto-kills Bloodthirsters within 12" (or something equivalent) how the hell is that supposed to be an argument for the game being better than it seems? "Don't worry, the game might not be broken, it might be ridiculously broken. Yay! Fun! Progress!"
What if they are going for a system similar to Open Combat?
This way you would have your own stats for all your models, bases wouldn't matter, indivivual stats for all minis on the table (or "scrolls") etc. And they could focus on producing models
I know it's not very GWish but...
Chopxsticks wrote: How hard is it just to have a list of models that you are only allowed 1 on the table at the time of deployment...
It's not hard. But it's something one would expect GW to decide upon when they made the game, given how important that little detail is to the internal balance of the system.
It's a bit like being sold a model and told you have to cast certain parts on your own. Sure, you can assemble the kit as it is, but no weapons for you and the left foot is missing.
If bows have a range of 24" too, I bet they can wreck monsters quickly!
I'm interested to see how combined units will now work, like Screaming Bells and Fanatics. Also interested in seeing how warmachines and crew work and chariots too. Can't wait to see more warscrolls!
It's like someone deliberately wrote a satire of a postmodernist approach to war gaming. I can't work out if all of this is serious or if it's some over the top example of Poe's law.
Bottle wrote: Yes it does feel that elite armies are much more benefitted, as you get so much more bang for your buck on Warscroll, Model and Sudden Death terms. Not sure how it will work, but can only imagine Nagash and other big baddies are now much easier to kill by grunts.
D3 mortal wound per caster per turn can make one sad Nagash/Glottkin
If the main attempt at game balance is to make it easier for rank and file units to kill powerful monsters/characters then that creates a disincentive for gamers to buy big expensive kits.
Bottle wrote: Yes it does feel that elite armies are much more benefitted, as you get so much more bang for your buck on Warscroll, Model and Sudden Death terms. Not sure how it will work, but can only imagine Nagash and other big baddies are now much easier to kill by grunts.
D3 mortal wound per caster per turn can make one sad Nagash/Glottkin
If the main attempt at game balance is to make it easier for rank and file units to kill powerful monsters/characters then that creates a disincentive for gamers to buy big expensive kits.
Keep in mind that big numbers of shooty troops is also balanced by sudden death victory. So suddenly, a tiny bit of balance appears.
Thud wrote: 30 Bloodthirsters was an extreme example to underline my point; if your best counter-argument is "lol you're silly for buying expensive models" you might want to try to think of something better.
Also, if there really is a wargear that auto-kills Bloodthirsters within 12" (or something equivalent) how the hell is that supposed to be an argument for the game being better than it seems? "Don't worry, the game might not be broken, it might be ridiculously broken. Yay! Fun! Progress!"
Some of them say "any number of models" and some of them say, "only one model". So I guess you could say, 30 bloodthirsters vs. 3000 goblins?
But seriously, is nobody considering this game as a game just for fun? If it's deployed and played in the spirit of entertainment and enjoyment, it looks like it could be pretty fun.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Best case scenario, it's a good game that they killed WHFB to make (which to me, a fan of regimental games, is still "meh" at best). Worst case scenario they killed WHFB to make a mediocre skirmish game in a market where I can't throw a cat without hitting another skirmish game.
Though they do say it can be played with lots of models.... but it it's another game like 40k where you have 100's of individual models and a movement phase takes you an eternity then I'm not interested. I've never been a huge fan of that aspect of the 40k rules system.
See I've loved 40k, I could play it right now with some guys at work, but its too much- too many models. Thats why i walked from fantasy too. SO if its got less models I might be more inclined to pick it up and play as a skirmish game.
I'm interested to see how combined units will now work, like Screaming Bells and Fanatics. Also interested in seeing how warmachines and crew work and chariots too. Can't wait to see more warscrolls!
Its looking less and less likely that they will even be in the game.
Chopxsticks wrote: This could be, I wouldnt play a game unless there was a decided on number of models however. Power issues aside, until we know more, I wouldnt agree to a whatever you bring. It would be simple, no more than say 30 models thats the limit. Seems pretty easy to me.
Ok. I'll bring 30 Bloodthirsters.
Still as simple?
Actually I dont see why not. We have no idea what units synergize with each other, If your a tool who spent that much money on 30 Bloodthirsters to be that tool who puts 30 of them down on the table then so be it I guess, For all we know though some unit may have an ability that says if a Bloodthirster is within 12" Auto kill it. Then what??
30 Bloodthirsters was an extreme example to underline my point; if your best counter-argument is "lol you're silly for buying expensive models" you might want to try to think of something better.
Also, if there really is a wargear that auto-kills Bloodthirsters within 12" (or something equivalent) how the hell is that supposed to be an argument for the game being better than it seems? "Don't worry, the game might not be broken, it might be ridiculously broken. Yay! Fun! Progress!"
Exactly, an extreme example. Same as the auto kill Bloodthirsters... If all you have to say to an agreed upon unit limit is "im bringing $3,450 worth of Bloodthirsters" then whatever I suppose, your GW'd perfect target audience. I didnt say anyone was silly for buying expensive models, but you cant honestly read back over your own comment and not think buying 30 Bloodthirsters isnt silly... I own a single Bloodthirster and a Glotkin, which seems reasonable to bring to an agreed model count battle. Not 30..
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Best case scenario, it's a good game that they killed WHFB to make (which to me, a fan of regimental games, is still "meh" at best). Worst case scenario they killed WHFB to make a mediocre skirmish game in a market where I can't throw a cat without hitting another skirmish game.
Though they do say it can be played with lots of models.... but it it's another game like 40k where you have 100's of individual models and a movement phase takes you an eternity then I'm not interested. I've never been a huge fan of that aspect of the 40k rules system.
See I've loved 40k, I could play it right now with some guys at work, but its too much- too many models. Thats why i walked from fantasy too. SO if its got less models I might be more inclined to pick it up and play as a skirmish game.
Thud wrote: 30 Bloodthirsters was an extreme example to underline my point; if your best counter-argument is "lol you're silly for buying expensive models" you might want to try to think of something better.
Also, if there really is a wargear that auto-kills Bloodthirsters within 12" (or something equivalent) how the hell is that supposed to be an argument for the game being better than it seems? "Don't worry, the game might not be broken, it might be ridiculously broken. Yay! Fun! Progress!"
Some of them say "any number of models" and some of them say, "only one model". So I guess you could say, 30 bloodthirsters vs. 3000 goblins?
But seriously, is nobody considering this game as a game just for fun? If it's deployed and played in the spirit of entertainment and enjoyment, it looks like it could be pretty fun.
Thats the problem, everyone seems to think people only play this game in a tournament setting. Were everything is at stake so if you dont bring those 30 Bloodthirsters you have no chance..
It's a bit weirdly worded but looking at the rules describing warscrolls and the scrolls themselves the could be something else going on regarding balance.
The rules state that the scrolls contain all the rules for the models (note not units)
The scrolls state that the units are either individual figures or are any number of figures.
What if there is a simple one page armylist for each faction in the background book? The scrolls are all the refernce material.
I'm probably grasping at straws here, but it would be a simple system to have.
worst would come if a unit was found too powerful and had to have its points/price increased 
