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.
Spoiler:
How can you be so active on here, have so many people eloquently explain to you the problems inherent to gaming when you don't occupy the gaming utopia you inhabit and still post something so ill thought out as that?
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.
True but that doesn't really help to determine a typical game size. My Bret army has a peasant bowman regiment of 30 archers which I'm assuming would be 1 warscroll but if I use the whole regiment I get nerfed/penalized for the high model count even though that would be a normal unit size in 8ed. Do I bring my whole army to a game night at the local FLGS or GW store and just hope somebody else wants to play a game with 8ed size armies? Is the byproduct of lowering the barrier of entry cost that I'll now usually only play a game with 1/3 of the army I've collected? If a 5 warscroll size game could still easily vary from 20 models per army to 100+ models per army then it's hard to play any kind of show up and play pick up game. Why should putting a larger portion of my purchased, assembled and painted army on the table increase my chances of losing? I'm having trouble understanding how the design team expects AoS Warhammer to work.
There is obviously some stuff missing, perhaps to be filled in by scenarios, perhaps expanded rules. The rules mention stuff held in reserve, but don't say anything more about the reserves that I could see. So perhaps this,and other things, are expanded upon in scenarios.
Still, the rules sound pretty terrible to me. I don't like every piece of terrain having some stupid effect to any unit within 3". Practically every unit on the table will have to remember to apply one of those terrain effects, maybe more than one. Plus all the unit/character abilities that add bonuses/penalties to rolls, and which units they apply to at any given time.
There isn't a very big range of stats, especially considering the number of things that give bonuses to hit or wound. It doesn't seem like it will feel right that a particular weapon hits and wounds on the same value whether attacking a goblin or a bloodthirster, but IS affected by standing near the right piece of terrain.
There isn't really objectives, just wipe out the army, or the sudden death stuff which doesn't seem like much fun. Unless, again, there are going to be scenarios to improve that.
Obviously the army construction doesn't make much sense unless that Warscrolls that aren't in the boxed game have points on them or something.
It seems like they want a more narrative driven game, but having no objectives for the battles, and having units that don't really feel very different from each other, seems like it will make the game less story-driven.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheAuldGrump wrote: The thing is that the game should be playable in a tournament setting
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.
Do you mean you don't think fanatics will be in the game or that combined units won't? It'll also be interesting if fanatics are now an independent unit of sorts.
As the rules seem now you're going to have to bring your entire collection as it would be pointless building a list beforehand.
Perhaps the standard game for my store is 5 warscrolls and 100 models max, I will enjoy making my list with my undead range, I would take a zombie dragon and a coven throne, 5 blood knights, 3 vargheists and 50 skeletons. That's my collection as it is.
I show up for my pre-booked game, my opponent has brought 96 chaos warriors and 4 bloodthirsters.
Albino Squirrel wrote: There is obviously some stuff missing, perhaps to be filled in by scenarios, perhaps expanded rules. The rules mention stuff held in reserve, but don't say anything more about the reserves that I could see. So perhaps this,and other things, are expanded upon in scenarios.
Still, the rules sound pretty terrible to me. I don't like every piece of terrain having some stupid effect to any unit within 3". Practically every unit on the table will have to remember to apply one of those terrain effects, maybe more than one. Plus all the unit/character abilities that add bonuses/penalties to rolls, and which units they apply to at any given time.
There isn't a very big range of stats, especially considering the number of things that give bonuses to hit or wound. It doesn't seem like it will feel right that a particular weapon hits and wounds on the same value whether attacking a goblin or a bloodthirster, but IS affected by standing near the right piece of terrain.
There isn't really objectives, just wipe out the army, or the sudden death stuff which doesn't seem like much fun. Unless, again, there are going to be scenarios to improve that.
Obviously the army construction doesn't make much sense unless that Warscrolls that aren't in the boxed game have points on them or something.
It seems like they want a more narrative driven game, but having no objectives for the battles, and having units that don't really feel very different from each other, seems like it will make the game less story-driven.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheAuldGrump wrote: The thing is that the game should be playable in a tournament setting
Why?
Oh, let's see... maybe because people will want to play tournaments? Maybe?
No one is forcing people to play in a tournament setting - but balanced rules help everyone.
Contrary to what the White Knights among us would have people believe - balanced rules do not make a game unplayable by casual players.
If anything, balanced rules help folks get some good out of their casual armies - so if the player fields an army of nothing but Nerf Herders then he will have a chance against the army of Hill Trolls, if only because there are a lot of Nerf Herders.
Unless the game is vastly different than what I am seeing... GW is forging the narrative by typing The End at the bottom of the page.
I like the Chaos Warriors. Most of them at least. Hate the heads. Anyone know if the heads are separate like the Sigmar warriors? A few Skull Crusher or Berzerker helmets would be an easy fix to make them look epic.
Onto the fluff portion. From what I've read only the realm of Heavens is safe, Sigmar's lore. Does this mean that Bubblehammer or Realmgatehammer or whatever is just going to have each of the Winds of Magic be a different reality? Sigmar rules the Realm of Heaven, Nagash rules the Realm of Death, Malekith the Realm of Shadows, etc.
I guess that'd explain how armies go and fight each other. They travel through realm gates to different Winds of Magic realms to invade one another and such. Could be better. Could be worse. I just give it a big meh if my theory proves correct.
Pojko wrote: Does this mean that Bubblehammer or Realmgatehammer or whatever is just going to have each of the Winds of Magic be a different reality? Sigmar rules the Realm of Heaven, Nagash rules the Realm of Death, Malekith the Realm of Shadows, etc..
Pojko wrote: I like the Chaos Warriors. Most of them at least. Hate the heads. Anyone know if the heads are separate like the Sigmar warriors? A few Skull Crusher or Berzerker helmets would be an easy fix to make them look epic.
Onto the fluff portion. From what I've read only the realm of Heavens is safe, Sigmar's lore. Does this mean that Bubblehammer or Realmgatehammer or whatever is just going to have each of the Winds of Magic be a different reality? Sigmar rules the Realm of Heaven, Nagash rules the Realm of Death, Malekith the Realm of Shadows, etc.
I guess that'd explain how armies go and fight each other. They travel through realm gates to different Winds of Magic realms to invade one another and such. Could be better. Could be worse. I just give it a big meh if my theory proves correct.
The background says there are 7 realms / mortal realm. The realm of fire is mentioned in the rules, where you dice off and decide what realm your in (it mentions this may effect some units)
So scenarios will dictate what sort of scrolls you bring.. It's almost like someone said something about other game systems that don't use points telling you how many of what type of unit to bring.. Gee.. I wonder who would've said that...
We have not seen all the units warscrolls yet though, Only an extremely small sample size, and not even the whole army at that. So to call the game unbalanced isnt fair, White knighting or not.
If the scenario tells you how many scrolls you can take, isn't it equally likely that it will tell you more specifics? IMO it will probably be approached like a population cap in an RTS. If you take this then you can take that type of thing. Maybe it's wishful thinking but a lot of people are getting butthurt over speculation when we don't have all the facts.
Crazy thing is.. I'm so tired of GW's same old that I'm actually excited about this and it sucks that there are people on here acting like that's a bad thing.
Pepticsalve wrote: I'm convinced now that there has *got* to be *some* sort of balancing at some point in this game... Its been said already, I know, but if the warscrolls were divided into HQ, Core, Special, Rare and each warscroll had a fixed unit size and equipment load-out (so they were actually balanced against each other) then it would work, and frankly be quite a nifty way of building an army. You could play a game where each side gets 1 HQ scroll, 3 Core scrolls, 2 Specials and 1 Rare, or something like that... The points would still be there, but hidden away. Sure, it would take away a great deal of the flexability of list building - which is something I personally enjoy. Putting together an army in a fixed number of points and then seeing how it does on the table is a fun part of fantasy....
My thoughts exactly. Unfortunately logic like this is being completely ignored in favor of the various forms of 'no literal points=no balance" hyperbole.
This theory is exactly what I would want as a game mechanic in a game meant to be enticingly simple for new players.
MLaw wrote: So scenarios will dictate what sort of scrolls you bring..
Which still doesn't give you any sort of balance when scrolls can be units of unlimited size.
Unlimited size, but the larger you go the more you run the risk of your opponent calling your bluff, ending the deployment phase with a 1/3rd less and using a sudden death victory condition.
Tournaments also bring extra layers of fun and even campaigns that enhance the overall game experience.
Ignoring it is not in the best interest of a game that aims to lure in more people.
The game is looking more and more like a bluff exercise at deployment, its a different type of game I guess. Nothing wrong with it just seems that the tactical planing you do pre battles with the points system and extra gear will be stripped away in AOS.
I think that the movement should be measured from the base, thats more precise than say the tip of a sword. Lots of tweaks can be done to play some casual stuff with your friends at home... but not more than that.
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.
Spoiler:
How can you be so active on here, have so many people eloquently explain to you the problems inherent to gaming when you don't occupy the gaming utopia you inhabit and still post something so ill thought out as that?
I place a higher level of importance over gaming, fun, and entertainment over winning by loading up on lists. There are more people locally that are like this than I could ever hope to play with, even if i were to give up my day job, and j get invited to groups all the time.
I'm not saying that Sigmar might be a terrible competitive game (I'm not saying it is or is not... Until everything is available, a lot is still speculation). I'm just asking, has nobody considered that this might be a FUN game, taken out of the context of ultracompetitive, win if I can?
If that's so, I think there is a good place for that type of game. Expecting that the people you're playing with are cool people you are or would like to be friends with and enjoy the company of is not gaming utopia. I call it being human and participating in normal social interaction. I mean if you participate in marathon, MUST you try to place first, or is it enjoyable to just do the run, and finish where you finish, and make some friends in the process?
So far, the biggest complaint seems to be, you can abuse army building and wreck the game. Aside from not knowing how that all actually works (we don't have scenarios yet) is it so far out of the realm of possibility that some people just not abuse army building and actually have fun? Or is that totally impossible where you live? It just isn't such a stretch where I live.
By the way, Az, there are many things I'm not fond of in life. But I choose to spend my time being active with a positive attitude about the things I do like, rather than being active in a negative way about the things I don't like. But really, I'd appreciate if you could address my points rather than make it personal. I fully understand that different things make you and me tick when it comes to miniatures and wargaming.
MLaw wrote: So scenarios will dictate what sort of scrolls you bring..
Which still doesn't give you any sort of balance when scrolls can be units of unlimited size.
In a points based system the amount of points you can bring is an unlimited size, so before hand you agree with your opponent how many points the game will be and build a list from there. So if scenarios do dictate how many scrolls you can take then i would assume there would be some sort of agreement with your opponent as to how many models. That doesnt really work with horde armies so there would have to be some other type of modifiers built into the scenario.
Warscrolls for the new models will be in the box and in the new books we publish
Wyrd and Privateer Press have shown them how that business moidel can work... Cards in the boxes. Arsenal packs. Books with fluff and some model/unit stat cards (Sorry, Warscrolls(tm)). You can potentially sell the same thing three times(!)
And Taco Bell has actual Warscrolls up! 1/4 page (A6) each, with a pretty picture, stats and rules. Interesting that weapon stats simply give the target number of 3+, 5+, etc.
I spoke with our GW rep this morning and was told in no uncertain terms that there would be no 9th edition Fantasy. Fantasy as we know it is gone. AoS will be the new system going forward. I've known this guy for awhile and see no reason why he would fib about something like that. Unfortunately or fortunately, this is the future of Warhammer. I personally think the way people are thinking of the Warscrolls will be different than the way they will function. I believe the old stats and point values will be thrown out the window. Nagash will have a warscroll that will detail his powers and movement, magic, attack stats, etc but it will not be the same as we have remembered with special powers, etc.
To be fair, 40K used to include datacards with all it's vehicles, back in second edition, before Warmachine was a thing.
Really my point was that there would be books.
I get that the free rules are a great way to get new people to try it, but I can't see them not printing a rulebook. Kings of War and Infinity built up lots of fans with free rules, but there is still a big market for people who like dead tree format at the gaming table, and you can't really sell 4 page rulebook.
JohnHwangDD wrote: And Taco Bell has actual Warscrolls up! 1/4 page (A6) each, with a pretty picture, stats and rules. Interesting that weapon stats simply give the target number of 3+, 5+, etc.
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.
Spoiler:
How can you be so active on here, have so many people eloquently explain to you the problems inherent to gaming when you don't occupy the gaming utopia you inhabit and still post something so ill thought out as that?
I place a higher level of importance over gaming, fun, and entertainment over winning by loading up on lists. There are more people locally that are like this than I could ever hope to play with, even if i were to give up my day job, and j get invited to groups all the time.
I'm not saying that Sigmar might be a terrible competitive game (I'm not saying it is or is not... Until everything is available, a lot is still speculation). I'm just asking, has nobody considered that this might be a FUN game, taken out of the context of ultracompetitive, win if I can?
If that's so, I think there is a good place for that type of game. Expecting that the people you're playing with are cool people you are or would like to be friends with and enjoy the company of is not gaming utopia. I call it being human and participating in normal social interaction. I mean if you participate in marathon, MUST you try to place first, or is it enjoyable to just do the run, and finish where you finish, and make some friends in the process?
So far, the biggest complaint seems to be, you can abuse army building and wreck the game. Aside from not knowing how that all actually works (we don't have scenarios yet) is it so far out of the realm of possibility that some people just not abuse army building and actually have fun? Or is that totally impossible where you live? It just isn't such a stretch where I live.
Talys mate is it hard to understand that the defenition of FUN varies from person to person but when talking about games we need to adress gamers foremost? Optimal game is the game that puts both competitive players and casual players enjoying it... I believe that the perfect game is the one that manages to satisfy everyone equally not just the fluff driven folks or collectors of beer&chips type of gamer.
@navarro - yeah, I get that, but there is a wide gap between, let's just play beer and pretzels and horse around, and, let's do everything we can to break the game, right?
I mean, there's a lot of middle ground there, and you cam be a gamer without actively trying to abuse the rules to the maximum extent possible, given any opportunity.
MLaw wrote: So scenarios will dictate what sort of scrolls you bring..
Which still doesn't give you any sort of balance when scrolls can be units of unlimited size.
In a points based system the amount of points you can bring is an unlimited size, so before hand you agree with your opponent how many points the game will be and build a list from there. So if scenarios do dictate how many scrolls you can take then i would assume there would be some sort of agreement with your opponent as to how many models. That doesnt really work with horde armies so there would have to be some other type of modifiers built into the scenario.
They could well be built into the unit, a simple special rule on the scroll is all it takes:
"This unit counts as half its actual number of models for the purposes of determining army size."
Slap that rule on goblins, skinks and skeletons and suddenly they're not so bad.
NAVARRO wrote:Tournaments also bring extra layers of fun and even campaigns that enhance the overall game experience.
Ignoring it is not in the best interest of a game that aims to lure in more people.
The inverse is also true in that tournaments can bring out the worst in selfish, win-at-all-cost attitudes. I'm sure that vast majority of posters on here will be able to relate with stories of that guy*. I'm also not sure that campaigns are all that synonymous with tournament settings. Finding the best way to beat the system is, however.
I've been reaching for a word to encapsulate Talys' attitude for weeks, and it just struck me!
Utterly oblivious to problems that exist for other gamers, and apparently unwilling to attach any weight to them.
This is untrue. How many times have I said, if you're into small competitive games, 40k isn't the best selection?!
You seem to be totally unwilling to consider that a large population of players might actually enjoy relatively casual, entertaining games and that there nay be a market foe such things, centered around miniatures.
Also, as I've asked, pleas attack my positions rather than me, personally.
Seems armies will be smaller, and perhaps cheaper, assume for the moment this is true.
For your event create a scenario, and then create the lists players are allowed to use, as many or as few as you like, balanced around that scenario.
In effect create a set of fixed tournament formations, maybe a couple for each of the old factions and a few combined ones.
Sort of serious 'comp' I guess but can put the fluffy background round it and also use scenario effects to balance overall. Even with unbalanced forces, trying to do different things.
This is all sounding a lot like what LotR was, very much scenario driven, and perhaps that's what GW will push and sell, scenario and campaign books
Talys wrote: ... is it so far out of the realm of possibility that some people just not abuse army building and actually have fun? .
No, it's totally possible that some people do that. However, the fact that it is so easily abused is what makes it a poor design choice.
A tight system that keeps everything focused and balanced results in a game that can be played both by those who will take every opportunity to game the system, and those who just play for fun. If those who just pay for fun find the restrictions too constricting, well, it's just for fun, so they can change them to suit themselves.
Making the system more open and relying on people not abusing it fails at the first hurdle... because everyone is going to have a different opinion on exactly where the line is drawn between abusive and perfectly fine. It makes every game against an unfamiliar opponent into a negotiation. And that's just tiresome.
If you have an established group that you play with, and you're all like-minded enough that this won't be a problem, then that's great. There will be others out there in the same boat, for whom this system will be just fine, and probably a lot of fun. But by making the system as open to abuse as they have, they either exclude a whole swathe of potential players, or leave people playing a lot of unfun games.
I've been reaching for a word to encapsulate Talys' attitude for weeks, and it just struck me!
Utterly oblivious to problems that exist for other gamers, and apparently unwilling to attach any weight to them.
This is untrue. How many times have I said, if you're into small competitive games, 40k isn't the best selection?!
You seem to be totally unwilling to consider that a large population of players might actually enjoy relatively casual, entertaining games and that there nay be a market foe such things, centered around miniatures.
Also, as I've asked, pleas attack my positions rather than me, personally.
You know tight balanced rules would benifit those casual players as much, if not more, than the competitive players right? And you seem unwilling to consider the flip side, that a large population of players might enjoy a tight competitive game.
Talys wrote: [
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.
...
I place a higher level of importance over gaming, fun, and entertainment over winning by loading up on lists. There are more people locally that are like this than I could ever hope to play with, even if i were to give up my day job, and j get invited to groups all the time.
I'm not saying that Sigmar might be a terrible competitive game (I'm not saying it is or is not... Until everything is available, a lot is still speculation). I'm just asking, has nobody considered that this might be a FUN game, taken out of the context of ultracompetitive, win if I can?
If that's so, I think there is a good place for that type of game. Expecting that the people you're playing with are cool people you are or would like to be friends with and enjoy the company of is not gaming utopia. I call it being human and participating in normal social interaction. I mean if you participate in marathon, MUST you try to place first, or is it enjoyable to just do the run, and finish where you finish, and make some friends in the process?
So far, the biggest complaint seems to be, you can abuse army building and wreck the game. Aside from not knowing how that all actually works (we don't have scenarios yet) is it so far out of the realm of possibility that some people just not abuse army building and actually have fun? Or is that totally impossible where you live? It just isn't such a stretch where I live.
In principle, I agree entirely. This is the way the game is set up to be played, and in theory it would work with that attitude. But...
With a complete lack of points, even if both opponents have the best intentions in the world there is the no way of knowing (without having already played a few dozen games) if their forces are even. With points, you can eradicate most if the imbalance just by knowing what's over/under powered and finding a middle ground, but with this system, you can't actually tell, there's no metric by which you can determine how good or bad a unit, and therefore an army, is.
After a few months of gaming you might get to the point you get a feel for balancing forces, but how many people are going to essentially do GW's play testing for then for that long rather than just moving on to a game that provides actual rules for matching armies?
@insaniak - Yes, I know what you mean. It's not immediately clear to me what the advantages or disadvantages of numbers are yet, so, for example, if there is no maximum to a unit size, is there a downside to taking more, or is there an advantage to taking fewer?
My comment really, was just that if there are some obviously a usable mechanics, it would behoove players to both not do that -- though I get that this makes it a bad competitive game. Not unlike RAW40k, of you compare any army against any army. Which is why asked if anyone was thinking about Sigmar in the context of a more casual, 'for fun' entertaining thing to do with miniatures (presuming one lines the minis).
I've been reaching for a word to encapsulate Talys' attitude for weeks, and it just struck me!
Utterly oblivious to problems that exist for other gamers, and apparently unwilling to attach any weight to them.
This is untrue. How many times have I said, if you're into small competitive games, 40k isn't the best selection?!
You seem to be totally unwilling to consider that a large population of players might actually enjoy relatively casual, entertaining games and that there nay be a market foe such things, centered around miniatures.
Also, as I've asked, pleas attack my positions rather than me, personally.
You know tight balanced rules would benifit those casual players as much, if not more, than the competitive players right? And you seem unwilling to consider the flip side, that a large population of players might enjoy a tight competitive game.
In fairness though, he is right. If you want tight balanced rules, then games workshop probably isn't for you. Like that guy in 'grumpy old men' said: you can wish into one hand and crap into the other and see which one fills up first.
Talys wrote: @navarro - yeah, I get that, but there is a wide gap between, let's just play beer and pretzels and horse around, and, let's do everything we can to break the game, right?
I mean, there's a lot of middle ground there, and you cam be a gamer without actively trying to abuse the rules to the maximum extent possible, given any opportunity.
Yes, and thats why a company of such size with the oldest games around is expected to create a professional and robust ruleset that does not allow:
A) A couple guys in a tournament take it a step to far and find loopholes and exploit that, ruining the experience for the other players
B) The incompetent and competent players have exactly the same chance of winning due to the random nature of the game.
The casual gamer is quite more flexible and tolerant to these things and thats cool, but thats only half of the crowd GW should aim for.
Me personally I like simple games but with some depth, X wing, Spacehulk and Songs of blades and heroes... Even looking at one page rules ( good job from those folks there)... This has the potential to be good yet the depth is a bit shallow at the moment. I miss the look of a mass of regiments on a table and all of them with specific points etc building lists is a lot more fun than just "bring your collection".
In principle, I agree entirely. This is the way the game is set up to be played, and in theory it would work with that attitude. But...
With a complete lack of points, even if both opponents have the best intentions in the world there is the no way of knowing (without having already played a few dozen games) if their forces are even. With points, you can eradicate most if the imbalance just by knowing what's over/under powered and finding a middle ground, but with this system, you can't actually tell, there's no metric by which you can determine how good or bad a unit, and therefore an army, is.
After a few months of gaming you might get to the point you get a feel for balancing forces, but how many people are going to essentially do GW's play testing for then for that long rather than just moving on to a game that provides actual rules for matching armies?
I'll be the first to admit, no model maximum per unit is baffling to me too. Maybe there is a model maximum per game, based on the scenario size, or perhaps diminishing returns on larger blobs?
I think surely someone thought of the scenario of a FB veteran bringing his 200 painted wood elves and putting them in one unit.
ImAGeek wrote: How can anyone think that a game with no balancing mechanic at all is a good idea..?
I swear, some people would laud GW as 'bold and innovative' if they wrapped actual dog poo and sold it for £50.
The only thing that makes sense is that the Design Studio has had some sort of bet, where they try to find out how far they can go before no one will defend the crap they put out.
I've been reaching for a word to encapsulate Talys' attitude for weeks, and it just struck me!
Utterly oblivious to problems that exist for other gamers, and apparently unwilling to attach any weight to them.
This is untrue. How many times have I said, if you're into small competitive games, 40k isn't the best selection?!
You seem to be totally unwilling to consider that a large population of players might actually enjoy relatively casual, entertaining games and that there nay be a market foe such things, centered around miniatures.
Also, as I've asked, pleas attack my positions rather than me, personally.
You know tight balanced rules would benifit those casual players as much, if not more, than the competitive players right? And you seem unwilling to consider the flip side, that a large population of players might enjoy a tight competitive game.
In fairness though, he is right. If you want tight balanced rules, then games workshop probably isn't for you. Like that guy in 'grumpy old men' said: you can wish into one hand and crap into the other and see which one fills up first.
Yeah, but there's absolutely no reason for GW (or anyone) to not write balanced rules. A tight ruleset benefits literally the whole playerbase. There seems to be lots of people who like the models, and lore (pre Age of Sigmar reboot anyway) of the GW games but not the rules, is it not understandable that they'd be a bit annoyed at the state of the rules when there's no reason not to have a balanced ruleset? Everyone would win.
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'm one of those KoW decriers and I'll fully acknowledge that AoS is going to be worse than KoW.
In fairness though, he is right. If you want tight balanced rules, then games workshop probably isn't for you. Like that guy in 'grumpy old men' said: you can wish into one hand and crap into the other and see which one fills up first.
Yeah, but there's absolutely no reason for GW (or anyone) to not write balanced rules. A tight ruleset benefits literally the whole playerbase. There seems to be lots of people who like the models, and lore (pre Age of Sigmar reboot anyway) of the GW games but not the rules, is it not understandable that they'd be a bit annoyed at the state of the rules when there's no reason not to have a balanced ruleset? Everyone would win.
I agree with you completely there, but look at gw. The hhhobby is making purchases from them. Their customers are young ocd males who like collecting toy soldiers. This is all stuff from official sources. This is why people talk about games workshop dying. They're not interested in their games *as* games. They're interested in selling minis and think the minis sell themselves. It sucks, but there it is. Years of people asking for better rules, so they squat down and push out this steaming pile. This is games workshop.
I've been reaching for a word to encapsulate Talys' attitude for weeks, and it just struck me!
Utterly oblivious to problems that exist for other gamers, and apparently unwilling to attach any weight to them.
This is untrue. How many times have I said, if you're into small competitive games, 40k isn't the best selection?!
You seem to be totally unwilling to consider that a large population of players might actually enjoy relatively casual, entertaining games and that there nay be a market foe such things, centered around miniatures.
Also, as I've asked, pleas attack my positions rather than me, personally.
You know tight balanced rules would benifit those casual players as much, if not more, than the competitive players right? And you seem unwilling to consider the flip side, that a large population of players might enjoy a tight competitive game.
It's not a question of if a balanced ruleset would be beneficial to anyone; of course it would. The underlying issue is that Games Workshop as a company have never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever shown the slightest interest in producing a game like that.
This is what astounds me about the hardcore tournament folks. Games like 40k and WHFB have never been written or intended for that purpose, yet people insist on twisting, tweaking and outright rewriting them regardless to make them fit. It's like buying a motorbike and complaining it's not fit to plough fields with, rather than buying a tractor.
If you want a tabletop equivalent of Starcraft then by all means, find and buy that. But please don't pretend that a company with zero history of interest in this goal is suddenly going to shift direction overnight thanks to the 2,439,397th Internet post on the subject. They're too busy knocking off early to the pub after collectively writing 4 pages of rules for a major product.
Kimchi Gamer wrote: I spoke with our GW rep this morning and was told in no uncertain terms that there would be no 9th edition Fantasy. Fantasy as we know it is gone. AoS will be the new system going forward. I've known this guy for awhile and see no reason why he would fib about something like that. Unfortunately or fortunately, this is the future of Warhammer.
Two things.... that guy might be 100% telling the truth as he knows it but the real decision is likely way above his pay grade. Second... remember when a month or two before space hulk was released when one of GW's celebrity game designers said in no uncertain terms that space hulk wasn't coming out? I do. No offense to your rep but ignorance and deceit are the tools of both the Inquisition AND corporate Gw.
In fairness though, he is right. If you want tight balanced rules, then games workshop probably isn't for you. Like that guy in 'grumpy old men' said: you can wish into one hand and crap into the other and see which one fills up first.
Yeah, but there's absolutely no reason for GW (or anyone) to not write balanced rules. A tight ruleset benefits literally the whole playerbase. There seems to be lots of people who like the models, and lore (pre Age of Sigmar reboot anyway) of the GW games but not the rules, is it not understandable that they'd be a bit annoyed at the state of the rules when there's no reason not to have a balanced ruleset? Everyone would win.
Yea, ImAGeek, I hear you, and it's not like I disagree. There's no reason they can't at all -- although I'm going to reserve my judgement on Age of Sigmar until next week, when I have the *actual product* to say that it's unbalanced. In the meantime, abuse aside, it looks like a game that COULD be fun (if you strip away things that look abusable at the moment). Some aspects look kind of cool. It's not going to replace 40k for me, but we often play little games of other stuff to fill out time if we're waiting for people or finish early, but not early enough to play another game of 40k.
Speaking of other games that GW makes, maybe it's frustrating that they don't make a really finely balanced game (though I think the rules are pretty tight now) because they have a lot of nice stuff, and maybe it's frustrating that they just cater to a niche of a niche, but at least it's obvious what they are and what they produce, and there's lots of alternatives if you want something else, right? But anyhow, this should be a thread about Sigmar, so I digress
xttz wrote: It's not a question of if a balanced ruleset would be beneficial to anyone; of course it would. The underlying issue is that Games Workshop as a company have never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever shown the slightest interest in producing a game like that. This is what astounds me about the hardcore tournament folks. Games like 40k and WHFB have never been written or intended for that purpose, yet people insist on twisting, tweaking and outright rewriting them regardless to make them fit. It's like buying a motorbike and complaining it's not fit to plough fields with, rather than buying a tractor.
If you want a tabletop equivalent of Starcraft then by all means, find and buy that. But please don't pretend that a company with zero history of interest in this goal is suddenly going to shift direction overnight thanks to the 2,439,397th Internet post on the subject. They're too busy knocking off early to the pub after collectively writing 4 pages of rules for a major product.
I think if you add a couple more evers you hit the next prime number
I've said a zillion times that whatever nostalgic sentiment of 40k being balanced once upon a time is baffling to me, as someone who's played 40k since RT. It's never detracted from the fun for the people who enjoy that sort of thing, and it's endlessly frustrating for people who want to make it something that the authors don't care to accommodate. StarCraft will always be way better at being StarCraft than any tabletop miniature game, because of one simple thing... matchmaking! To me, miniature games suck when you're playing unhandicapped against someone much less skilled, and even if the rules are balanced, they have no chance to win.
In principle, I agree entirely. This is the way the game is set up to be played, and in theory it would work with that attitude. But...
With a complete lack of points, even if both opponents have the best intentions in the world there is the no way of knowing (without having already played a few dozen games) if their forces are even. With points, you can eradicate most if the imbalance just by knowing what's over/under powered and finding a middle ground, but with this system, you can't actually tell, there's no metric by which you can determine how good or bad a unit, and therefore an army, is.
After a few months of gaming you might get to the point you get a feel for balancing forces, but how many people are going to essentially do GW's play testing for then for that long rather than just moving on to a game that provides actual rules for matching armies?
I'll be the first to admit, no model maximum per unit is baffling to me too. Maybe there is a model maximum per game, based on the scenario size, or perhaps diminishing returns on larger blobs?
I think surely someone thought of the scenario of a FB veteran bringing his 200 painted wood elves and putting them in one unit.
When this steaming pile of gak gets flushed after 5 or 6 months, GW will rush out a rehashed version of WFB. All will rejoice and all will be right with the world.
GW has already committed to this "New Coke" mess, so we all just have to weather the storm until "WFB Classic" arrives.
It will come, because AoS has zero chance of success.
Torga_DW wrote: In fairness though, he is right. If you want tight balanced rules, then games workshop probably isn't for you.
Like that guy in 'grumpy old men' said: you can wish into one hand and crap into the other and see which one fills up first.
Exactly. GW is great BnP fun, but it's not, never will be balanced. It's kinda dumb wishing for some nebulous "balance" when GW has been pretty consistent over the past 20+ years at NOT focusing on balance. I wonder if the "balance" crowd works themselves into a tizzy wishing that they were taller, that the world were more fair, etc.
It's not a question of if a balanced ruleset would be beneficial to anyone; of course it would. The underlying issue is that Games Workshop as a company have never ever shown the slightest interest in producing a game like that.
Given the popularity of competitive wargaming do you not think that, maybe just maybe GW should be producing a game like that? Do you not think that GW should take in the view from their ivory tower and see how the gaming landscape has changed?
A balanced ruleset benefits everyone, from 'narrative' gamers to WAAC types (well maybe not them but that's a good thing), and more importantly from GW's perspective it will lead to a stable and enjoyable game.
I prefer RPGs these days so I am very much interested in the 'story' of a wargame, the little events that stand out and are memorable years or even decades afterwards. For these to occur there needs to be either a third party acting as a GM (far from ideal) or the ruleset should be flexible and robust enough to allow this to happen; in other words in order to "forge a narrative" there has to be solid rules that don't simply revolve around the throw of a pair of dice.
When this steaming pile of gak gets flushed after 5 or 6 months, GW will rush out a rehashed version of WFB. All will rejoice and all will be right with the world.
GW has already committed to this "New Coke" mess, so we all just have to weather the storm until "WFB Classic" arrives.
It will come, because AoS has zero chance of success.
Or GW will totally give up on fantasy and just do 40k which I would say it much more likely
When this steaming pile of gak gets flushed after 5 or 6 months, GW will rush out a rehashed version of WFB. All will rejoice and all will be right with the world.
GW has already committed to this "New Coke" mess, so we all just have to weather the storm until "WFB Classic" arrives.
It will come, because AoS has zero chance of success.
But that's not how GW, historically, have seen things. If this fails, they'll see it as people don't want to buy fantasy models and just drop it all together.
When this steaming pile of gak gets flushed after 5 or 6 months, GW will rush out a rehashed version of WFB. All will rejoice and all will be right with the world.
GW has already committed to this "New Coke" mess, so we all just have to weather the storm until "WFB Classic" arrives.
It will come, because AoS has zero chance of success.
I think this is make or break time for fantasy. When this steaming pile gets flushed, there won't be anything afterwards.
While I am not a long-term player of GW games, I disagree with the sentiment that GW has *never* been interested in producing more competitive, rules-oriented, or balanced versions of their games. While 7E 40k has taken a turn towards more fluff-based casual game play, 5E 40k was supposedly a pretty decent tournament game (until certain armies really upset the meta). Having played a bit of 8E Fantasy as well, I can say that the game was really a decent tournament game. So while Fantasy isn't ever going to be Chess, Age of Sigmar is a move away from 8E towards "beer and pretzel" nonsense that goes too far.
It's not a question of if a balanced ruleset would be beneficial to anyone; of course it would. The underlying issue is that Games Workshop as a company have never ever shown the slightest interest in producing a game like that.
Given the popularity of competitive wargaming do you not think that, maybe just maybe GW should be producing a game like that?
In an ideal world, sure. I also think I should win the lottery and retire at 30 with an awesome car to a luxury home in sunny country.
And I'm pretty sure posting on the Internet is more likely to achieve that than change GW's business practices.
When this steaming pile of gak gets flushed after 5 or 6 months, GW will rush out a rehashed version of WFB. All will rejoice and all will be right with the world.
GW has already committed to this "New Coke" mess, so we all just have to weather the storm until "WFB Classic" arrives.
It will come, because AoS has zero chance of success.
But that's not how GW, historically, have seen things. If this fails, they'll see it as people don't want to buy fantasy models and just drop it all together.
Much like how Epic was silently canned when its rewrite failed to shift product off the shelves.
rollawaythestone wrote: While I am not a long-term player of GW games, I disagree with the sentiment that GW has *never* been interested in producing more competitive, rules-oriented, or balanced versions of their games. While 7E 40k has taken a turn towards more fluff-based casual game play, 5E 40k was supposedly a pretty decent tournament game (until certain armies really upset the meta). Having played a bit of 8E Fantasy as well, I can say that the game was really a decent tournament game. So while Fantasy isn't ever going to be Chess, Age of Sigmar is a move away from 8E towards "beer and pretzel" nonsense that goes too far.
Therein lies the catch: 5th was decent until they released the broken armies. With hindsight, 5th looks the best, but the reality was it still had problems that needed fixing. There really is no edition you can look back and say: everything was close to perfect.
rollawaythestone wrote: While I am not a long-term player of GW games, I disagree with the sentiment that GW has *never* been interested in producing more competitive, rules-oriented, or balanced versions of their games. While 7E 40k has taken a turn towards more fluff-based casual game play, 5E 40k was supposedly a pretty decent tournament game (until certain armies really upset the meta). Having played a bit of 8E Fantasy as well, I can say that the game was really a decent tournament game. So while Fantasy isn't ever going to be Chess, Age of Sigmar is a move away from 8E towards "beer and pretzel" nonsense that goes too far.
Therein lies the catch: 5th was decent until they released the broken armies. With hindsight, 5th looks the best, but the reality was it still had problems that needed fixing. There really is no edition you can look back and say: everything was close to perfect.
It is a fallacy often trotted out though. I've read interviews with Alessio where he talks about how there was a move towards making the game more tournament ready, but then, in true GW style, they switched direction halfway through and wandered off in another direction.
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.
Yah it says upgrades are listed under unit description in the white dwarf. Then... nothing else. .. if the upgrade is free then why would you never take it? It makes no sense.
Talys wrote: I think surely someone thought of the scenario of a FB veteran bringing his 200 painted wood elves and putting them in one unit.
Massed hordes of weak models won't be the thing, as they just leave you open to Sudden Death. The power builds will be small forces made up of the most powerful single model warscrolls, or massed units of the most powerful 'unlimited unit' warscrolls.
As unpleased as I am with the current developments. I hope for Fantasy's sake that this does well. If this fails, WHFB is gone. If it does well, it might still have a chance. It won't be the same, but it'll still be alive at least, and who knows, things could improve. Possibly. Maybe. Probably not... But still, one can hope.
I am sorry, for me the conversation stopped with "The World is Dead".
Warhammer was about playing in the world, using armies based on 30 years of writing and development.
So now I can field my O&G army, and my Empire, and my Skaven.
Great.
Where do they exist? On a bubble floating in space, waiting to be reincarnated by demi-gods? What about the thousands years civilization that led to the Elves and their accursed kin?
Tokens on a table as a pale representation of the archetype they were made to be is just miniature masturbation.
And for ME, I have no interest in playing WITH or AGAINST some hodgepodge mishmash of Goodies vs Badies.
I think if I went to a store and saw people playing an army of High Elves and Skaven and Dwarfs on the SAME SIDE, I would probably shed a small tear and walk away with my head hanging low...
Nope, 7th edition is where I dropped my anchor, and that's where I will fish!
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.
Yah it says upgrades are listed under unit description in the white dwarf. Then... nothing else. .. if the upgrade is free then why would you never take it? It makes no sense.
I'd guess upgrades would be things like - replace CCW with Spear/Greatweapon/etc. Each will have a benefit and drawback. Like maybe Greatweapon give +1 to wound, -1 to hit, Spear gives +1 to hit, -1 to wound or something. With a simple benefit and drawback no points mechanic would be needed, theoretically.
I think this is make or break time for fantasy. When this steaming pile gets flushed, there won't be anything afterwards.
Mantic. Mantic will be left afterwards.
Would now also be a good time to mention Darklands, who are going after the lower model count skirmish style fantasy game, have some of the finest sculpts in all of Christendom and have just launched a KS to transition a lot of the core units from resin to metal, dramatically dropping the cost of entry?
I think this is make or break time for fantasy. When this steaming pile gets flushed, there won't be anything afterwards.
Mantic. Mantic will be left afterwards.
Would now also be a good time to mention Darklands, who are going after the lower model count skirmish style fantasy game, have some of the finest sculpts in all of Christendom and have just launched a KS to transition a lot of the core units from resin to metal, dramatically dropping the cost of entry?
I was being glib- really what's left now is other companies making fantasy games. Mantic is doing the big movement block thing and basically cannibalizing the WFB armies into their system. Eventually I'm sure someone will KS a non-Oldhammer Oldhammer game.
Talys wrote: I think surely someone thought of the scenario of a FB veteran bringing his 200 painted wood elves and putting them in one unit.
Massed hordes of weak models won't be the thing, as they just leave you open to Sudden Death. The power builds will be small forces made up of the most powerful single model warscrolls, or massed units of the most powerful 'unlimited unit' warscrolls.
Yeah, fair 'nuff. Basically, the winningest unlimited unit warscrolls was what I meant; I just randomly typed in 'wood elves'
I wasn't really saying that you ONLY take MSU though. You take your boss creatures, and bubble wrap them in a bazillion of the most durable massed models.
But again, if the scenario has a hard limit on model count, this would change things. For example, if you can take anything you want, but we alternate warscroll selection (and it could end at any time if one player calls it), and there's a hard limit of 100 models total.
Torga_DW wrote: In fairness though, he is right. If you want tight balanced rules, then games workshop probably isn't for you.
Like that guy in 'grumpy old men' said: you can wish into one hand and crap into the other and see which one fills up first.
Exactly. GW is great BnP fun, but it's not, never will be balanced. It's kinda dumb wishing for some nebulous "balance" when GW has been pretty consistent over the past 20+ years at NOT focusing on balance. I wonder if the "balance" crowd works themselves into a tizzy wishing that they were taller, that the world were more fair, etc.
But it's not great B&P fun. I'm a B&P game player and loose systems are the opposite of fun. I don't want to pull out a crystal ball and summon the spirits of gaming in order to read the mind of some drooling mongrel that seems completely unable to write a coherent sentence much less a game rule. No, B&P games are board games, B&P games are games like cards against humanity; GW is unable to make a light, enjoyable game. It's ok that they can't but the last thing someone drinking and goofing around wants are rules that are so poorly written that the author didn't even know what he meant when he wrote them.
This fallacy of GW games as B&P is up there in the annoy-o-meter with GW being it's own hobby unto itself or Donald Trump's combined (seriously dude, just shave it off).
ImAGeek wrote: How can anyone think that a game with no balancing mechanic at all is a good idea..?
Balance is not always important to me for a good game.
I like to play games where I have little to no chance quite often, I love playing my Bloodbowl gobbos for example and they almost always stand no chance.
I have played a few historical battles where my back was up against the wall also.
The game only needs balance when players all need a equal chance of winning, (or at least the chance to stand a chance ) like a tourney or whatever.
It would be best to for one system to please both parties though for sure, although I am not that sure whether it is completely achievable.
With regards to this AoS thing, its not really my cup of tea, mainly the minis are terrible, but the rules themselves i have no problem with, sounds a bit different to what I am used to also.
Talys wrote: I think surely someone thought of the scenario of a FB veteran bringing his 200 painted wood elves and putting them in one unit.
Massed hordes of weak models won't be the thing, as they just leave you open to Sudden Death. The power builds will be small forces made up of the most powerful single model warscrolls, or massed units of the most powerful 'unlimited unit' warscrolls.
So since I play skaven and "apparently" massed weak models won't be a thing (which sucks because I have 400ish models for my skaven army) I will be bringing:
Thanqoul and Boneripper
Seerlords of some kind
2 hellpits
3 doomwheels
Plague furnace (I wonder how they will work now??)
Not as much fun as fielding 200 models in a 2000 point game tho
insaniak wrote: That doesn't really change anything, unless every individual model is equal in strength.
100 Goblins are not equal to 100 Greater Daemons. I
No, but if I read the alternating deployment (rumor) correctly, it could be:
- Player A deploys 1 greater daemon - Player B deploys 1 goblin boss (whatever that may be...) - Player A deploys 1 greater daemon - Player B deploys 99 goblins - Player A deploys 1 greater daemon - Player B calls it quits
Then you have 3 greater daemons vs 99 goblins and 1 goblin king.
Is there a mechanism to prevent this? I think this is what we all kind of want to know...
The warscrolls in the box don't seem to have any points system on them. Only rules, no unit sizes either? Just says "any number of models" for the Angels.
So, since their is no initiative, wich side fight first ? And does dead models can fight back?
Both players must empty their wallets out on to the table, then yell WAAAGH! as loud as they can. Add the amount of money each player had to the decibel level of their WAAAGH!, higher number goes first.
Seriously though, I think it's pretty safe to say folk have divided into three camps now; GIRFUY(google it) GW, the Postmodernist "rules are so 20th century" crowd, and the folk enjoying an Egyptian river cruise.
At this point I've written off AoS as a system; it's a joke by the looks of things. I just want to see pretty pictures of the other Chaos models.
insaniak wrote: That doesn't really change anything, unless every individual model is equal in strength.
100 Goblins are not equal to 100 Greater Daemons. I
No, but if I read the alternating deployment (rumor) correctly, it could be:
- Player A deploys 1 greater daemon
- Player B deploys 1 goblin boss (whatever that may be...)
- Player A deploys 1 greater daemon
- Player B deploys 99 goblins
- Player A deploys 1 greater daemon
- Player B calls it quits
Then you have 3 greater daemons vs 99 goblins and 1 goblin king.
Is there a mechanism to prevent this? I think this is what we all kind of want to know...
When the first player stops, the second player is still allowed to keep going until he runs out of either models or table space.
So in your example, player a goes on to deploy another 27 Bloodthirsters, gains Sudden Death victory conditions, and the game is practically over before it begins.
When the first player stops, the second player is still allowed to keep going until he runs out of either models or table space.
So in your example, player a goes on to deploy another 27 Bloodthirsters, gains Sudden Death victory conditions, and the game is practically over before it begins.
I could have old person brain right now and not know what I'm talking about, but.. thinking about the last time I got a starter box, it was the WFB one that had skaven in it. I think I remember the book listing the units in the box didn't really have the points or anything, just stats and it was like "Hey, just set up these guys and play" .. could be the same thing here? Make it simple for what comes in the box, and the web rules/scrolls or some secret book we'll suddenly have to buy will have points or some other you-can-only-have-this-many rule?
I've been reaching for a word to encapsulate Talys' attitude for weeks, and it just struck me!
Utterly oblivious to problems that exist for other gamers, and apparently unwilling to attach any weight to them.
This is untrue. How many times have I said, if you're into small competitive games, 40k isn't the best selection?!
You seem to be totally unwilling to consider that a large population of players might actually enjoy relatively casual, entertaining games and that there nay be a market foe such things, centered around miniatures.
Also, as I've asked, pleas attack my positions rather than me, personally.
You know tight balanced rules would benifit those casual players as much, if not more, than the competitive players right? And you seem unwilling to consider the flip side, that a large population of players might enjoy a tight competitive game.
It's not a question of if a balanced ruleset would be beneficial to anyone; of course it would. The underlying issue is that Games Workshop as a company have never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever shown the slightest interest in producing a game like that.
This is what astounds me about the hardcore tournament folks. Games like 40k and WHFB have never been written or intended for that purpose, yet people insist on twisting, tweaking and outright rewriting them regardless to make them fit. It's like buying a motorbike and complaining it's not fit to plough fields with, rather than buying a tractor.
If you want a tabletop equivalent of Starcraft then by all means, find and buy that. But please don't pretend that a company with zero history of interest in this goal is suddenly going to shift direction overnight thanks to the 2,439,397th Internet post on the subject. They're too busy knocking off early to the pub after collectively writing 4 pages of rules for a major product.
Lol.
The funniest thing here is the fact that GW created a few tourney rulesets (or tried to) and it was confirmed by Rick Priestley, he was about 3rd edition 40k and 5th or 6th fantasy afair.
Then the design studio said about 5 that it was too balanced and competitive and they want more craziness in 6th. They created the competitive ayer base themselves only to crap all over it later and hide their incompetence behind narrative excuses and cheap random mechanisms.
Doesnt stop casual players from spewing ignorant bs like your claim though.
Not to mention that a game without any balance, if not targeted at seasoned wargamers is just a pewpewing vehicle. Why do you evn need rulesets, just throw dice at minis.
Necros wrote: I could have old person brain right now and not know what I'm talking about, but.. thinking about the last time I got a starter box, it was the WFB one that had skaven in it. I think I remember the book listing the units in the box didn't really have the points or anything, just stats and it was like "Hey, just set up these guys and play" .. could be the same thing here? Make it simple for what comes in the box, and the web rules/scrolls or some secret book we'll suddenly have to buy will have points or some other you-can-only-have-this-many rule?
I was thinking that too, but these units, unlike any previous starter I can think of, has new units never before seen. How can people expand on the set without knowing its points etc? Because unlike previous starters these models have no rules elsewhere?
Maybe they will have rules elsewhere so I don't know.
When this steaming pile of gak gets flushed after 5 or 6 months, GW will rush out a rehashed version of WFB. All will rejoice and all will be right with the world.
GW has already committed to this "New Coke" mess, so we all just have to weather the storm until "WFB Classic" arrives.
It will come, because AoS has zero chance of success.
Slight problem with this line of thought: it WILL be successful. Here's why: the models are gorgeous. A lot of us want them. I'm buying a kit to build up my Chaos army. That's a box sold for GW. The Chaos army will be used for older Warhammer editions and KoW. But GW doesn't know that. They know I bought a box and "love" their AoS.
Plumbumbarum wrote: The funniest thing here is the fact that GW created a few tourney rulesets (or tried to) and it was confirmed by Rick Priestley, he was about 3rd edition 40k and 5th or 6th fantasy afair.
It hasn't been that long since GW stopped doing their own tournaments, has it? I mean, if people have been playing as long as they claim, then surely they would remember Slayer Swords and the like?
Thokt wrote: Looks dead in the water to me. No points could be okay, but how's a total new guy gonna know what to play with?
Beyond that, because there's no wound allocation mechanic, hits are rolled on a model by model basis. I can't even..
Were did you read this? I thought I read the rules and they said roll wounds towards the entire unit and then alot the wounds how you wanted.
Yeah, if I'm reading the rules correctly every model in the attacking unit makes their attacks, all the wounds they inflict are then allocated to the unit they attacked by the player commanding the unit that was attacked. Once a player allocates a wound to a specific model that model keeps taking wounds until all the wounds are used up or the model dies.
When the first player stops, the second player is still allowed to keep going until he runs out of either models or table space.
So in your example, player a goes on to deploy another 27 Bloodthirsters, gains Sudden Death victory conditions, and the game is practically over before it begins.
Hmmmm. okay, I gave the rules page a proper read. So really, a player's strategy must be to optimize their battleforce to fit the size of table they wish to play on, based on deployment space. Or some maximum model count, if there's such a limit.
Necros wrote: I could have old person brain right now and not know what I'm talking about, but.. thinking about the last time I got a starter box, it was the WFB one that had skaven in it. I think I remember the book listing the units in the box didn't really have the points or anything, just stats and it was like "Hey, just set up these guys and play" .. could be the same thing here? Make it simple for what comes in the box, and the web rules/scrolls or some secret book we'll suddenly have to buy will have points or some other you-can-only-have-this-many rule?
I don't think so, because the scrolls that have been leaked allow for units to include any number of models. If they were pre-set to the models in the starter set or something we could imagine that versions with point values (or something else) could come out later, but that is not the case here.
There are no points, and do not seem to be any other realistic balancing factors involved. The only two limiting factors seem to be:
1) You can only play with as many models as you can manage to fit in your deployment zone.
2) If you have 1/3 less models than your opponent at the start then you're able to pick a sudden death victory condition that you can achieve, but even that advantage is really questionable.
This means unless there is some other rules hidden somewhere, there is literally no reason to not take just the most powerful models as your entire force...like an army filled with all-powerful characters, monsters, etc. (multiples of whatever you consider to be the most powerful single model). Taking anything besides uber-powerful models is just insane, because you are only penalized for:
A) having more models and
B) losing models.
So the only true determining factor is to make sure your army only includes models that pack the most punch and are as durable as possible.
The best plan therefore would be to just have a collection of something like a hundred bloodthirsters (or however many will fit into the deployment space you're playing on). Then you guys start setting up your armies (alternating deploying units). Once your opponent stops deploying, you keep deploying bloodthirsters until you are one model shy of the 1/3 more models limit or run out of deployment space.
When this steaming pile of gak gets flushed after 5 or 6 months, GW will rush out a rehashed version of WFB. All will rejoice and all will be right with the world.
GW has already committed to this "New Coke" mess, so we all just have to weather the storm until "WFB Classic" arrives.
It will come, because AoS has zero chance of success.
Slight problem with this line of thought: it WILL be successful. Here's why: the models are gorgeous. A lot of us want them. I'm buying a kit to build up my Chaos army. That's a box sold for GW. The Chaos army will be used for older Warhammer editions and KoW. But GW doesn't know that. They know I bought a box and "love" their AoS.
Well, from that perspective, any time GW pops a box of around 50 cool models for about $120, I'll happily buy it. I mean, it doesn't get much better in terms of price per model, even if they are snapfit. The detail on them is fantastic. And by the way, I'd say (and do) exactly the same thing if PP came out with a similar box!
Necros wrote: I could have old person brain right now and not know what I'm talking about, but.. thinking about the last time I got a starter box, it was the WFB one that had skaven in it. I think I remember the book listing the units in the box didn't really have the points or anything, just stats and it was like "Hey, just set up these guys and play" .. could be the same thing here? Make it simple for what comes in the box, and the web rules/scrolls or some secret book we'll suddenly have to buy will have points or some other you-can-only-have-this-many rule?
I don't think so, because the scrolls that have been leaked allow for units to include any number of models. If they were pre-set to the models in the starter set or something we could imagine that versions with point values (or something else) could come out later, but that is not the case here.
There are no points, and do not seem to be any other realistic balancing factors involved. The only two limiting factors seem to be:
1) You can only play with as many models as you can manage to fit in your deployment zone.
2) If you have 1/3 less models than your opponent at the start then you're able to pick a sudden death victory condition that you can achieve, but even that advantage is really questionable.
This means unless there is some other rules hidden somewhere, there is literally no reason to not take just the most powerful models as your entire force...like an army filled with all-powerful characters, monsters, etc. (multiples of whatever you consider to be the most powerful single model). Taking anything besides uber-powerful models is just insane, because you are only penalized for:
A) having more models and
B) losing models.
So the only true determining factor is to make sure your army only includes models that pack the most punch and are as durable as possible.
The best plan therefore would be to just have a collection of something like a hundred bloodthirsters (or however many will fit into the deployment space you're playing on). Then you guys start setting up your armies (alternating deploying units). Once your opponent stops deploying, you keep deploying bloodthirsters until you are one model shy of the 1/3 more models limit or run out of deployment space.
1 warscroll, if current warscrolls are anything to go buy, can consist of unlimited models. I can have 1 unit of angel thingies with 700,000 models and it still counts as one warscroll. Apparently that is equal to a warscroll that limits you to one battle lizard.
How do you balance this as it currently sits? Well you cant unless you get rid of the warscrolls or change how a warscroll works.
I think the sudden death rule is brilliant and creates a self limiting game environment with clever gamble/ bidding element that adds an entirely new aspect to the game.
Each player will likely want to have one superhero capable of dealing with the likes of a greater demon of khorne single handedly though as potential counter.
TheAuldGrump wrote: The thing is that the game should be playable in a tournament setting
Why?
Why not?
The game should be playable in a tournament setting.
The game should be playable for a league.
The game should be playable when any two people want a pick up game.
Because the more ways you can play the game, the larger the community. And community makes the game.
With no points, this is a clusterfeth. You could play it as a narrative or scenario driven game. But if a game can't be played by two people meeting up at a store/club, then it fails. And right now, this one does just that. One of my employees asked about the game today, I told him we'd get a game in on Thursday when I get my demo set. I told him to bring whatever, so would i, we'd play. And slowly his eyes got big as to how screwed up this rules set is
I'm considering changing all the Warscrolls into cards similar to Epic/Spacemarine, and putting in points and model count as a way to play games at the store. Waiting to see full rules. Like to run a tournament soon, had one scheduled for the 12th, but....
Thokt wrote: Looks dead in the water to me. No points could be okay, but how's a total new guy gonna know what to play with?
Beyond that, because there's no wound allocation mechanic, hits are rolled on a model by model basis. I can't even..
Were did you read this? I thought I read the rules and they said roll wounds towards the entire unit and then alot the wounds how you wanted.
Yeah, if I'm reading the rules correctly every model in the attacking unit makes their attacks, all the wounds they inflict are then allocated to the unit they attacked by the player commanding the unit that was attacked. Once a player allocates a wound to a specific model that model keeps taking wounds until all the wounds are used up or the model dies.
Not quite, the melee weapons have a range, so if your charge and pile in move doesn't get you in that range, that model can't attack. The allocation part is correct.
AoS is bound to be a failure. Its a total change of a beloved 30 year product. There jettisoning there core players for mythical "new" players. Young people with whom they have to compete with CCGs & video games. Loser proposition.
Also any comments from GW officially or their booster club about past attempts to save the game are a pack of lies. Constantly changing the rules isn't fixing them. New army books are not balanced army books.
Kendo wrote: I think the sudden death rule is brilliant and creates a self limiting game environment with clever gamble/ bidding element that adds an entirely new aspect to the game.
Each player will likely want to have one superhero capable of dealing with the likes of a greater demon of khorne single handedly though as potential counter.
It's not a question of if a balanced ruleset would be beneficial to anyone; of course it would. The underlying issue is that Games Workshop as a company have never ever shown the slightest interest in producing a game like that.
Given the popularity of competitive wargaming do you not think that, maybe just maybe GW should be producing a game like that?
Of course not, because actual competitive wargaming is a tiny niche that Warmahordes has already captured.
Milhaila, give up; as someone mentioned earlier, there are people who will look at the steaming pile of rules and just see the pretty, plastic models and therefore excuse any deficiencies. So be it, to each his/her joy. The question is are there enough of such people to make this new game a success or will it go the way of Dreadfleet?
Thokt wrote: Looks dead in the water to me. No points could be okay, but how's a total new guy gonna know what to play with?
Beyond that, because there's no wound allocation mechanic, hits are rolled on a model by model basis. I can't even..
Were did you read this? I thought I read the rules and they said roll wounds towards the entire unit and then alot the wounds how you wanted.
Yeah, if I'm reading the rules correctly every model in the attacking unit makes their attacks, all the wounds they inflict are then allocated to the unit they attacked by the player commanding the unit that was attacked. Once a player allocates a wound to a specific model that model keeps taking wounds until all the wounds are used up or the model dies.
Not quite, the melee weapons have a range, so if your charge and pile in move doesn't get you in that range, that model can't attack. The allocation part is correct.
Why do the melee weapons have a range stat when the rules clearly state that any model within 3" can make a melee attack? Doesn't that essentially give every melee weapon a range of 3"?
When the first player stops, the second player is still allowed to keep going until he runs out of either models or table space.
So in your example, player a goes on to deploy another 27 Bloodthirsters, gains Sudden Death victory conditions, and the game is practically over before it begins.
It looks like the To Hit and To Wound are functions of the unit, not the target. That means those 99 Goblins may have 5+ to hit and 5+ to wound on the Bloodthirsters? Does that help a bit? Though, they'd have the same rolls to hit and wound other goblins then...
Swastakowey wrote: 1 warscroll, if current warscrolls are anything to go buy, can consist of unlimited models. I can have 1 unit of angel thingies with 700,000 models and it still counts as one warscroll. Apparently that is equal to a warscroll that limits you to one battle lizard.
How do you balance this as it currently sits? Well you cant unless you get rid of the warscrolls or change how a warscroll works.
The fact that you can take unlimited models in many units is not really an issue at all until we see any evidence of limitations on the number of warscrolls you can include in a game, and so far there isn't any such indication.
The much bigger problem is that all the victory conditions are tied to the fundamental concept that every single model is equal, which is a complete an utter game-breaking decision.
I really hope that the no points thing is GW purposefully creating misinformation so when they reveal that there are in fact points in this game we all praise them for their great rule making. I mean at this point everyone would be ecstatic if there was really a balancing mechanic, but if they had showed the balancing mechanic from the start (they have at least a general knowledge when, and from where leaks will happen) then we would have just discussed the other flaws with this rule set.
On the bright side, if there are no template weapons then there is no longer a reason to try to keep your models as far from each other as possible. This means people could leave their hordes ranked up for faster movement. It seems to me moving 30 tyranid gaunts so that they are spaced correctly to minimize damage from a blast slows down games significantly.
That's the thing though: what we have is a simple and quite possibly amazing ruleset that will have tons of blending depth and tweaking to it. But without points, it's meaningless. The game and rules WOULD be praise-worthy if points were a part of it. I think GW just earned the title of "almost". They almost got it...
Thokt wrote: Looks dead in the water to me. No points could be okay, but how's a total new guy gonna know what to play with?
Beyond that, because there's no wound allocation mechanic, hits are rolled on a model by model basis. I can't even..
Were did you read this? I thought I read the rules and they said roll wounds towards the entire unit and then alot the wounds how you wanted.
Yeah, if I'm reading the rules correctly every model in the attacking unit makes their attacks, all the wounds they inflict are then allocated to the unit they attacked by the player commanding the unit that was attacked. Once a player allocates a wound to a specific model that model keeps taking wounds until all the wounds are used up or the model dies.
Not quite, the melee weapons have a range, so if your charge and pile in move doesn't get you in that range, that model can't attack. The allocation part is correct.
Why do the melee weapons have a range stat when the rules clearly state that any model within 3" can make a melee attack? Doesn't that essentially give every melee weapon a range of 3"?
I think within 3" is is the range which you are "in combat", but the rules for attacking also state that you have to be within the listed range of the weapon in order to make an attack.
Swastakowey wrote: 1 warscroll, if current warscrolls are anything to go buy, can consist of unlimited models. I can have 1 unit of angel thingies with 700,000 models and it still counts as one warscroll. Apparently that is equal to a warscroll that limits you to one battle lizard.
How do you balance this as it currently sits? Well you cant unless you get rid of the warscrolls or change how a warscroll works.
The fact that you can take unlimited models in many units is not really an issue at all until we see any evidence of limitations on the number of warscrolls you can include in a game, and so far there isn't any such indication.
The much bigger problem is that all the victory conditions are tied to the fundamental concept that every single model is equal, which is a complete an utter game-breaking decision.
I would think it would be a big problem in regards to setting up a game. I mean how would say you and I figure out what size game we'd play? Choose a number of warscrolls? Even the same number of warscrolls could still lead to a huge disparity in army size and power. Do we have to set a number of models? Not all models are equal so that doesn't really help have a balanced battle either. Do we have to only play scenarios? That seems to limit us to the scenarios that GW provides or to generate our own scenario that we agree upon prior to playing. Without point values or unit sizes it seems like a huge unnecessary hassle just to set up a game.
Have we considered that some of the scenarios will perhaps only allow narrow deployments? 6" squares for instance.
Also, if the terrain ends up in the deployment zones this could create unfair advantages.
This is all still very much in the realm of we don't fething know anything yet. We've seen things sure.. but what we have seen may not be nearly as important as what we have not.
Having another look through the rules, it seems to me that you can just walk away from combat? Charging seems to be the only way to get in combat, but if on your turn you are within that 3" range you can just retreat away. There is no more locked in combat.
When this steaming pile of gak gets flushed after 5 or 6 months, GW will rush out a rehashed version of WFB. All will rejoice and all will be right with the world.
GW has already committed to this "New Coke" mess, so we all just have to weather the storm until "WFB Classic" arrives.
It will come, because AoS has zero chance of success.
Slight problem with this line of thought: it WILL be successful. Here's why: the models are gorgeous. A lot of us want them. I'm buying a kit to build up my Chaos army. That's a box sold for GW. The Chaos army will be used for older Warhammer editions and KoW. But GW doesn't know that. They know I bought a box and "love" their AoS.
Well, from that perspective, any time GW pops a box of around 50 cool models for about $120, I'll happily buy it. I mean, it doesn't get much better in terms of price per model, even if they are snapfit. The detail on them is fantastic. And by the way, I'd say (and do) exactly the same thing if PP came out with a similar box!
picture of sprue in spoiler
Spoiler:
That is a space marine. Only thing missing is a bolter.....
hmmm.... Hay wait a minute....
I want some of these guys, now. might need those chaos ones, for some gak and giggles.
Thokt wrote: Looks dead in the water to me. No points could be okay, but how's a total new guy gonna know what to play with?
Beyond that, because there's no wound allocation mechanic, hits are rolled on a model by model basis. I can't even..
Were did you read this? I thought I read the rules and they said roll wounds towards the entire unit and then alot the wounds how you wanted.
Yeah, if I'm reading the rules correctly every model in the attacking unit makes their attacks, all the wounds they inflict are then allocated to the unit they attacked by the player commanding the unit that was attacked. Once a player allocates a wound to a specific model that model keeps taking wounds until all the wounds are used up or the model dies.
Not quite, the melee weapons have a range, so if your charge and pile in move doesn't get you in that range, that model can't attack. The allocation part is correct.
Why do the melee weapons have a range stat when the rules clearly state that any model within 3" can make a melee attack? Doesn't that essentially give every melee weapon a range of 3"?
I think within 3" is is the range which you are "in combat", but the rules for attacking also state that you have to be within the listed range of the weapon in order to make an attack.
I don't mean to be argumentative but when I read the Combat Phase description in the rules it seems to definitively state that units within 3" get to make attacks with any and all melee weapons. Since every melee weapon can be used within 3" it seems like a melee range stat is irrelevant.
Prestor Jon wrote: I don't mean to be argumentative but when I read the Combat Phase description in the rules it seems to definitively state that units within 3" get to make attacks with any and all melee weapons. Since every melee weapon can be used within 3" it seems like a melee range stat is irrelevant.
Units with models within 3" get to make attacks... but if you check the rules for Attacking, each individual model checks range against their target.
So being within 3" allows the unit to fight... but each individual model needs to have an enemy unit in range of their weapon in order to attack.
Thokt wrote: Looks dead in the water to me. No points could be okay, but how's a total new guy gonna know what to play with?
Beyond that, because there's no wound allocation mechanic, hits are rolled on a model by model basis. I can't even..
Were did you read this? I thought I read the rules and they said roll wounds towards the entire unit and then alot the wounds how you wanted.
Yeah, if I'm reading the rules correctly every model in the attacking unit makes their attacks, all the wounds they inflict are then allocated to the unit they attacked by the player commanding the unit that was attacked. Once a player allocates a wound to a specific model that model keeps taking wounds until all the wounds are used up or the model dies.
Not quite, the melee weapons have a range, so if your charge and pile in move doesn't get you in that range, that model can't attack. The allocation part is correct.
Why do the melee weapons have a range stat when the rules clearly state that any model within 3" can make a melee attack? Doesn't that essentially give every melee weapon a range of 3"?
I think within 3" is is the range which you are "in combat", but the rules for attacking also state that you have to be within the listed range of the weapon in order to make an attack.
I don't mean to be argumentative but when I read the Combat Phase description in the rules it seems to definitively state that units within 3" get to make attacks with any and all melee weapons. Since every melee weapon can be used within 3" it seems like a melee range stat is irrelevant.
There seems to be two qualifiers that need to be met to make a melee attack:
-Be within 3", which allows you to make the pile in move.
- After the pile in move, be within the melee range of the equipped weapon.
While being within the 3 inches lets you "attack", we see that the actual attack is split up into two parts. Piling in, which requires the 3" range (it even says this lets you move in closer to be able to make an attack), and the actual melee attack, which uses the range stat of the weapon.
Prestor Jon wrote:I would think it would be a big problem in regards to setting up a game. I mean how would say you and I figure out what size game we'd play? Choose a number of warscrolls? Even the same number of warscrolls could still lead to a huge disparity in army size and power. Do we have to set a number of models? Not all models are equal so that doesn't really help have a balanced battle either. Do we have to only play scenarios? That seems to limit us to the scenarios that GW provides or to generate our own scenario that we agree upon prior to playing. Without point values or unit sizes it seems like a huge unnecessary hassle just to set up a game.
The rules that have been leaked are quite specific: You just start setting up and keep setting up until you want to stop or you run out of room to deploy. You don't figure out how big a game you want to play, you just start deploying units and keep going until you want to stop.
MLaw wrote:Have we considered that some of the scenarios will perhaps only allow narrow deployments? 6" squares for instance.
Also, if the terrain ends up in the deployment zones this could create unfair advantages.
This is all still very much in the realm of we don't fething know anything yet. We've seen things sure.. but what we have seen may not be nearly as important as what we have not.
The leaked rules are again explicit about deployment zones. You roll off and the winning player chooses the 'type' of deployment (either long-edge half, short-edge half or L-shaped corner half), with the opposing player then choosing which half to take as theirs. Players can deploy within their 'territory' (their half of the table) so long as it isn't within 12" of the opponent's territory (the opposing half of the table). Depending on the size of the table you're playing that can be pretty limiting, as there always will be a 24" spacer between the forces. It's also probably why they list 3'x3' square as the minimum table size you can use.
I've been reaching for a word to encapsulate Talys' attitude for weeks, and it just struck me!
Utterly oblivious to problems that exist for other gamers, and apparently unwilling to attach any weight to them.
This is untrue. How many times have I said, if you're into small competitive games, 40k isn't the best selection?!
You seem to be totally unwilling to consider that a large population of players might actually enjoy relatively casual, entertaining games and that there nay be a market foe such things, centered around miniatures.
Also, as I've asked, pleas attack my positions rather than me, personally.
You know tight balanced rules would benifit those casual players as much, if not more, than the competitive players right? And you seem unwilling to consider the flip side, that a large population of players might enjoy a tight competitive game.
It's not a question of if a balanced ruleset would be beneficial to anyone; of course it would. The underlying issue is that Games Workshop as a company have never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever shown the slightest interest in producing a game like that.
This is what astounds me about the hardcore tournament folks. Games like 40k and WHFB have never been written or intended for that purpose, yet people insist on twisting, tweaking and outright rewriting them regardless to make them fit. It's like buying a motorbike and complaining it's not fit to plough fields with, rather than buying a tractor.
If you want a tabletop equivalent of Starcraft then by all means, find and buy that. But please don't pretend that a company with zero history of interest in this goal is suddenly going to shift direction overnight thanks to the 2,439,397th Internet post on the subject. They're too busy knocking off early to the pub after collectively writing 4 pages of rules for a major product.
Lol.
The funniest thing here is the fact that GW created a few tourney rulesets (or tried to) and it was confirmed by Rick Priestley, he was about 3rd edition 40k and 5th or 6th fantasy afair.
Then the design studio said about 5 that it was too balanced and competitive and they want more craziness in 6th. They created the competitive ayer base themselves only to crap all over it later and hide their incompetence behind narrative excuses and cheap random mechanisms.
Doesnt stop casual players from spewing ignorant bs like your claim though.
Not to mention that a game without any balance, if not targeted at seasoned wargamers is just a pewpewing vehicle. Why do you evn need rulesets, just throw dice at minis.
Even with GWs reluctance to support competitive play, there really is nothing stopping the community from patching the game themselves and making it better.
Starcraft (both 1 and 2) has been largely balanced via the maps used by tournaments, but plenty of other games had community patches be the standard for competitive play.
For example: counter strike was originally a fan made mod of half life, as was the first team fortress (but for quake).
Dota was a custom map for warcraft 3, that went on to spawn an entire genre.
Quake had several competitive mods throughout its various incarnations i believe (promod etc, not a quake player so might get yhe name wrong here).
And perhaps the best example: when nintendo decided they didnt like how competitive the super smash community had become around Melee for the GameCube, and released a new version with blatant anti competition mechanics (like randomized tripping... yes... because that's fun for non-competitive players somehow?), the competitive community stuck to the older version and thrived, and also created a competitive patch for the new game called project m.
I'm not super knowledgeable about this scene but my understanding is both games shared a tourney scene with melee being a bit more popular.
And for a game like 40k or fantasy it should be even easier to create a fan made version. It's just that the community seems to have a simultaneous slavic devotion to following gw rules as written while in the same breath deriding their incompetence. I think something like the itc could eventually get enough traction to do something like this and be accepted though.
Prestor Jon wrote:I would think it would be a big problem in regards to setting up a game. I mean how would say you and I figure out what size game we'd play? Choose a number of warscrolls? Even the same number of warscrolls could still lead to a huge disparity in army size and power. Do we have to set a number of models? Not all models are equal so that doesn't really help have a balanced battle either. Do we have to only play scenarios? That seems to limit us to the scenarios that GW provides or to generate our own scenario that we agree upon prior to playing. Without point values or unit sizes it seems like a huge unnecessary hassle just to set up a game.
The rules that have been leaked are quite specific: You just start setting up and keep setting up until you want to stop or you run out of room to deploy. You don't figure out how big a game you want to play, you just start deploying units and keep going until you want to stop.
MLaw wrote:Have we considered that some of the scenarios will perhaps only allow narrow deployments? 6" squares for instance.
Also, if the terrain ends up in the deployment zones this could create unfair advantages.
This is all still very much in the realm of we don't fething know anything yet. We've seen things sure.. but what we have seen may not be nearly as important as what we have not.
The leaked rules are again explicit about deployment zones. You roll off and the winning player chooses the 'type' of deployment (either long-edge half, short-edge half or L-shaped corner half), with the opposing player then choosing which half to take as theirs. Players can deploy within their 'territory' (their half of the table) so long as it isn't within 12" of the opponent's territory (the opposing half of the table). Depending on the size of the table you're playing that can be pretty limiting, as there always will be a 24" spacer between the forces. It's also probably why they list 3'x3' square as the minimum table size you can use.
I just don't buy into the idea that we've seen everything yet..
Thokt wrote: Looks dead in the water to me. No points could be okay, but how's a total new guy gonna know what to play with?
Beyond that, because there's no wound allocation mechanic, hits are rolled on a model by model basis. I can't even..
Were did you read this? I thought I read the rules and they said roll wounds towards the entire unit and then alot the wounds how you wanted.
Yeah, if I'm reading the rules correctly every model in the attacking unit makes their attacks, all the wounds they inflict are then allocated to the unit they attacked by the player commanding the unit that was attacked. Once a player allocates a wound to a specific model that model keeps taking wounds until all the wounds are used up or the model dies.
Not quite, the melee weapons have a range, so if your charge and pile in move doesn't get you in that range, that model can't attack. The allocation part is correct.
Why do the melee weapons have a range stat when the rules clearly state that any model within 3" can make a melee attack? Doesn't that essentially give every melee weapon a range of 3"?
I think within 3" is is the range which you are "in combat", but the rules for attacking also state that you have to be within the listed range of the weapon in order to make an attack.
I don't mean to be argumentative but when I read the Combat Phase description in the rules it seems to definitively state that units within 3" get to make attacks with any and all melee weapons. Since every melee weapon can be used within 3" it seems like a melee range stat is irrelevant.
There seems to be two qualifiers that need to be met to make a melee attack:
-Be within 3", which allows you to make the pile in move.
- After the pile in move, be within the melee range of the equipped weapon.
While being within the 3 inches lets you "attack", we see that the actual attack is split up into two parts. Piling in, which requires the 3" range (it even says this lets you move in closer to be able to make an attack), and the actual melee attack, which uses the range stat of the weapon.
Edit: spelling!
OK, I found the bit in the Picking Targets section that mentions range. I would have thought they would have mentioned it more prominently in the Combat Phase and Attacking sections.
Prestor Jon wrote:I would think it would be a big problem in regards to setting up a game. I mean how would say you and I figure out what size game we'd play? Choose a number of warscrolls? Even the same number of warscrolls could still lead to a huge disparity in army size and power. Do we have to set a number of models? Not all models are equal so that doesn't really help have a balanced battle either. Do we have to only play scenarios? That seems to limit us to the scenarios that GW provides or to generate our own scenario that we agree upon prior to playing. Without point values or unit sizes it seems like a huge unnecessary hassle just to set up a game.
The rules that have been leaked are quite specific: You just start setting up and keep setting up until you want to stop or you run out of room to deploy. You don't figure out how big a game you want to play, you just start deploying units and keep going until you want to stop.
You show up to play with any 35 models you want, I show up with the 142 model i want to uses. We both deploy all our models on the table and start playing. Given the chasm of disparity that could easily exist between the power levels of our two armies wouldn't playing like that be a bit of an obstacle to having fun?
Samurai_Eduh wrote: Having another look through the rules, it seems to me that you can just walk away from combat? Charging seems to be the only way to get in combat, but if on your turn you are within that 3" range you can just retreat away. There is no more locked in combat.
Quite possibly. I read the part about retreat, and it didn't seem to say anything about "unless in combat" etc. So on your turn, you could move 4-5" directly away from that unit, but do nothing else.
But the enemy can move towards you if going second, or charge you if you retreated after their movement was over. You get into combat two ways 1) being within 3" in the assault phase and piling in. 2) being within 12" in the assault phase, moving 2d6" and coming in melee range.
So you might "get away" only to do nothing for the turn and then get beat on again. If you aren't locked in combat, neither is the other guy. Could lead to either a good tactical game, or really stupid stuff happening.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Avrik_Shasla wrote: The leaked rules I am sure are just the "Basic rules for playing" slips that are common with many starter boxes.
Lets just wait and see everyone, the end is not nigh.
The leaked rules are the 4 page rules from the starter. Those will be posted online for a free download.
Samurai_Eduh wrote: Having another look through the rules, it seems to me that you can just walk away from combat? Charging seems to be the only way to get in combat, but if on your turn you are within that 3" range you can just retreat away. There is no more locked in combat.
Quite possibly. I read the part about retreat, and it didn't seem to say anything about "unless in combat" etc. So on your turn, you could move 4-5" directly away from that unit, but do nothing else.
But the enemy can move towards you if going second, or charge you if you retreated after their movement was over. You get into combat two ways 1) being within 3" in the assault phase and piling in. 2) being within 12" in the assault phase, moving 2d6" and coming in melee range.
So you might "get away" only to do nothing for the turn and then get beat on again. If you aren't locked in combat, neither is the other guy. Could lead to either a good tactical game, or really stupid stuff happening.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Avrik_Shasla wrote: The leaked rules I am sure are just the "Basic rules for playing" slips that are common with many starter boxes.
Lets just wait and see everyone, the end is not nigh.
The leaked rules are the 4 page rules from the starter. Those will be posted online for a free download.
Samurai_Eduh wrote: Having another look through the rules, it seems to me that you can just walk away from combat? Charging seems to be the only way to get in combat, but if on your turn you are within that 3" range you can just retreat away. There is no more locked in combat.
Quite possibly. I read the part about retreat, and it didn't seem to say anything about "unless in combat" etc. So on your turn, you could move 4-5" directly away from that unit, but do nothing else.
But the enemy can move towards you if going second, or charge you if you retreated after their movement was over. You get into combat two ways 1) being within 3" in the assault phase and piling in. 2) being within 12" in the assault phase, moving 2d6" and coming in melee range.
So you might "get away" only to do nothing for the turn and then get beat on again. If you aren't locked in combat, neither is the other guy. Could lead to either a good tactical game, or really stupid stuff happening.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Avrik_Shasla wrote: The leaked rules I am sure are just the "Basic rules for playing" slips that are common with many starter boxes.
Lets just wait and see everyone, the end is not nigh.
The leaked rules are the 4 page rules from the starter. Those will be posted online for a free download.
According to GW those are indeed the only rules.
Where is the confirmation? I must've missed it.
Click Mikhaila's name and check his post history, you'll shortly see the post about his conversation with his GW rep.
Red Marine wrote: AoS is bound to be a failure. Its a total change of a beloved 30 year product. There jettisoning there core players for mythical "new" players. Young people with whom they have to compete with CCGs & video games. Loser proposition.
.
This has been their business strategy since the late 1980's. The idea is always to bring in the new player (usually 12 years old or thereabouts), get him spending money for a couple of years, then forget about him as, at this point, he's no longer spending the amount of money that the company thinks a player should be spending. This game is addressing this issue directly. The old Warhammer game stopped bringing in new players fast enough and the only people who cared anymore were the veteran gamers. The one who already had all of their armies and would sometimes add to them (as opposed to building new armies from scratch). AoS is an attempt to make the game easier to jump in to for those 12 year olds. The fact that you're pissed off means nothing at all to them because you are no longer their core demographic.
Necros wrote: I could have old person brain right now and not know what I'm talking about, but.. thinking about the last time I got a starter box, it was the WFB one that had skaven in it. I think I remember the book listing the units in the box didn't really have the points or anything, just stats and it was like "Hey, just set up these guys and play" .. could be the same thing here? Make it simple for what comes in the box, and the web rules/scrolls or some secret book we'll suddenly have to buy will have points or some other you-can-only-have-this-many rule?
Yep. Same thing with Assault on Black Reach except they listed points but still wanted you to face the included forces against each other.
Neither force had all its special rules listed either.
Still too early to judge completely.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldarain wrote: So is there a requirement to have your army of scrolls selected before the game?
Or are we tailoring as we go?
If one of my previous FLGS's is a sign, you're supposed to tailor as you go.
Every time I showed up, I'd be asked what I was fielding and then 15 minutes later my opponents would have great lists to counter my all-comers army
Prestor Jon wrote:I would think it would be a big problem in regards to setting up a game. I mean how would say you and I figure out what size game we'd play? Choose a number of warscrolls? Even the same number of warscrolls could still lead to a huge disparity in army size and power. Do we have to set a number of models? Not all models are equal so that doesn't really help have a balanced battle either. Do we have to only play scenarios? That seems to limit us to the scenarios that GW provides or to generate our own scenario that we agree upon prior to playing. Without point values or unit sizes it seems like a huge unnecessary hassle just to set up a game.
The rules that have been leaked are quite specific: You just start setting up and keep setting up until you want to stop or you run out of room to deploy. You don't figure out how big a game you want to play, you just start deploying units and keep going until you want to stop.
MLaw wrote:Have we considered that some of the scenarios will perhaps only allow narrow deployments? 6" squares for instance.
Also, if the terrain ends up in the deployment zones this could create unfair advantages.
This is all still very much in the realm of we don't fething know anything yet. We've seen things sure.. but what we have seen may not be nearly as important as what we have not.
The leaked rules are again explicit about deployment zones. You roll off and the winning player chooses the 'type' of deployment (either long-edge half, short-edge half or L-shaped corner half), with the opposing player then choosing which half to take as theirs. Players can deploy within their 'territory' (their half of the table) so long as it isn't within 12" of the opponent's territory (the opposing half of the table). Depending on the size of the table you're playing that can be pretty limiting, as there always will be a 24" spacer between the forces. It's also probably why they list 3'x3' square as the minimum table size you can use.
on a 4x6 board or 4x4 board, it works out to about what they are now. the problem is going smaller to a 3x3 like you sujested.
Necros wrote: I could have old person brain right now and not know what I'm talking about, but.. thinking about the last time I got a starter box, it was the WFB one that had skaven in it. I think I remember the book listing the units in the box didn't really have the points or anything, just stats and it was like "Hey, just set up these guys and play" .. could be the same thing here? Make it simple for what comes in the box, and the web rules/scrolls or some secret book we'll suddenly have to buy will have points or some other you-can-only-have-this-many rule?
Yep. Same thing with Assault on Black Reach except they listed points but still wanted you to face the included forces against each other.
Neither force had all its special rules listed either.
Still too early to judge completely.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldarain wrote: So is there a requirement to have your army of scrolls selected before the game?
Or are we tailoring as we go?
If one of my previous FLGS's is a sign, you're supposed to tailor as you go.
Every time I showed up, I'd be asked what I was fielding and then 15 minutes later my opponents would have great lists to counter my all-comers army
Again, I don't believe that there is a no points system and that the rules that come in the box is it, don't believe it one bit.
Eldarain wrote: So is there a requirement to have your army of scrolls selected before the game?
Or are we tailoring as we go?
There are no rules for army creation. You just bring everything you want to bring, and deploy as much or as little of it as you want.
In spite of what the GW reps are telling stores.... I just can't believe it. If they are truly going down that path they're going to lose a huge amount of appeal from anyone who isn't simply an avid collector. Even LOTR, a game which leans more heavily on narrative play, has points values so players have some semblance of what should be paired up against what.
At this point I'm mostly thinking "Well, the reps are probably being dumb and not wanting to "spoil" next month's release by saying what is coming out later".
Maybe campaign packs which place limits on things or something like that.
Exactly. There is no way that there is no balancing what so ever. I am sure GW Reps can only say so much and have to say only what they can about the first week of release.
It's not a question of if a balanced ruleset would be beneficial to anyone; of course it would. The underlying issue is that Games Workshop as a company have never ever shown the slightest interest in producing a game like that.
Given the popularity of competitive wargaming do you not think that, maybe just maybe GW should be producing a game like that?
Of course not, because actual competitive wargaming is a tiny niche that Warmahordes has already captured.
And Infinity, and Malifaux, and x-wing, and mantic....
Your ideas aren't consistent with reality.
A tight ruleset can be sold and played by everyone.
A crappy ruleset only appeals to people with low standards.
Games workshop, despite some haters, has created some wonderfully balanced games, not all their content has been balanced, but the majority of their rulesets have been, they aren't going to just stop.
Games Workshop is a company which holds international tournaments where hundreds of masters participate in, they aren't going to create a game that cannot be balanced.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ashiraya wrote: Anyone else getting some Diablo vibes from this?
AllSeeingSkink wrote: In spite of what the GW reps are telling stores.... I just can't believe it. If they are truly going down that path they're going to lose a huge amount of appeal from anyone who isn't simply an avid collector. Even LOTR, a game which leans more heavily on narrative play, has points values so players have some semblance of what should be paired up against what.
At this point I'm mostly thinking "Well, the reps are probably being dumb and not wanting to "spoil" next month's release by saying what is coming out later".
Maybe campaign packs which place limits on things or something like that.
This isn't just down to what the reps are telling people, this is from the rules that we've already seen. There is absolutely no indication in the rules that these are only supposed to apply to the starter set, or that they will be modified later. The rules that we have seen are all that there is.
Yes, they absolutely might release campaigns later than do different things. But for now, this is what it is.
LOL it also looks like GW has hired a marketing company to go on BOLS and talk up the game. There is a regular BOLS Troll (tm) that is calling out all of these users who have just created accounts today and are only talking about how much they are looking forward to the game and how great it will be. They are only posting in AoS posts and are just replying back and forth to each other how much the game looks rad, lol.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: In spite of what the GW reps are telling stores.... I just can't believe it. If they are truly going down that path they're going to lose a huge amount of appeal from anyone who isn't simply an avid collector. Even LOTR, a game which leans more heavily on narrative play, has points values so players have some semblance of what should be paired up against what.
At this point I'm mostly thinking "Well, the reps are probably being dumb and not wanting to "spoil" next month's release by saying what is coming out later".
Maybe campaign packs which place limits on things or something like that.
This isn't just down to what the reps are telling people, this is from the rules that we've already seen. There is absolutely no indication in the rules that these are only supposed to apply to the starter set, or that they will be modified later. The rules that we have seen are all that there is.
Of course.... I'm just struggling to believe that they won't be modified later to bring in some way of balancing the game. I think at this point it's more likely they will be modified later and GW are just so caught up with the idea of secrecy that they'd rather tell people "Nup, this is it!" and surprise them next month than be honest and say "This is just a stopgap like Ravening Hordes was in 6th edition".
I'm genuinely looking forward to this.. at least to give it a peak.. Unfortunately this thread is not the place to talk about that, as it is stuck in a perpetual loop. It's like listening to deathmetal on cd and it starts skipping on the crappiest song on the album.
Avrik_Shasla wrote: Games workshop, despite some haters, has created some wonderfully balanced games, not all their content has been balanced, but the majority of their rulesets have been, they aren't going to just stop.
The people that wrote the better rulesets have left the company. Games Workshop is a company, the rules were written by the employees. The reason the rules are terrible is because the good designers have left.
Necros wrote: I could have old person brain right now and not know what I'm talking about, but.. thinking about the last time I got a starter box, it was the WFB one that had skaven in it. I think I remember the book listing the units in the box didn't really have the points or anything, just stats and it was like "Hey, just set up these guys and play" .. could be the same thing here? Make it simple for what comes in the box, and the web rules/scrolls or some secret book we'll suddenly have to buy will have points or some other you-can-only-have-this-many rule?
Yep. Same thing with Assault on Black Reach except they listed points but still wanted you to face the included forces against each other.
Neither force had all its special rules listed either.
Still too early to judge completely.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eldarain wrote: So is there a requirement to have your army of scrolls selected before the game?
Or are we tailoring as we go?
If one of my previous FLGS's is a sign, you're supposed to tailor as you go.
Every time I showed up, I'd be asked what I was fielding and then 15 minutes later my opponents would have great lists to counter my all-comers army
Again, I don't believe that there is a no points system and that the rules that come in the box is it, don't believe it one bit.
We'll find out this Saturday .
And i hope you are right. I hope that my sales rep lied to me. And all the other retailers getting the same info were lied to. And that the people in charge of the sales reps are also lying to me when I pound them for hours on the phone and we are all looking for a way for stores to actually run leagues and tournaments in the US. I'll be pounding away tomorrow and we'll see what we come up with.
And I hope these guys, some of which I've known for two decades aren't lying, and it's just a case of the GW higher ups in England giving misleading information to the US trade sales team, and they really do have a big book of actual rules and a points system on the way.
I really, really hope that somewhere there is more to the Age of Sigmar than just 4 pages of rules.
And if, as GW has told all the US retailers that indeed, there is no points system at all, that someone at GW wakes up, and puts Jeremy Vetock back to work on 9th edition WFB.
....and lo!.....The Age of Sigmar came to an end when Saint Veetock and his hamster legions smote the false Sigmar and destroyed the bubbleverse and lead the true believers back to the Old World. [b]
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Of course.... I'm just struggling to believe that they won't be modified later to bring in some way of balancing the game. I think at this point it's more likely they will be modified later and GW are just so caught up with the idea of secrecy that they'd rather tell people "Nup, this is it!" and surprise them next month than be honest and say "This is just a stopgap like Ravening Hordes was in 6th edition".
Except that Ravening Hordes had a way to facilitate balanced play (i.e. points). Releasing a system that is such a big risk and leaving a bad first impression is just so...well, GW like.
mikhaila wrote: ....and lo!.....The Age of Sigmar came to an end when Saint Veetock and his hamster legions smote the false Sigmar and destroyed the bubbleverse and lead the true believers back to the Old World. [b]
Awesome.
I rember Jeremy helping me name my Dwarf army characters for a campaign at the old Glen Burnie US HQ, back when I was a 15 year old kid. That dude is all about the hobby. Everyone was so excited when he got a job across the pond, and then got on the design team.
I think most of us at this point are hoping, against the available information, that there is some greater intricacy that we cannot yet see.
Also have a look at this section:
What is this supposed to mean? I mentioned it a couple of pages back, but 'in the previous battle' is either a misprint (and they meant battle round) or this is meant for some kind of campaign play.
If it was a misprint, then how does someone winning a "major victory" for achieving a sudden death win condition affect a game currently still going on? I would think as soon as someone won a major victory the game ended because, you know, somebody won it already?
All of this is amazingly confusing for a 4 page ruleset.
Samurai_Eduh wrote: Having another look through the rules, it seems to me that you can just walk away from combat? Charging seems to be the only way to get in combat, but if on your turn you are within that 3" range you can just retreat away. There is no more locked in combat.
Quite possibly. I read the part about retreat, and it didn't seem to say anything about "unless in combat" etc. So on your turn, you could move 4-5" directly away from that unit, but do nothing else.
So you might "get away" only to do nothing for the turn and then get beat on again. If you aren't locked in combat, neither is the other guy. Could lead to either a good tactical game, or really stupid stuff happening.
Could I tarpit an enemy unit, then I walk my tarpit out, have another unit shoot at them, and then have a 3rd unit charge the enemy? If so, then the game has some strong tactical options despite the streamlining of the rules.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: In spite of what the GW reps are telling stores.... I just can't believe it. If they are truly going down that path they're going to lose a huge amount of appeal from anyone who isn't simply an avid collector. Even LOTR, a game which leans more heavily on narrative play, has points values so players have some semblance of what should be paired up against what.
At this point I'm mostly thinking "Well, the reps are probably being dumb and not wanting to "spoil" next month's release by saying what is coming out later".
Maybe campaign packs which place limits on things or something like that.
This isn't just down to what the reps are telling people, this is from the rules that we've already seen. There is absolutely no indication in the rules that these are only supposed to apply to the starter set, or that they will be modified later. The rules that we have seen are all that there is.
Yes, they absolutely might release campaigns later than do different things. But for now, this is what it is.
We've seen leaks, and that's it, not even the confirmation from the actual GW company.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: In spite of what the GW reps are telling stores.... I just can't believe it. If they are truly going down that path they're going to lose a huge amount of appeal from anyone who isn't simply an avid collector. Even LOTR, a game which leans more heavily on narrative play, has points values so players have some semblance of what should be paired up against what.
At this point I'm mostly thinking "Well, the reps are probably being dumb and not wanting to "spoil" next month's release by saying what is coming out later".
Maybe campaign packs which place limits on things or something like that.
This isn't just down to what the reps are telling people, this is from the rules that we've already seen. There is absolutely no indication in the rules that these are only supposed to apply to the starter set, or that they will be modified later. The rules that we have seen are all that there is.
Yes, they absolutely might release campaigns later than do different things. But for now, this is what it is.
We've seen leaks, and that's it, not even the confirmation from the actual GW company.
I'll hold my breath.
Except all the GW sales reps have been talking and selling this new edition to stores across the country and have confirmed everyrthing we've seen here.
"Yeah man, just take your full army against your buddies full army, and just have at it! Oh yeah, and we're not supporting Tournament play for this game what so ever down the road, even though that has been against what we've done for decades now!"
Yeah, I'm not buying it yet. Reps just can't give out too much information for such a big release. Again, stop the fear mongering and just wait, this will be a good release.
What is this supposed to mean? I mentioned it a couple of pages back, but 'in the previous battle' is either a misprint (and they meant battle round) or this is meant for some kind of campaign play.
If it was a misprint, then how does someone winning a "major victory" for achieving a sudden death win condition affect a game currently still going on? I would think as soon as someone won a major victory the game ended because, you know, somebody won it already?
All of this is amazingly confusing for a 4 page ruleset.
There is no sign of any campaign rules. But yes, apparently of you win a major victory , you get a bonus in your next game.
Just another sign that this game is designed for friends to play at home, rather than for pick up games.
I don't think you need your proposed fix. The whole deployment system is a super strategic aspect of the game where each opponent is constantly counting and assessing the other enemies strengths and determining if now is the time to drop that 100 strong unit of skagen slaves and try for overwhelming numbers or keep numbers low and go for sudden death.
"Yeah man, just take your full army against your buddies full army, and just have at it! Oh yeah, and we're not supporting Tournament play for this game what so ever down the road, even though that has been against what we've done for decades now!"
Yeah, I'm not buying it yet. Reps just can't give out too much information for such a big release. Again, stop the fear mongering and just wait, this will be a good release.
I think you're missing the point where Mikhaila talks about a 20 year relationship with his rep, generally you don't get that kind of flippancy from that kind of retail relationship. Generally, you get "Listen, the company is telling me to say this but wink, wink." That's been my experience anyway. Who knows maybe every rep is sleazy ex-used care salesman and has no problem lying to someone who's kept them gainfully employed for decades...that's a pretty pessimistic view of human nature though.
Kendo wrote: I don't think you need your proposed fix. The whole deployment system is a super strategic aspect of the game where each opponent is constantly counting and assessing the other enemies strengths and determining if now is the time to drop that 100 strong unit of skagen slaves and try for overwhelming numbers or keep numbers low and go for sudden death.
You serious? From what everyone is believing online, I can bring 10,000 models to a tournament and fight against anyone there, and it's legal.
I won't believe it till the release. It's already been confirmed that they are putting out books for this new game.
I believe that a company who's reps are famous for obfuscation and denial regarding how much they know about new releases are not suddenly going to just start feeding their business partners large amounts of information if that info is outright lies. I believe even GW are not stupid enough to instruct their reps to feed their business partners, knowingly or otherwise, outright lies. I believe that mikhaila has done or said absolutely nothing in the past to make me doubt their veracity. Suggesting that people who are taking a trustworthy person, who was evidently genuinely astounded by the utterly illogical ineptitude of AoS as a system and spent several hours on the phone with a rep trying to clarify the situation only to have people's fears pretty much confirmed, at their word are the gullible ones while you insist there are no tanks in GW, that I believe takes the biscuit.
Kendo wrote: I don't think you need your proposed fix. The whole deployment system is a super strategic aspect of the game where each opponent is constantly counting and assessing the other enemies strengths and determining if now is the time to drop that 100 strong unit of skagen slaves and try for overwhelming numbers or keep numbers low and go for sudden death.
You serious? From what everyone is believing online, I can bring 10,000 models to a tournament and fight against anyone there, and it's legal.
the rules don't mention anything about tournaments. You could however bring 100000 models to my house, spend 3 hours trying to squeeze a 100th of them on to my gaming table while we laughed and drank beer and I asked how you kept you sanity putting that many models together. When I was drunk and you were done we would play one round and I would lose and she'd no tears over it.
Or you could bring a force that would offer meaningful competition based on the gaming social contract and we could still drink beer and actually get a couple games in.
Your call my friend.
Kendo wrote: I don't think you need your proposed fix. The whole deployment system is a super strategic aspect of the game where each opponent is constantly counting and assessing the other enemies strengths and determining if now is the time to drop that 100 strong unit of skagen slaves and try for overwhelming numbers or keep numbers low and go for sudden death.
You serious? From what everyone is believing online, I can bring 10,000 models to a tournament and fight against anyone there, and it's legal.
the rules don't mention anything about tournaments. You could however bring 100000 models to my house, spend 3 hours trying to squeeze a 100th of them on to my gaming table while we laughed and drank beer and I asked how you kept you sanity putting that many models together. When I was drunk and you were done we would play one round and I would lose and she'd no tears over it.
Or you could bring a force that would offer meaningful competition based on the gaming social contract and we could still drink beer and actually get a couple games in.
Your call my friend.
How about just the beer, the laughs and a game that actually works? I'd bring the beer, I brew my own.
Kendo wrote: I don't think you need your proposed fix. The whole deployment system is a super strategic aspect of the game where each opponent is constantly counting and assessing the other enemies strengths and determining if now is the time to drop that 100 strong unit of skagen slaves and try for overwhelming numbers or keep numbers low and go for sudden death.
You serious? From what everyone is believing online, I can bring 10,000 models to a tournament and fight against anyone there, and it's legal.
the rules don't mention anything about tournaments. You could however bring 100000 models to my house, spend 3 hours trying to squeeze a 100th of them on to my gaming table while we laughed and drank beer and I asked how you kept you sanity putting that many models together. When I was drunk and you were done we would play one round and I would lose and she'd no tears over it.
Or you could bring a force that would offer meaningful competition based on the gaming social contract and we could still drink beer and actually get a couple games in.
Your call my friend.
Seeing that Games Workshop already confirmed through Reps that there are planned leagues and tournaments, I'd assume so.
I would suspect in that case there will be amendments. However, reading strictly what is in these rules, you could bring those 10000 models you mentioned. I suspect though that there will be additional rules for those scenarios, as GW has always been very explicit that the core rules are not the exact set of rules you are looking for in regards to tournaments. every tournament I have ever played in had house rules or extra rules as part of some organized play system to add further perceived ed balance to the basic rule set.
Kendo wrote: I don't think you need your proposed fix. The whole deployment system is a super strategic aspect of the game where each opponent is constantly counting and assessing the other enemies strengths and determining if now is the time to drop that 100 strong unit of skagen slaves and try for overwhelming numbers or keep numbers low and go for sudden death.
You serious? From what everyone is believing online, I can bring 10,000 models to a tournament and fight against anyone there, and it's legal.
the rules don't mention anything about tournaments. You could however bring 100000 models to my house, spend 3 hours trying to squeeze a 100th of them on to my gaming table while we laughed and drank beer and I asked how you kept you sanity putting that many models together. When I was drunk and you were done we would play one round and I would lose and she'd no tears over it.
Or you could bring a force that would offer meaningful competition based on the gaming social contract and we could still drink beer and actually get a couple games in.
Your call my friend.
Seeing that Games Workshop already confirmed through Reps that there are planned leagues and tournaments, I'd assume so.
So you believe the Reps are telling the truth about Leagues and Tournaments but lying to all of the Store Owners about the rules?
Avrik_Shasla wrote: Games workshop, despite some haters, has created some wonderfully balanced games, not all their content has been balanced, but the majority of their rulesets have been, they aren't going to just stop.
Games Workshop is a company which holds international tournaments where hundreds of masters participate in, they aren't going to create a game that cannot be balanced.
GW runs almost no tournaments now, and haven't for years, so not sure what you're talking about here. The big tournaments are all run by independents. It wasn't always this way, GW initiated the "Grand Tournament" system, and even had 'Ard Boyz competitive tournies for a few years more recently. But it hasn't been that way for some time...
Kendo wrote: I don't think you need your proposed fix. The whole deployment system is a super strategic aspect of the game where each opponent is constantly counting and assessing the other enemies strengths and determining if now is the time to drop that 100 strong unit of skagen slaves and try for overwhelming numbers or keep numbers low and go for sudden death.
You serious? From what everyone is believing online, I can bring 10,000 models to a tournament and fight against anyone there, and it's legal.
the rules don't mention anything about tournaments. You could however bring 100000 models to my house, spend 3 hours trying to squeeze a 100th of them on to my gaming table while we laughed and drank beer and I asked how you kept you sanity putting that many models together. When I was drunk and you were done we would play one round and I would lose and she'd no tears over it.
Or you could bring a force that would offer meaningful competition based on the gaming social contract and we could still drink beer and actually get a couple games in.
Your call my friend.
Seeing that Games Workshop already confirmed through Reps that there are planned leagues and tournaments, I'd assume so.
So you believe the Reps are telling the truth about Leagues and Tournaments but lying to all of the Store Owners about the rules?
Kendo wrote: I don't think you need your proposed fix. The whole deployment system is a super strategic aspect of the game where each opponent is constantly counting and assessing the other enemies strengths and determining if now is the time to drop that 100 strong unit of skagen slaves and try for overwhelming numbers or keep numbers low and go for sudden death.
You serious? From what everyone is believing online, I can bring 10,000 models to a tournament and fight against anyone there, and it's legal.
the rules don't mention anything about tournaments. You could however bring 100000 models to my house, spend 3 hours trying to squeeze a 100th of them on to my gaming table while we laughed and drank beer and I asked how you kept you sanity putting that many models together. When I was drunk and you were done we would play one round and I would lose and she'd no tears over it.
Or you could bring a force that would offer meaningful competition based on the gaming social contract and we could still drink beer and actually get a couple games in.
Your call my friend.
Seeing that Games Workshop already confirmed through Reps that there are planned leagues and tournaments, I'd assume so.
First I've heard of that. Sales reps will certainly encourage stores to run things...if they can...but GW has feth all to do with running events. As of monday, they had no plans, or suggestions, for running events. The only thing i heard was limiting people to same number of war scrolls, wounds, or models. None of these work. I'll be working with my rep and his boss tomorrow on trying to figure out how to run an event, and have each person bring roughly the same strength army.
First I've heard of that. Sales reps will certainly encourage stores to run things...if they can...but GW has feth all to do with running events. As of monday, they had no plans, or suggestions, for running events. The only thing i heard was limiting people to same number of war scrolls, wounds, or models. None of these work. I'll be working with my rep and his boss tomorrow on trying to figure out how to run an event, and have each person bring roughly the same strength army.
This is just tragic. I'm glad you are really pressing them, but it's really tragic that they likely won't be able to come up with anything. I hope it goes up the chain from sales to ears that can do something about it. I feel real empathy for those poor salespeople that have to pitch this stuff, but can't actually defend the products they are trying to sell.
The guys in US trade sales really get stuck in a bad spot.
The UK has few gaming stores, the US has thousands. But the UK sets the policy, limits their knowledge, and tells them how they are supposed to pitch things. And they have to deal with FLGS store owners. Most of which are independent as all hell, stubborn, and working hard to not lose what little money they get. Imagine getting a call about Age of Sigmar, which suddenly is coming out on the same day as a MTG pre-release event, and asking stores for 5500 dollars. Most stores buy as much MTG as they can afford and run multiple events all weekend, filling every chair they can fit in.
It's not an easy week for the GW sales reps. And while I feel for them, I know I'm one of the ones giving them a hard time.
GW has never stopped running events at Warhammer World...
for years White Dwarf has featured people's doubles armies for WHFB, 40K, and LotR...
they have Throne of Skulls, Battle Brothers, and a few other regular events...
there is a summer campaign, and events scheduled for August since before the re-opening...
happily, for me, Golden Demon is being hosted there now...
i think a very telling thing will be if any AoS events pop-up on the calendar...
that would definitely be an indicator that there is a way to play this game competitively...
i'm firmly in the wait and see camp...
i have a feeling there will be a way for players to organize their armies, and all the hyperbole like, "bring 30 Bloodthirsters" will be shown to be just that...
The rules add nothing to the cost. The "free" mini simply feeds the completist bent of most gamers. GW will sell far more stuff after giving 1 mini than they would without rules or mini.
JohnHwangDD wrote: GW will sell far more stuff after giving 1 mini than they would without rules or mini.
Probably true.
Also- someone linked me this video, not sure if it's been posted here. Some guy managed to get his hands on the contents of the mag and flipped through it.
Only a few notable things I hadn't heard before. Stuff seems to have a lot more wounds than the old warhammer. The guys with the hammers and shields are called 'Liberators', and their unit champion is the hilariously named 'Liberator Prime'
JohnHwangDD wrote: GW will sell far more stuff after giving 1 mini than they would without rules or mini.
Only a few notable things I hadn't heard before. Stuff seems to have a lot more wounds than the old warhammer. The guys with the hammers and shields are called 'Liberators', and their unit champion is the hilariously named 'Liberator Prime']
I am of the view that this weekends release is the initial set-up, core rules and starting the lore. They release the rules so you can play the contents of the box or fill in with your existing army and get used to the new rules, the books are released to start the story going, starting the following week they release a campaign similar to the End times in which you will have scenarios and ways to play and build your armies but the core rules are what is released this weekend. It works with the whole "no more rule books coming" because technically its not a rule book its a campaign book with its own unique rules/scenarios. We then get a few campaigns a year and when we call up a mate to say "hey want to play a game of Age of Sigmar" you work out which campaign you want to play in order to determine what set-up you bring (I am assuming each campaign will be based on a realm, as the rules directly reference picking a realm but don't elaborate).
Thats my current thinking, the lack of army creation beyond "do what ever you want" just doesn't fit, even for GW. Sure, things as is may interest and bring in new players but it wont keep them, some sort of competition would be needed to do that and as is there is none.
I am willing to give them a couple of weeks to flesh things out before I write them off entirely. Technically it hasn't even been released so there is a lot of premature writing off, for all we know come Saturday the GW website will start putting out how to play articles or something crazy.
I probably missed a lot of debate, but why would there be points values or limits on the size of units for the starter kit? The quick play rules are for the units in the box, and don't give you anything special beyond wyswyg of the models included. At least in 40K.
did I miss some news that these barebones datasheet/scroll things are the full version, or just get you by versions specific to the units in the box?
Kendo wrote: I don't think you need your proposed fix. The whole deployment system is a super strategic aspect of the game where each opponent is constantly counting and assessing the other enemies strengths and determining if now is the time to drop that 100 strong unit of skagen slaves and try for overwhelming numbers or keep numbers low and go for sudden death.
You serious? From what everyone is believing online, I can bring 10,000 models to a tournament and fight against anyone there, and it's legal.
the rules don't mention anything about tournaments. You could however bring 100000 models to my house, spend 3 hours trying to squeeze a 100th of them on to my gaming table while we laughed and drank beer and I asked how you kept you sanity putting that many models together. When I was drunk and you were done we would play one round and I would lose and she'd no tears over it.
Or you could bring a force that would offer meaningful competition based on the gaming social contract and we could still drink beer and actually get a couple games in.
Your call my friend.
Seeing that Games Workshop already confirmed through Reps that there are planned leagues and tournaments, I'd assume so.
So you believe the Reps are telling the truth about Leagues and Tournaments but lying to all of the Store Owners about the rules?
Did no one else notice the guy whose FB post about the lack of a balancing system got a "wink" comment from the Mantic guy who now works on design at GW? However small, that is a sign that there is something there we don't know about yet.
Yeah, keep up that wishfull thinking.
In all honestly.. they just released the FULL RULES of a new game system which is in our understanding completely broken.
Do you HONESTLY think they'll do such a stunt and a few from now say HAHA fooled you!
Mysterious Pants wrote: Only a few notable things I hadn't heard before. Stuff seems to have a lot more wounds than the old warhammer. The guys with the hammers and shields are called 'Liberators', and their unit champion is the hilariously named 'Liberator Prime']
Mymearan wrote: a sign that there is something there we don't know about yet
How could this be possible???
Dr. Cheesesteak wrote: That would mean that there is more, perhaps MUCH more, than just the 4pg Rule set and Warscrolls?
The four pages constitute a "rule sheet." There is also a 96-page book in the box, which apparently includes (in addition to the fluff as advertised) the warscrolls. I am willing to bet there are other rules in there, too.
The Liberator model that comes with WD75 is super cool. I preordered the box on the strength of the models. If the game is fun, that's a bonus. If not, I will use them for something else.
RoninXiC wrote: Yeah, keep up that wishfull thinking.
In all honestly.. they just released the FULL RULES of a new game system which is in our understanding completely broken.
Do you HONESTLY think they'll do such a stunt and a few from now say HAHA fooled you!
That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying, why would one of GWs designers bother to comment on such a post if there wasn't something to it?
Dr. Cheesesteak wrote: So the Keywords on the Warscrolls are apparently just names for Special Rules (which I predicted, not sure if it's been brought up in this thread).
That would mean that there is more, perhaps MUCH more, than just the 4pg Rule set and Warscrolls?
Are you sure about that? I assumed that they are just Types/Subtypes for other special rules to refer to. For example, the Magic: the Gathering card Metallic Sliver has the subtype "Sliver" which doesn't do anything on its own, but other cards have special rules that look for that subtype.
Didn't bother reading all this debacle where people who haven't even touched the game already magically know it's broken ( sorry, you don't ) but did people already notice that every Citadel miniature in the Warhammer range will receive a warscroll of which most are free to download?
That's why the armybooks were removed. I don't think anyone can say anything else except that it's a very nice move from GW. Everyone can use most of their old collections, and with free rules for the new game.
That said, I think you are still right about the possibility of more rules somewhere in the 96-page book ... specifically, I am guessing the book contains scenario rules that include which units you use. I know that's hardly a point-buy system useful for pick-up games and tournament balance. But GW has shown total ambivalence to army building and tournament gaming for a long time now.
The Liberator model that comes with WD75 is super cool. I preordered the box on the strength of the models. If the game is fun, that's a bonus. If not, I will use them for something else.
I did the same. I was originally thinking of passing (I still have an unpainted Isle of Blood and thousands of dollars of unpainted Fantasy models...), but they had me at the cat guy and the angels. When I look at the closeups and the Chaos fellas, I had to preorder one. If the terrain pieces are really nice, I might have to get two :X Third party fantasy terrain is expensive anyhow, and I'd love more of those angel minis.
The freebie model in WD75 is awesome. I mean, what's not to like about a free mini that's a full quality GW sculpt? I was totally not expecting that one
I know a lot of people like the "ranks of models" thing of WHFB, so I sympathize with the departure from that, but personally, I love the heroic poses. If that's the direction of the Fantasy models, I may end up buying more of them and painting them between 40k stuff.
We'll see about the game. I'm sure I'll try it with just the models in the box with buddies, and see where it goes. I'm not a fan of WHFB 8e, so **shrug** we'll see -- if all this talk of adding models and unbalancing the game plays out that way, maybe we'll just play with the models that come with the Sigmar set.
Runic wrote: That's why the armybooks were removed. I don't think anyone can say anything else except that it's a very nice move from GW.
To me, this is a big deal. In 40k, having a 50 USD codex come out every 1-2 years is a major, major turn off ... especially when it is basically incomplete thanks to dataslates, etc. I am so glad army books are gone. Free warscrolls are a tremendous boon.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Talys wrote: The freebie model in WD75 is awesome. I mean, what's not to like about a free mini that's a full quality GW sculpt?
Like the trade dress on the box and the logo, this is a throwback to the good old days.
mikhaila wrote: The guys in US trade sales really get stuck in a bad spot.
The UK has few gaming stores, the US has thousands. But the UK sets the policy, limits their knowledge, and tells them how they are supposed to pitch things.
While I don't condone GW actions GW is a British company not an American company so yes they should set the policy (no matter how poor/ridiculous they are) and have the main HQ n home ground.
What if the wars rolls have stuff like this on it:
- Unique: Your army may only contain one of this type of warscroll
- Rare: Your army may only contain one of this type of warscroll per three (3) Core warscrolls, you may only deploy one Rare warscroll per three (3) deployed Core warscrolls.
- Special: Your army may only contain one of this type of warscroll per one (1) Core warscrolls, you may only deploy one Special warscroll per one (1) deployed Core warscrolls.
Suddenly there is another layer of complexity to the system...
Sikil wrote: What if the wars rolls have stuff like this on it:
- Unique: Your army may only contain one of this type of warscroll
- Rare: Your army may only contain one of this type of warscroll per three (3) Core warscrolls, you may only deploy one Rare warscroll per three (3) deployed Core warscrolls.
- Special: Your army may only contain one of this type of warscroll per one (1) Core warscrolls, you may only deploy one Special warscroll per one (1) deployed Core warscrolls.
Suddenly there is another layer of complexity to the system...
But then it doesn't matter because some war scrolls have no model cap... which means there is always the possibility of stupidity.
Just thinking aloud, but deploying in rank and file will still be good, because you can limit the amount the enemy can get into contact with you. For weak units you can tarpit the enemy and stay in a solid block to reduce casualties.
My guess is scenario rules will have keyword-based limits. For example, you may bring up to one warscroll with the Hero keyword. The warscroll for the big Chaos model in the starter box is not previewed in the WD and I am anxious to see what kind of keyword(s) he has. He is a named character so maybe Hero? But maybe also something like Monster?
Meanwhile, here's the free model that comes with the issue. I only have some base layers on him; I'll get to washing and highlighting tomorrow after block painting the blue and laying down a base for the white details.. He has been super fun to paint so far. And boy does he just dwarf the Guardsman!
WD75 is the first issue I have purchased in 5-6 years. Anybody who wants to play around with this model should grab one, too!
Does anyone else get the feeling we just became Planeswalkers?
- Multiple planes invading other planes.
- These unit rules sound like trading card tier stuff.
- The reason the rule book is 4 pages is because the units are explained in the card. Think Core Sets for MotG where the rules are printed.
- This means we get to play a card game with miniatures in addition to imagination.
While I don't condone GW actions GW is a British company not an American company so yes they should set the policy (no matter how poor/ridiculous they are) and have the main HQ n home ground.
It's not quite that simple. Stuff that works in one country doesn't necessarily work in another. The US market is very different to the UK, and trying to run it the same as the UK is pretty much doomed to fail .
While I don't condone GW actions GW is a British company not an American company so yes they should set the policy (no matter how poor/ridiculous they are) and have the main HQ n home ground.
It's not quite that simple. Stuff that works in one country doesn't necessarily work in another. The US market is very different to the UK, and trying to run it the same as the UK is pretty much doomed to fail .
As far as we know they consult with each country's branch for the best middle ground. Everything doesn't have to be based and come from the US.
Wild theory of the day: the "new age of eBook/app" is a GW owned and controlled army building app. This allows them to control data and points stats. Plus make a bit of extra money. Why should third parties be making money on army list builder apps?
Ideally, companies could optimize their practices in each country to suit that country's circumstances. This is obviously harder than it sounds. I am not sure what mikhalia was referring to by "UK policy" ... presumably customers in the UK don't appreciate being in the dark about upcoming releases anymore than people in the USA or Australia or Germany, etc, etc. Maybe he thinks GW does not understand that the LGS is more important to American customers than it is to British ones? But again, I would guess the needs of a British club and an American store league are not really worlds apart in terms of getting support from Nottingham.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kosake wrote: Good for me, bigger models usually look better when I paint...
Honestly, I think this model was designed to be easy to paint. It has been fun for me so far and painting figures in 28mm is ... how shall I say ... far from my favorite part of this hobby.
In what sense? The Guardsman model is no more dynamic than the Liberator and they have a comparable amount of detail. The biggest difference (size aside) is that the Guardsman is finished while I have only started on the Liberator.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
ivan55599 wrote: You expect that elementals are de facto human sized?
They are not as a matter of fluff: "Each Stormcast Eternal is more than human, his body changed by their reforging until they tower over mortal men."
Manchu wrote: But again, I would guess the needs of a British club and an American store league are not really worlds apart in terms of getting support from Nottingham.
It seems like UK and USA posters, just to continue with this particular comparison, are equally miffed/excited about this release. I cannot help but think a little more sharing leading up to this announcement would have helped just as much in the UK as here in the States.
Mysterious Pants wrote: Only a few notable things I hadn't heard before. Stuff seems to have a lot more wounds than the old warhammer. The guys with the hammers and shields are called 'Liberators', and their unit champion is the hilariously named 'Liberator Prime']
Well I had thought of Optimus Prime but that's a closer reference alright
Henry wrote:That scale shot with the guardsman really emphasises how bland the sculpt is.
I don't mind the model to be honest. Ok, it could be doing with a bit more detail particularly on the chest plate and the rest of the armour but looks fun to paint. The scale is a problem though; I guess all future releases will see a similar increase in scale too. I take it that it is the same size scalewise as a Terminator?
It's certainly not a bad sculpt, just a bit meh. I guess it would be perfectly fine for a click together board game, but it's not what I'd look for in a war game.
jah-joshua wrote: GW has never stopped running events at Warhammer World...
for years White Dwarf has featured people's doubles armies for WHFB, 40K, and LotR...
they have Throne of Skulls, Battle Brothers, and a few other regular events...
there is a summer campaign, and events scheduled for August since before the re-opening...
happily, for me, Golden Demon is being hosted there now...
i think a very telling thing will be if any AoS events pop-up on the calendar...
that would definitely be an indicator that there is a way to play this game competitively...
i'm firmly in the wait and see camp...
i have a feeling there will be a way for players to organize their armies, and all the hyperbole like, "bring 30 Bloodthirsters" will be shown to be just that...
cheers
jah
Whilst it's true that they have been and will be running events you need to bear in mind that the winners of the event are not decided upon by who wins the most games but by who gets the most " favourite game" , with actual tabletop victories being nothing more than a tie-breaker.
Here is a preview PDF I made for AOS. It has better quality pictures from the WD. Sorry I hate image spam in threads, feel free to save them individually if you feel the need to post them.
Manchu wrote: My guess is scenario rules will have keyword-based limits. For example, you may bring up to one warscroll with the Hero keyword. The warscroll for the big Chaos model in the starter box is not previewed in the WD and I am anxious to see what kind of keyword(s) he has. He is a named character so maybe Hero? But maybe also something like Monster?
Meanwhile, here's the free model that comes with the issue. I only have some base layers on him; I'll get to washing and highlighting tomorrow after block painting the blue and laying down a base for the white details.. He has been super fun to paint so far. And boy does he just dwarf the Guardsman!
WD75 is the first issue I have purchased in 5-6 years. Anybody who wants to play around with this model should grab one, too!
Despite everything I was still considering this game until I saw that picture. It is the size which for some reason makes me not like it. I think it is because it just doesn't blend with my other miniatures. Is there any known reason why these guys tower above reg humans or is everything in this new game going to be massive?
Tank_Dweller wrote: Despite everything I was still considering this game until I saw that picture. It is the size which for some reason makes me not like it. I think it is because it just doesn't blend with my other miniatures. Is there any known reason why these guys tower above reg humans or is everything in this new game going to be massive?
Because they are not human but divinely supercharged reanimated corpses/spirits given form?
If I am a god set on subjugating/freeing a realm I wouldn't limit myself to human sizing. I would try for XXXXL to throw some shock and awe into my enemies.
I see this as that.
I think Fezza was on to something a few posts up ...
I started wargaming at WHFB 3rd ed and recently got back into it. I was astounded by the amount of rules (40k) and admittedly I'd forgotten how much "into it" you had to be in order to have fun (i.e. not flipping through rulebooks all the time). For a casual player the rules are more than a bit too much.
Add to this my kids (teens) who I play with. Mainly used to computer games they really struggle with having to remember rules. (And no they're not stupid.) They would likely not play if I didn't encourage them, not because of a lack of interest in wargaming but because of the sheer effort of learning rules. Fluff, on the other hand, they like.
More: Playing more competitively requires an interest beyond the game itself in terms of listbuilding. To think about your army and where to go with it is great if you're developing it into a hobby – but it's a bit too much for the casual gamer.
Enter Age of Sigmar.
* A ruleset likely quite useless for competitive play – but good for casual beer & pretzel gaming. (Or coke & crisps ...)
* Scenario supplements with a number of scenarios detailing the scrolls each side plays, based on an engaging narrative – the collective development of the story is the point, not winning over your opponent. (Could even be like solo adventure-books, wher battle outcomes decides the continuation of the story; remember Lone Wolf?)
* Campaign supplements consisting of a number of scenarios but also with rules for character development.
Different special rules (the keywords on the scrolls) will become relevant in different scenarios, bringing dynamics to the game even with a limited number of models.
I think this could work actually, it would close the gap between wargaming and roleplaying a bit. I would like it. And if something like this appears I may actually divest my 40k army (about 70 orks, anyone?) and go for it. When I want the competitive edge, I'll go for Warmachine/Hordes, which has a ruleset quite up to the task.
It is not good for casual beer & pretzel gaming. How could it be?
It is flawed in its core. Want to play any army? Hope your opponent will not counter it by just playing his army.
it is the worst ruleset in the last 20 years of wargaming. IT IS UTTERLY FLAWED TO THE BONE.
Tank_Dweller wrote: Despite everything I was still considering this game until I saw that picture. It is the size which for some reason makes me not like it. I think it is because it just doesn't blend with my other miniatures. Is there any known reason why these guys tower above reg humans or is everything in this new game going to be massive?
Because they are not human but divinely supercharged reanimated corpses/spirits given form?
If I am a god set on subjugating/freeing a realm I wouldn't limit myself to human sizing. I would try for XXXXL to throw some shock and awe into my enemies.
I see this as that.
If this is the case and they are super humans well then I don't have issue... I just hope everything isnt going to be a larger scale than what we are used to.
RoninXiC wrote: It is not good for casual beer & pretzel gaming. How could it be? It is flawed in its core. Want to play any army? Hope your opponent will not counter it by just playing his army.
it is the worst ruleset in the last 20 years of wargaming. IT IS UTTERLY FLAWED TO THE BONE.
Ugh. Back in your hole please troll. Game's not out yet. No bugger's played it yet. And if you don't like the AoS ruleset, just play WHFB 8th Ed or whatever.
RoninXiC wrote: It is not good for casual beer & pretzel gaming. How could it be?
It is flawed in its core. Want to play any army? Hope your opponent will not counter it by just playing his army.
it is the worst ruleset in the last 20 years of wargaming. IT IS UTTERLY FLAWED TO THE BONE.
That's just silly.
Are you not aware that points values are a relatively recent innovation in the history of wargaming? Indeed the first 3 editions of warhammer had point values as a supplemental book. Generally you either had a referee building a scenario, or were refighting a historical battle, or just weren't complete dicks to each other. If you can't come to some sort of amicable agreement with another player about this sort of thing, well then that's an issue you need to address.
I suspect one of two scenarios will end up being true about Age of Sigmar:
1) There is some sort of balancing mechanic that we have not yet been privy to, possibly in the 96 page 'fluff' book, or perhaps as a supplement like oldhammer.
2) Narrative gaming will be the way forward, with an emphasis on scenarios and being able to enjoy a game whether you win or not.
Yeah, the rules could've ben simple but nice. They're just...simple. Bad, too. How they managed to create super basic rules that STILL leave room for interpretation or interact badly is an amazing feat.
I still want those golden boys and the Khorne madmen, though. Don't judge me.
Some of these rules can't possibly have been tested AT ALL.
"Oh, my unit is within 3" of an enemy; guess I'm not moving in the Movement phase. Oh, I'm not personally not within 3" of an enemy; guess I'm not moving to pile-in in the Combat phase either. I'll just sit here twiddling my thumbs until the enemy comes to me."
Binabik15 wrote: Yeah, the rules could've ben simple but nice. They're just...simple. Bad, too. How they managed to create super basic rules that STILL leave room for interpretation or interact badly is an amazing feat.
I still want those golden boys and the Khorne madmen, though. Don't judge me.
What room for interpretation? All seems pretty clear to me. Nothing seems to be interacting badly either, but I'll wait until I actually give it a play before I comment further on that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Avian wrote: Some of these rules can't possibly have been tested AT ALL.
"Oh, my unit is within 3" of an enemy; guess I'm not moving in the Movement phase. Oh, I'm not personally not within 3" of an enemy; guess I'm not moving to pile-in in the Combat phase either. I'll just sit here twiddling my thumbs until the enemy comes to me."
WTF?
...
If any part of the unit is within 3" then any figure in that unit can move up to 3". Think of the 3" as a sort of engagement zone of control.
Avian wrote: Some of these rules can't possibly have been tested AT ALL.
"Oh, my unit is within 3" of an enemy; guess I'm not moving in the Movement phase. Oh, I'm not personally not within 3" of an enemy; guess I'm not moving to pile-in in the Combat phase either. I'll just sit here twiddling my thumbs until the enemy comes to me."
WTF?
??
If the unit's within 3" it can retreat. That should reasonably apply to all models within the unit. When piling in each model moves 3" towards the enemy – it doesn't say it has to end up within 3".
For my part I'll play test before I throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Avian wrote: Some of these rules can't possibly have been tested AT ALL.
"Oh, my unit is within 3" of an enemy; guess I'm not moving in the Movement phase. Oh, I'm not personally not within 3" of an enemy; guess I'm not moving to pile-in in the Combat phase either. I'll just sit here twiddling my thumbs until the enemy comes to me."
RoninXiC wrote: It is not good for casual beer & pretzel gaming. How could it be?
It is flawed in its core. Want to play any army? Hope your opponent will not counter it by just playing his army.
it is the worst ruleset in the last 20 years of wargaming. IT IS UTTERLY FLAWED TO THE BONE.
Ugh. Back in your hole please troll. Game's not out yet. No bugger's played it yet. And if you don't like the AoS ruleset, just play WHFB 8th Ed or whatever.
Game is out. We have all the rules. Games have been played. It is bad.
RoninXiC wrote: It is not good for casual beer & pretzel gaming. How could it be?
It is flawed in its core. Want to play any army? Hope your opponent will not counter it by just playing his army.
it is the worst ruleset in the last 20 years of wargaming. IT IS UTTERLY FLAWED TO THE BONE.
That's just silly.
Are you not aware that points values are a relatively recent innovation in the history of wargaming? Indeed the first 3 editions of warhammer had point values as a supplemental book. Generally you either had a referee building a scenario, or were refighting a historical battle, or just weren't complete dicks to each other. If you can't come to some sort of amicable agreement with another player about this sort of thing, well then that's an issue you need to address.
I suspect one of two scenarios will end up being true about Age of Sigmar:
1) There is some sort of balancing mechanic that we have not yet been privy to, possibly in the 96 page 'fluff' book, or perhaps as a supplement like oldhammer.
2) Narrative gaming will be the way forward, with an emphasis on scenarios and being able to enjoy a game whether you win or not.
"recent" 3rd edition Warhammer Fantasy is more than 20 years ago. See what I wrote?
Narrative gaming without proper rules is really not more than shoving around army soldiers. This used to be a game of strategy and tactics. Nothing of that is left.
AllSeeingSkink wrote: Of course.... I'm just struggling to believe that they won't be modified later to bring in some way of balancing the game. I think at this point it's more likely they will be modified later and GW are just so caught up with the idea of secrecy that they'd rather tell people "Nup, this is it!" and surprise them next month than be honest and say "This is just a stopgap like Ravening Hordes was in 6th edition".
Except that Ravening Hordes had a way to facilitate balanced play (i.e. points). Releasing a system that is such a big risk and leaving a bad first impression is just so...well, GW like.
Of course, I more so just meant in the sense that Ravening Hordes were free rules released as a stopgap while more fleshed out rules were being developed. I could imagine this 4 page rules system is simply the "starter rules" and they'll be releasing proper rules later and they either haven't told their reps or they told their reps to not tell stores because they are stupid idiots who think it's a good idea not to tell your customer base anything, even while they are hating you for it
I'm going to be honest... I'm gonna use the Sigmarites for my true-scale marine army. They even fit perfectly with my knightly theme. Might need to bag some of those dragony things for Thunderwolf cav...
"recent" 3rd edition Warhammer Fantasy is more than 20 years ago. See what I wrote?
Narrative gaming without proper rules is really not more than shoving around army soldiers. This used to be a game of strategy and tactics. Nothing of that is left.
Doesn't matter what you wrote. I was referring to the concept of points and balance as they apply to the history of wargaming. And I have seen a lot worse systems in the last 20 years than this.
And narrative gaming is a lot more than shoving around toy soldiers. And narrative gaming can be just as much about strategy and tactics. I get the impression that you somehow think artificial 'balance' is important to that.
Where exactly do you get the fact that strategy and tactics have now gone from?
I wrote narrative without proper rules. AoS does not have proper rules.
And it doesnt matter that you now refere to the concept of points. That's not what I wrote. I said in the last 20 years. Not since the 19th cent.
No strategy?
Okay.
100% random charges is the worst insult to anyone.
No charge reactions.
No ressources to manage (like focus/fory/magic dice etc)
Worst and most random victory conditions to mankind.
100% random terrain.
100% random ability usage (why the heck do I need to roll a a d6 to make my hero use his ability?)
No force organisation in any kind of form -> worst spamage of unbalanced and untested armies.
Personally I wouldn't be bothered by any of this if it wasn't replacing 8th ed. I hold out hope that this is only the starter and the full game, whenever that comes or even if it will come, will be more structured.
RoninXiC wrote: It is not good for casual beer & pretzel gaming. How could it be?
It is flawed in its core. Want to play any army? Hope your opponent will not counter it by just playing his army.
it is the worst ruleset in the last 20 years of wargaming. IT IS UTTERLY FLAWED TO THE BONE.
That's just silly.
Are you not aware that points values are a relatively recent innovation in the history of wargaming? Indeed the first 3 editions of warhammer had point values as a supplemental book. Generally you either had a referee building a scenario, or were refighting a historical battle, or just weren't complete dicks to each other. If you can't come to some sort of amicable agreement with another player about this sort of thing, well then that's an issue you need to address.
I suspect one of two scenarios will end up being true about Age of Sigmar:
1) There is some sort of balancing mechanic that we have not yet been privy to, possibly in the 96 page 'fluff' book, or perhaps as a supplement like oldhammer.
2) Narrative gaming will be the way forward, with an emphasis on scenarios and being able to enjoy a game whether you win or not.
Option 2 means complete garbage of a ruleset. I know you narrative players are noblemen, tacticians, writers, rule designers and just good chaps but the typical newcomer will be introduced to a game where majority of matches are meaningless because the outcome is decided
in the packing minis phase. Sure you guys can teach them all that lifting own models or effortless winning for a sake of a simplistic story of a 100000th made up battle is fun and all power to you but is that wargaming really? Sounds like warcuddling tbh.
Personally I wouldn't be bothered by any of this if it wasn't replacing 8th ed. I hold out hope that this is only the starter and the full game, whenever that comes or even if it will come, will be more structured.
From what GW has said so far, this is all of the rules. Which is why people are really upset.
100% random charges is the worst insult to anyone.
No charge reactions.
No ressources to manage (like focus/fory/magic dice etc)
Worst and most random victory conditions to mankind.
100% random terrain.
100% random ability usage (why the heck do I need to roll a a d6 to make my hero use his ability?)
No force organisation in any kind of form -> worst spamage of unbalanced and untested armies.
I find it odd that you can find random charges a personal insult but whatever. It's certainly down to personal preference.
Lack of charge reactions is a little annoying I'll admit.
Resource management mini game doesn't make strategy or tactics. And the magic dice thing, whilst fun, was hardly that deep a mini game.
I honestly have no idea how to respond to "Worst and most random victory conditions to mankind." Except to say... no they really aren't. But I guess that's down to personal preference.
Because a real general gets to choose exactly what terrain they'll fight over and where how? Strategy is about making use of what you have in the best way you can at the right time to defeat your opponent. Dealing with terrain you have no control over is very much a part of that.
Where in hell have you got random ability usage from? I think you may have misunderstood something somewhere...
Yes, no force organisation THAT WE ARE AWARE OF AS YET. And if you are playing with someone who spams 30 bloodthirsters at your 10 spearmen, well then I suggest you find someone else to play with.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Plumbumbarum wrote: Sure you guys can teach them all that lifting own models or effortless winning for a sake of a simplistic story of a 100000th made up battle is fun and all power to you but is that wargaming really? Sounds like warcuddling tbh.
I quite like the rules, for me just bring what you want and play seems like a good idea.
The more i think about it, It just seems pretty wrong that they are replacing Warhammer with this system, I could understand if it were to run side by side but to replace a fairly competitive game with this just seems pretty backwards.
I hope there is more to it than they are letting on.
RoninXiC wrote: I wrote narrative without proper rules. AoS does not have proper rules.
And it doesnt matter that you now refere to the concept of points. That's not what I wrote. I said in the last 20 years. Not since the 19th cent.
No strategy?
Okay.
100% random charges is the worst insult to anyone.
No charge reactions.
No ressources to manage (like focus/fory/magic dice etc)
Worst and most random victory conditions to mankind.
100% random terrain.
100% random ability usage (why the heck do I need to roll a a d6 to make my hero use his ability?)
No force organisation in any kind of form -> worst spamage of unbalanced and untested armies.
My opinions on your complaints:
1) you might hate it, but its not new.
2) valid, I agree.
3) sure
4) sudden death is easily ignored
5) easily ignored just like mysterious objectives in 40k 6) how is this different than rolling to hit or to cast spells?
7) the worst offender by far, obviously without this the game cannot be played. But if it exists in some form I don't see any huge problems with the rest of the rules. Aside from 7, your points 2 and 3 are the only ones I fully agree with, and they are not THAT bad. You do have resource management in the sense that you can only use each ability once.
A lack of points doesn't work in a game where there are hundreds of different models to have to play test and know about before making a balanced scenario.
I play historical games with no points, its easy. Simply look up the battle and recreate it or part of it. Any good rule set will produce an accurate result. Troops aren't wildly different either making things easier.
In this Fantasy game, say we played 10 games. The first games will have to be dedicated to finding out how to balance things (how many chaos soldiers is the new sigmite worth?) after wasting our time doing GW's job we can start playing the game a bit. BUT then someone may want to add a Stegadon to fight alongside their sigmite's. This means the balancing has to be re tested again to see what it's worth. New player comes with a mix of goblins, beastmen and bretonians, now imagine having to balance all that out!
Due to the variety of troops and that will be around, unlimited squad sizes (in some cases) and the only army limit being that it fits on the table it means that there are no simply relaxed and easy ways to balance it yourself. You are stuck playtesting to work out how to have a fun game with your unique collection vs someone else's unique collection.
In a fantasy/sci fi game that has little "generic troops" points are somewhat needed.
In my opinion this is a pretty bad start to a game that's already annoyed players through replacing a game. I personally find the rules incredibly bad and will not be trying this. KoW has a better free ruleset (I know only been said 100 times here already). Better off playing somethign thats been done right.
"recent" 3rd edition Warhammer Fantasy is more than 20 years ago. See what I wrote?
Narrative gaming without proper rules is really not more than shoving around army soldiers. This used to be a game of strategy and tactics. Nothing of that is left.
Doesn't matter what you wrote. I was referring to the concept of points and balance as they apply to the history of wargaming. And I have seen a lot worse systems in the last 20 years than this.
And narrative gaming is a lot more than shoving around toy soldiers. And narrative gaming can be just as much about strategy and tactics. I get the impression that you somehow think artificial 'balance' is important to that.
Where exactly do you get the fact that strategy and tactics have now gone from?
Wouldn't that yeti tactical narrative battle be 10 times better if you could count the disparity between forces? You can still make your narrative battle in a balanced system and as a bonus you have an information for that douche narrative player (and I met and played a few) who makes an unbalanced scenario and then acts like it's his wits alone that provided him victory. Same time I'd have a game that is not a group therapy session for sensible people but one where superior strategy and tactics lead to victory.
Been following this thread with interest and since everyone else is piling in, figured I might as well .
I think this game is exactly what I want and I'll explain why, but whether I'd be able to find anyone else to play it with me remains to be seen.
I'll say that I've always been a pretty casual gamer, me and my mates got into 40K about the age of 9 or 10 (2nd ed 40K), there were quite a few of us who played and we played every game they released. Being kids we'd be a bit competitive but were also too young and stupid to power game, also the internet was barely a thing back then so net-listing didn't exist as far as we were aware.
We all played as a group pretty solidly through our teen years, the only nearby LGSs were GWs so wargaming for me was always chilling with mates, as we got older it was more about lining whatever we had up and getting smashed, having a natter etc with the hobby just providing a focus and an excuse to get together. Games were basically "alright, 2000 points, kill each other for a couple of hours". 40K was our weapon of choice, we did play Fantasy whenever a new edition came out but having to get big armies together meant it never really stuck with us.
All heading off to Uni pretty much killed it, and I didn't really hobby again until about 2010-ish when I discovered there were actually games not made by GW (who knew right?). I started getting into Infinity just as Human Sphere was released and started hitting up a local club where we had great casual games. The people I played with had jobs, mortgages and kids so it was again about just getting away from real life for a bit and jabbering away while we occasionally shuffled models around. DIdn't really matter who won or lost as long as there were some highlights to chat about afterwards. Since getting there got to be a bit tricky and my main opponent moved away I drifted away from the club, especially as Paradiso hit around then and it never really caught on.
Nowadays Infinity to me feels like the focus is really heading towards the competitive scene, maybe that's just the local meta but with the emphasis on multiple objectives and specialists I don't feel like I can play how I did back then, which is show up with no plans, fudge a list together from the models in my bag and have a laugh for a couple of hours because now I actually have to think about my list before the game and a whole bunch of objectives during the game. I still love the models and the gameplay but I don't really enjoy the game as such because it's not the relaxing experience I had before.
So how does any of this babble relate to AoS? Well first of all I won't need to collect a huge army just to play a game. Hobby time is limited and if I can enjoy the look of WHFB without needing to collect a hug army that's awesome! I'm also much more of a fan of streamlined rules nowadays, and an overabundance of special rules pushed me away from 40K, is gradually pushing me away from Infinity and stopped me ever trying warmachine in the first place.
I think GW has provided the perfect litmus test to determine if my fellow gamer is looking for the same experience as me by making balance a requirement of the players; if I can say to an opponent something like "alright, how about no more than 50 mortals, 3 heroes tops, 3 warmachines tops?" and we can agree then we're probably on the same page and will have a pleasant experience. If he kicks up a stink about the rules saying I can use whatever I like and you can't stop me, I've dodged a bullet before investing time in the game. If I just want a 2000pt 40K game god knows what I'd be facing, but I wouldn't know if it'd be fun until I've seen the army on the table.
So what's the conclusion if you bothered reading all that? AoS may just be the casual relaxing hobby I've been missing, and if it's an absolute anathema to competitive players that's ok by me because I'm not one of them. Sweet models, easy access, no hefty rules to lug about, just rock up and plonk some models down. That'll do nicely.
Manchu wrote: It seems like UK and USA posters, just to continue with this particular comparison, are equally miffed/excited about this release. I cannot help but think a little more sharing leading up to this announcement would have helped just as much in the UK as here in the States.
I think Mik was referring to how the majority of sales in UK are derived from GW stores so corporate has the latitude to dictate how many boxes are stocked meanwhile in the US trade sales are dominate and non-corporate store owners expect and demand information about items they're expected to stock before deciding how many to order.
Norsed wrote: [
Yes, no force organisation THAT WE ARE AWARE OF AS YET. And if you are playing with someone who spams 30 bloodthirsters at your 10 spearmen, well then I suggest you find someone else to play with.
See. Thats your/my biggest problem. The rules are so bad that you dont want to play against people who are in their right to follow the rules.
How could we change this? well.. what about point costs? It works in 99% of all other games quite perfecty.
There is no further reasoning behind GWs decision besides saving time and money.
And we have the full rules from the box. There is 0 indication that anything else will come up.
100% random charges is the worst insult to anyone.
No charge reactions.
No ressources to manage (like focus/fory/magic dice etc)
Worst and most random victory conditions to mankind.
100% random terrain.
100% random ability usage (why the heck do I need to roll a a d6 to make my hero use his ability?)
No force organisation in any kind of form -> worst spamage of unbalanced and untested armies.
I find it odd that you can find random charges a personal insult but whatever. It's certainly down to personal preference.
Lack of charge reactions is a little annoying I'll admit.
Resource management mini game doesn't make strategy or tactics. And the magic dice thing, whilst fun, was hardly that deep a mini game.
I honestly have no idea how to respond to "Worst and most random victory conditions to mankind." Except to say... no they really aren't. But I guess that's down to personal preference.
Because a real general gets to choose exactly what terrain they'll fight over and where how? Strategy is about making use of what you have in the best way you can at the right time to defeat your opponent. Dealing with terrain you have no control over is very much a part of that.
Where in hell have you got random ability usage from? I think you may have misunderstood something somewhere...
Yes, no force organisation THAT WE ARE AWARE OF AS YET. And if you are playing with someone who spams 30 bloodthirsters at your 10 spearmen, well then I suggest you find someone else to play with.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Plumbumbarum wrote: Sure you guys can teach them all that lifting own models or effortless winning for a sake of a simplistic story of a 100000th made up battle is fun and all power to you but is that wargaming really? Sounds like warcuddling tbh.
Well. That's insulting. Kindly grow up.
Didn't you call someone's valid opinion silly and imply that only complete dicks have problem with such a ruleset? Double standards ftw.
Wouldn't that yeti tactical narrative battle be 10 times better if you could count the disparity between forces? You can still make your narrative battle in a balanced system and as a bonus you have an information for that douche narrative player (and I met and played a few) who makes an unbalanced scenario and then acts like it's his wits alone that provided him victory. Same time I'd have a game that is not a group therapy session for sensible people but one where superior strategy and tactics lead to victory.
It might be, but points systems are rarely accurate enough. Better to take a look at the stats and get an approximation.
How is that douche of a narrative player any different to the douche of a WAAC player (and I met and played a few) who brings the beardiest list imaginable taking full advantage of GW's wonky and unworkable points system and his knowledge of his opponents forces to create an unbeatable monster of an army and then acts like his strategy and tactics are superior? Protip - if a player is crowing victory they aren't a narrative player. Or indeed someone I'd care to play with. It's about how you play, not whether you win or lose.
Didn't you call someone's valid opinion silly and imply that only complete dicks have problem with such a ruleset? Double standards ftw.
No. I called someone's statement of "want to play any army? Hope your opponent will not counter it by just playing his army." silly. Because it is. It's a completely nonsensical statement.
And I implied that if someone brings 30 bloodthirsters to fight with 10 spearmen, that person is indeed a dick. Nothing to do with whether you like this ruleset or not.
Norsed wrote: It's about how you play, not whether you win or lose.
That's extremely subjective, and it seems like you are projecting your own preferences on to other people. Please understand that if the system is balanced, you get to have your narrative game, the competitive gamers get to have their competitive game. Everyone is happy, everyone gets to have their cake and eat it too. Yayy! Gimping a system that many different types of gamers have played for several decades so that it suits your preference at the expense of everyone else's comes off as a tad selfish, imho.
Really hope it either gets a load of people jumping to WarmaHordes (I can get rid of my Cryx for a decent price and use the cash for AoS, and pick up some bargains for WHFB ) or captures the imagination of the community (bigger group to play with, will annoy some on here that aren't a fan of anything GW)
Norsed wrote: It's about how you play, not whether you win or lose.
That's extremely subjective, and it seems like you are projecting your own preferences on to other people. Please understand that if the system is balanced, you get to have your narrative game, the competitive gamers get to have their competitive game. Everyone is happy, everyone gets to have their cake and eat it too. Yayy! Gimping a system that many different types of gamers have played for several decades so that it suits your preference at the expense of everyone else's comes off as a tad selfish, imho.
It is indeed extremely subjective. But my personal viewpoint is that if someone cares more about winning and losing than having a good time, or playing well then their priorities are skewed. We're playing with toy soldiers. But that's fine. They can play other people, we don't have to play each other. But that particular statement was in reference to a narrative player. If a player cares about winning then they are, by definition, not a narrative player. And that was the point I was trying to make.
However, I do think it's important to point out that points systems do not create balance. They are always off somewhere.
Hello! This is my first post on dakkadakka. Best way to describe me is a non gamer. (Last was Necromunda back in the mid/late nineties) I'm dipping my toe in the oldhammer world and loving it.
This game is obviously aimed at Children. And that isn't a bad thing. Many legacy hobbies like wargaming are struggling with a shrinking and ageing audience. You must have fresh blood to survive. Look at baseball cards, comics, etc, and how they are dead or dying. You do need to appeal to that audience.
Destroying the fluff though is a silly act. Again, I can understand defending your IP and distilling it into something unique… But these are all subtle acts done over time by successful companies. Change is generally successful when done in small frequent wins - Not in big cataclysm leaps. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Big change will cause big backlash. Continuity is something that holds people in product spaces they may otherwise leave. Apples Walled garden is a great example. What GW are doing here is giving everyone a perfect jumping off point and damaging one of their key offerings.
Age of Sigmar is New Coke. It may have rigorous Product management thought behind it - But the way its introduced will cause massive backlash.
Goresaw wrote: Having no point values though is an inherent statement that all models are equal. Welcome to warhammer checkers.
None of the armies in Dark Vengeance/Island of Blood had points values either. If it's a starter set, all that comes later once you've got your feet under the table. This is you going off assumptions- not fact. We know there's more army info coming.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BAN wrote: I don't even know how to react, I'm reserving opinion until I've tried it. Regardless of the game I'm buying the box I want the models.
Norsed wrote: It's about how you play, not whether you win or lose.
Yes of course.... but whether a game has a good system to determine who is the winner and loser directly impacts how I play, lol.
Having a rules system where you win or lose based largely on tactical ability is part of what makes a wargame fun for a lot of people. If all you care about is seeing how pretty your miniatures look lined up on the table, might as well stick to making dioramas instead of playing a game IMO.
To me, it's kind of like playing kick to kick in the backyard, sure, it can be fun, but some people actually want to play a game.
Cant compare it to DV or IoB.
These are the full rules for any other games. It is not bound to the starting set. People do not complain of the lack of balance in the box. Nobody cares.
People read the full rules and see that the most basic rules are flawed.
DV scenarios sucked monkey balls. They were barely playable and were meant to teach the basics. Full rules, as well as point values for all models were available at the same time the starter was released. This is not the case with AoS.
I wonder how some of the posters here will feel if the game comes out and it's like this:
- "play this scenario with 500 sigmapoints per player"
- "a unit of 10 sigmarines is worth 100 sigmapoints, plus 75 for every additional 10 sigmarines"
Norsed wrote: But my personal viewpoint is that if someone cares more about winning and losing than having a good time
The idea that those things are mutually exclusive is crazy. It's through caring about whether I win or lose through which I have a good time. It doesn't mean when I lose I cry and when I win I'm a d-bag about it, but without an attempt to win or lose the game just loses all substance to me, at that point I'm just shuffling models around a table aimlessly. Sure, it's still fun to catch up with friends, but there's a plethora of ways I can catch up with friends that don't involve the tedium of playing a game with no goal.
Norsed wrote: But my personal viewpoint is that if someone cares more about winning and losing than having a good time
The idea that those things are mutually exclusive is crazy. It's through caring about whether I win or lose through which I have a good time. It doesn't mean when I lose I cry and when I win I'm a d-bag about it, but without an attempt to win or lose the game just loses all substance to me, at that point I'm just shuffling models around a table aimlessly. Sure, it's still fun to catch up with friends, but there's a plethora of ways I can catch up with friends that don't involve the tedium of playing a game with no goal.
Quoted for truth.
I get that some people don't care about winning or losing. But some people do. And that's okay. That doesn't make them douchebags or they have their priorities "wrong", for some reason.
WarMill wrote: Been following this thread with interest and since everyone else is piling in, figured I might as well .
I think this game is exactly what I want and I'll explain why, but whether I'd be able to find anyone else to play it with me remains to be seen.
[...]
So what's the conclusion if you bothered reading all that? AoS may just be the casual relaxing hobby I've been missing, and if it's an absolute anathema to competitive players that's ok by me because I'm not one of them. Sweet models, easy access, no hefty rules to lug about, just rock up and plonk some models down. That'll do nicely.
Now feel free to call me a casual scrub idiot
I'm the same! Ultra casual player, with not much time for massive complicated battles or money for large 200+ model armies. AoS looks built for me. Just paint up my models, pop them in a case and take them down for a fun game in the afternoon. This game caters nicely to our crowd.
Although I think they should release a "Warhammer Legacy" rulebook as a final hurrah for WHFB that integrates the full End Times rules (without needing to buy all 5 books) as an optional mode of play for those who want to play the hardcore game. If they kept the square bases and round bases in each product, and keep the rulebook on the shelf, WHFB gamers can continue playing forever.
Norsed wrote: But my personal viewpoint is that if someone cares more about winning and losing than having a good time
The idea that those things are mutually exclusive is crazy. It's through caring about whether I win or lose through which I have a good time. It doesn't mean when I lose I cry and when I win I'm a d-bag about it, but without an attempt to win or lose the game just loses all substance to me, at that point I'm just shuffling models around a table aimlessly. Sure, it's still fun to catch up with friends, but there's a plethora of ways I can catch up with friends that don't involve the tedium of playing a game with no goal.
Who said mutually exclusive? I said if someone cares more about winning or losing than they do about having a good time. Attempting to win the game is fine. But can you not see any value in playing as well as you can against the odds?
Norsed wrote: If a player cares about winning then they are, by definition, not a narrative player. And that was the point I was trying to make.
Why? What definition? This reeks of false dichotomy.
How would you define a narrative player then?
A narrative player is someone who very much just needs to play historicals since such games often have defined armies facing each other so no need for points, etc.
I agree though that this system appears, with what we have seen so far, to be aimed completely at forging that narrative that GW loves to tout so much. I can see themed scenario books coming out that play out a story; almost play your own adventure books with the following battle and story dependent upon who wins the current game. If that scenario turns out to be true then you're better off just playing a Descent II campaign in my opinion.
Who said mutually exclusive? I said if someone cares more about winning or losing than they do about having a good time. Attempting to win the game is fine. But can you not see any value in playing as well as you can against the odds?
I think your definition is very subjective and limiting. As I mentioned before, historic games are very narrative in nature yet players do very much care if they win or lose the battle. What's the point in playing a game if you know that you're going to lose or win before you even begin?
Who said mutually exclusive? I said if someone cares more about winning or losing than they do about having a good time. Attempting to win the game is fine. But can you not see any value in playing as well as you can against the odds?
I think your definition is very subjective and limiting. As I mentioned before, historic games are very narrative in nature yet players do very much care if they win or lose the battle. What's the point in playing a game if you know that you're going to lose or win before you even begin?
Because the end result is not the entire enjoyment of the game? Besides which, nothing is ever set in stone. Just because the game is balanced in favour of one side over the other does not necessarily mean that side will win.
Norsed wrote:If a player cares about winning then they are, by definition, not a narrative player. And that was the point I was trying to make.
Emphasis mine.
No. Caring about winning and being a narrative player are mutually exclusive. What you actually brought up, not so much.
Just so we're clear, I didn't bring up anything. I simply answered your question. There is nothing mutually exclusive about wanting to win a game and being a narrative player. I can show up to a game mimicking the Second Battle for Armageddon with the worst Ork list imaginable (and I do make terrible lists full of bad units that I love) and still want to win. The two things have literally nothing to do with each other.
Norsed wrote:If a player cares about winning then they are, by definition, not a narrative player. And that was the point I was trying to make.
Emphasis mine.
No. Caring about winning and being a narrative player are mutually exclusive. What you actually brought up, not so much.
Just so we're clear, I didn't bring up anything. I simply answered your question. There is nothing mutually exclusive about wanting to win a game and being a narrative player. I can show up to a game mimicking the Second Battle for Armageddon with the worst Ork list imaginable (and I do make terrible lists full of bad units that I love) and still want to win. The two things have literally nothing to do with each other.
Personally I would disagree, I guess we both have different views on what makes a narrative player. However, the bit where mutually exclusive came up was not in reference to narrative gamers at the time.
is it hard to understand that the defenition of FUN varies from person to person but when talking about games we need to adress gamers foremost? Optimal game is the game that puts both competitive players and casual players enjoying it... I believe that the perfect game is the one that manages to satisfy everyone equally not just the fluff driven folks or collectors of beer&chips type of gamer.
