Accolade wrote: Does nobody see the bloody Chaplain?! I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here!
i see what you are calling the Chaplain...
as i said, as a purist, i would never use him as a Chaplain, at least not without a lot of resculpting...
i understand where you guys are coming from, but to me, these guys do not look at all like Space Marines...
they look like very stylized (ie, World of Warcraft) knights...
the lack of anything futuristic looking keeps them standing apart from Marines, in my opinion...
again, i am not refuting that this is a move to capitalize on Marine popularity...
i am only saying that i would never use these models to represent Marines...
they look way too Fantasy for that, and i find it visually jarring when people use Fantasy heavy plate as Marine power armor...
The Hammers of Sigmar are the greatest of all Stormcast Eternal Stormhosts. All other Stormhosts aspire to be like them, although they can never truly be Hammers of Sigmar. Others also revere their Lord-Celestant as their spiritual liege.
The Anvils of Heldenhammer repaint their armor green after half of their number fall to Chaos during the Age of Chaos, where "brother battled brother and father battled son." Their dark and brooding nature reflects the shame they feel about their betrayal.
The Hallowed Knights are so pure of spirit that they attract the attention of Kaldor Draigo, still lost in the warp. He soon joins their number and teaches them all how to carve their names into Nurgle. He is soon more decorated than a truck stop bathroom stall.
Little is known about the Lions of Sigmar because Games Workshop couldn't be bothered to rip off anymore Space Marine chapters.
insaniak wrote: On reflection, the complaints about the Sigmarines seem a little odd... The connected-but-not-really-ness of WHFB and 40K has always been one of the fun things about GW's games. When the Hrud were first hinted at, everyone went 'Yay! Space Skaven!'. Nobody had an issue with Space Ogres, or Space Minotaurs, or Space Beastment, or Space Slann, or Space Elves... But the moment something goes in the other direction we're all (and yes, I included myself there) losing our minds over it.
There are certainly a lot of things to complain about with the direction that GW have chosen to take Warhammer Fantasy... but I can't help but think that the introduction of Space Marines isn't really one of them.
so yeah, i see that GW is trying to capitalize on the popularity of Space Marines, but these models do not look like Marines to me...
They're certainly not identical to Marines, but the design aesthetic is similar in enough ways to see them as a fantasy version of Space Marines, particularly given the 'more than human' fluff backing them up.
Or take it like it is, a blatant warriors of valhalla ripped from history, with sigmar as odin.
Here is one interpretation of the Germanic Wild Hunt, which was lead by Odin in some sources.
"Grimm believed that in pre-Christian Europe, the hunt, led by a god and a goddess, either visited "the land at some holy tide, bringing welfare and blessing, accepting gifts and offerings of the people" or they alternately float "unseen through the air, perceptible in cloudy shapes, in the roar and howl of the winds, carrying on war, hunting or the game of ninepins, the chief employments of ancient heroes: an array which, less tied down to a definite time, explains more the natural phenomenon."
There are so many connections here to norse/germanic Gods that I don't want to write it all. I'll just give a comparison to the Wild Hunt. These are warriors chosen by Odin (Sigmar) that appear as ghostly or divine forms that are often seen in the midst of storms and wind, and whose presence heralds a time of war and plight. They are all warriors that have been taken into Azgard/valhalla (Azyr) for their deeds in battle where they now are forever living (eternal) and may revel in the glory of battle throughout all time.
Maybe it's just that the most i ever got into fantasy was have some ogres because it was the cheapest army to buy into and I just like 40k more, but this actually seems pretty interesting to me. The sigmarines look pretty awesome to me and I'm pretty much gonna go and grab a box of this and split it with a chaos player I know wants to use the chaos half for conversions. Free rules seem like way to good a thing to be true but you know, at least I'm gonna give this a shot. If it sucks then too bad I guess?
There are certainly a lot of things to complain about with the direction that GW have chosen to take Warhammer Fantasy... but I can't help but think that the introduction of Space Marines isn't really one of them.
I'd probably still have complained, but if they had introduced the Sigmarines as a new incarnation within the Old World, I could have dealt with it better.
So, where can I see these Warscrolls that are out so far?
RacerX wrote: There is NO research needed.
The Studio KNOWS what players/collectors want.
Because they ARE players/collectors.
You seem to be assuming that the studio guys are the ones making the decisions about what GW releases...
At least that is what it USED to be.
Yes, once upon a time, it probably was.
GW's recent activities however show that these days, the decisions are all being made by the accountants and the legal department. The studio are (I would expect) just making what they're told to make.
Anything is possible, but the "magic" of the studio was (was), that it created things.
The different sales markets had some input, but it was more "we prefer choice A over choice B"
Or, can you package things a little differently to reach a good price point?
Far far (far) cry from this Market research you are talking about.
They aren't selling biscuits and soap after all!
Unless your first hand knowledge is more recent? Who knows...
I am telling you what it WAS, and what was in the DNA of that place.
insaniak wrote: On reflection, the complaints about the Sigmarines seem a little odd... The connected-but-not-really-ness of WHFB and 40K has always been one of the fun things about GW's games. When the Hrud were first hinted at, everyone went 'Yay! Space Skaven!'. Nobody had an issue with Space Ogres, or Space Minotaurs, or Space Beastment, or Space Slann, or Space Elves... But the moment something goes in the other direction we're all (and yes, I included myself there) losing our minds over it.
Perhaps it's because we expected different? That we expected something more than just Fantasy Space Marines, right down to Chapters Stormhosts and big shoulder pads.
And maybe that's our fault. Maybe we shouldn't expect more.
I think I may get some of the Sigmarines off e-bay to add to my Space Marine chapter when this disaster quells down a bit. Not interested in a the boxed set ($125?, geez), but a "squad" worth I think would make for some interesting minis.
I wonder if these minis might work in Mantic's Basilea army, perhaps as Elohi? Does make me wonder what Sigmarine calvary might look like (riding dragons?)
So what should someone make of this post in the Painting and Modeling forum?
servania wrote: Well age of sigmar is not the new warhammer fantasy it's simply a skirmish scale introductory type game. Fantasy 9th edition is still on its way. My flgs owner spoke to a gw rep and fantasy 9th is separate from aos completely. I'd hold on for a bit and see what 9th actually brings.
There is so many things i want to say. sooo many. yet words fail me.
the short version of my thoughts is,
"this is an abortion" (insert graphic mental images here)
"any other company and we would have seen this FROM THEM on the first of april... before lunch"
"whoever came up with this in any functional company would get fired"
"what kind of CS is telling people that hey thats system you loved we totally destroyed it and now its up to YOU the people who will sell our product to ACTUALLY MAKE IT WORK AND DO OUR JOB FOR US" i mean WTF. Mikhaila you need a sainthood direct from geedubs for even CONTEMPLATING fixing this total mess.... id have told them to Jam it up their ass and that i wasnt going to order 1 box of this until they came up with a way to make it actually work.
and my mind continues to rant and ramble along...
this is the worst release i have seen, someone said that this was going to be Dead on Arrival. and i dont think you are wrong, infact im thinking of going into GW on saturday and asking for a 40k game because no one is going to be playing this garbage.....
Ghaz wrote: So what should someone make of this post in the Painting and Modeling forum?
servania wrote: Well age of sigmar is not the new warhammer fantasy it's simply a skirmish scale introductory type game. Fantasy 9th edition is still on its way. My flgs owner spoke to a gw rep and fantasy 9th is separate from aos completely. I'd hold on for a bit and see what 9th actually brings.
Fact or misinformation?
Saint Vetock was told to stop working on 9th edition WFB. It wasn't what the higher ups wanted. They wanted something radically different. They specifically wanted to get away from points. This info comes from a couple levels higher up than my sales rep.
@Laughing Man: hahahahaha
they really did take it to the extreme...
"i'll blow up the world before i give you plastic Questing and Grail Knights!!!"
@Thraxis of Turai: that's a rare trick indeed...
even Fonzi couldn't have taken the biscuit while jumping the shark...
@highlord: teal power, homie!!!
i have to say, i am actually really curious to see what direction they go with the minis after this initial release...
what will the next iteration of Empire minis look like, or the Brets???
will there be Brets, or will they get Squatted???
interesting times ahead...
It's the demon that possesses dreadnoughts and gives rise to Hellbrutes.
---
Again, I'm not a WHFB guy so I don't necessarily view these changes as good or bad. I can only speak on the models themselves and it definitely seems to reinforce the notion that GW are very aware that 40k Space Marines are their bread and butter. That Stormcasts/Chapters highlights that fact very well.
I am very interested to see what else comes of this Age of Sigmar WHFB reboot.
Crimson Devil wrote: Considering the Brets got aggressively squated during End Times. I don't think you'll be seeing them.
I am going to guess that they will get the basic 'Warscroll' that the existing line is supposed to get, but other than that - I agree with you. But I suppose that's always an option they can look at down the road if this game takes off and captures the imagination of the world.
mikhaila wrote: Saint Vetock was told to stop working on 9th edition WFB. It wasn't what the higher ups wanted. They wanted something radically different. They specifically wanted to get away from points. This info comes from a couple levels higher up than my sales rep.
Did they say if the person that made such a decree actually played any GW games, even just once?
That's really the only thing that bugs me, I don't mind the models, or the scrolls, or the SigMarine Chapters. Oh well, horray for house rules I guess.
mikhaila wrote: Saint Vetock was told to stop working on 9th edition WFB. It wasn't what the higher ups wanted. They wanted something radically different. They specifically wanted to get away from points. This info comes from a couple levels higher up than my sales rep.
Did they say if the person that made such a decree actually played any GW games, even just once?
That's really the only thing that bugs me, I don't mind the models, or the scrolls, or the SigMarine Chapters. Oh well, horray for house rules I guess.
Couldn't agree more. I was actually interested om this game before hearing this no point cost nonsense. I was expecting to buy about 300$ of beastmens along with the boxed game, but now, i'll wait till they sort this mess out (if ever).
Crimson Devil wrote: Considering the Brets got aggressively squated during End Times. I don't think you'll be seeing them.
I am going to guess that they will get the basic 'Warscroll' that the existing line is supposed to get, but other than that - I agree with you. But I suppose that's always an option they can look at down the road if this game takes off and captures the imagination of the world.
In the era of Trademarkhammer I don't see it happening. Brets are too plain for GW now. The idea of "Grailinators" or whatever other sad name they would come up to do it, makes me glad my army is dead.
I actually think this game is gonna be pretty fun. Just remember that it's tailor-made for elite models. You won't want to take spearmen or goblins. Eight edition was block hammer. this is elite hammer.
insaniak wrote:I don't get the problem with this. Clearly, as the gloaming of the moon stole betwixt the blengent parralax, Sigmar smote asunder the revenant asturmine with a pungent manner, and amongst the reforged beans of the manifold Destinomotron the pools of novistation took hold.
laughed so loud I woke my dog up.
And now I laugh at the mental picture of the just waken dog. Laughed at the quoted quote as well ofc.
I am eager to see whats coming following this release.
Think of all the models they have back stocked ready to go for the next 4 months? While some of the things are odd, like the big Khorne monster, with skulls sunk in its muscle and its small head (i cant find its eyes), I could go on...
But the models are still nice, and regardless of how the game plays, they will still be fun to paint and convert.
The alternate 'sigmarine' paint schemes are odd though, at least their 'chapter' stories are bonkers...
Crimson Devil wrote: Considering the Brets got aggressively squated during End Times. I don't think you'll be seeing them.
I am going to guess that they will get the basic 'Warscroll' that the existing line is supposed to get, but other than that - I agree with you. But I suppose that's always an option they can look at down the road if this game takes off and captures the imagination of the world.
In the era of Trademarkhammer I don't see it happening. Brets are too plain for GW now. The idea of "Grailinators" or whatever other sad name they would come up to do it, makes me glad my army is dead.
Excellent points. :(
I guess by providing 'warscrolls' for current models, it not only 'appeases the masses' of people who own metric tons of minis, but it also means they have a much better chance of selling-through their stocks of the current line - including any they might discontinue down the road.
Sorry to hear your army is dead. :( I am pretty nervous to see what they'll do with mine, too.
I am pretty excited by all of this, went into the store today and had a chat to the manager. He said he had been to the GW training (3 days apparently), most of the stuff he mentioned has already been leaked online but one thing that stood out is that he said everything is effectively starting from scratch and that they are going to expand it over time through campaigns. How they work and stuff he wouldnt say except come back Saturday (most questions he said come back Saturday). Mostly he said the aim of the core rules (4 page book) is you can play whatever you want and use those rules. the impression i got was that campaigns and scenarios would contain ways of playing including missions and ways to build armies.
Thraxas Of Turai wrote: Apologies if this picture has already been posted but here is the Khorne Lord and his pet "Snuggles" im all of their glory:
Spoiler:
The Chaos Lord with "pet" actually looks pretty good. The big monster looks like rubbish though, what's the deal with the skulls oozing out of its skin?
The base measurement rule I just read about guarantees I won't be playing AOS outside of one or two test games. No way I'd go to a gaming store and risk my models getting damaged like that. Bases scraping up on top of each other would almost certainly mess up flock and maybe even scrape the models.
BoLS comments being mostly negative on this release is also really telling. From what I've experienced so far they're usually positive with any GW release.
In any case, the selfish part of me wants AoS to kill Fantasy so that people will sell their stuff on eBay and I can buy them cheaply.
Thraxas Of Turai wrote: Apologies if this picture has already been posted but here is the Khorne Lord and his pet "Snuggles" im all of their glory:
Spoiler:
The Chaos Lord with "pet" actually looks pretty good. The big monster looks like rubbish though, what's the deal with the skulls oozing out of its skin?
Good god. I hate it. So much. Mouth hands, stumpy goat legs, skull acne, ridiculously buff yet obese at the same time, daemonic bone twigs and I can't even begin to discern what the head looks like. That is a truly awful sculpt.
Mort wrote: It does look pretty ridiculous. Maybe Chaos players love it?
I dunno. Maybe it needs MORE skulls.
And MORE cowbell.
No, never mind, I forgot what we can't pass judgment on the model until we see the back of it. Have to see the whole thing, remember? The back of the model could completely redeem it and make the whole sculpt aesthetically pleasing all of a sudden, and all these design elements might actually make some god-damned sense.
heartserenade wrote: BoLS comments being mostly negative on this release is also really telling. From what I've experienced so far they're usually positive with any GW release.
I'm surprised, I figured normally they just deleted negative comments.
MacMuckles wrote: Good god. I hate it. So much. Mouth hands, stumpy goat legs, skull acne, ridiculously buff yet obese at the same time, daemonic bone twigs and I can't even begin to discern what the head looks like. That is a truly awful sculpt.
I don't think it's really that it's fat, it just looks too wide for some reason.
Fezza213 wrote: I am pretty excited by all of this, went into the store today and had a chat to the manager. He said he had been to the GW training (3 days apparently), most of the stuff he mentioned has already been leaked online but one thing that stood out is that he said everything is effectively starting from scratch and that they are going to expand it over time through campaigns. How they work and stuff he wouldnt say except come back Saturday (most questions he said come back Saturday). Mostly he said the aim of the core rules (4 page book) is you can play whatever you want and use those rules. the impression i got was that campaigns and scenarios would contain ways of playing including missions and ways to build armies.
"You will be able, once the ravening hordes-style rules are out, to play your old models and units and play mass battles"
This was exactly what I was guessing was going to happen. The would put out campaigns that had various missions (Like pitched battle, and the tower) that would have warscroll limits. However I'm still unsure about the model counts. I don't think sudden death is enough of a limitation to prevent people from bringing 6x the model count of someone else and making it a very unfun game.
Well, that thing just gave me a good laugh. It's horrible, and not in a good way :/
I don't know, I'm not exactly in love with that miniature but I don't loathe it either. It looks like something not entirely... material, for lack of a better world. I also sends vage "sad" and "pathetic" vibes as well, as in some slave creature mutated against its will.
It's the shoulders, antlers and silly "claws" sprouting from its left arm which I consider questionable design choices as they break the visual balance of the miniature. The rest, rubbery looks and embedded skulls included, is fine in my books.
At least now we know what a "heavy bone structure" can mean ...
I was actually looking forward to this release (as one of the seemingly few who like light rules). But the fluff and the models really don't do anything for me. Marines, skeletonspokingoutoftheflesh chaos lords ... and the names. Jeez.
Fezza213 wrote: I am pretty excited by all of this, went into the store today and had a chat to the manager. He said he had been to the GW training (3 days apparently), most of the stuff he mentioned has already been leaked online but one thing that stood out is that he said everything is effectively starting from scratch and that they are going to expand it over time through campaigns. How they work and stuff he wouldnt say except come back Saturday (most questions he said come back Saturday). Mostly he said the aim of the core rules (4 page book) is you can play whatever you want and use those rules. the impression i got was that campaigns and scenarios would contain ways of playing including missions and ways to build armies.
I speculated about the scenario/campaign approach some pages ago. Will be interesting to see how (if) it plays [sic!] out. I still think it is a good idea ...
Its has a skull for a right hand. And skulls poking out of its skin. And what appears to be a skull on top of its head. And skulls on its base. Ands skulls as skulls. Skulls skulls skulls. Skulls skulls. Skulls. Skuls skulls.
Skulls.
And its left hand is a...graboid?
(spoilered for size)
I'd like it if it was sculpted to imply that it's made of skulls. Like a daemon possessing a pile of skulls and using them as a frame to its body. ...Time to fire up ZBrush I think.
I actually really quite like that chaos beast. Can't really work out the head but apart from that. The weird claw on its shoulder, looks like there's one on the other shoulder, kind of folded up.
With the name changes and lack of organisation I am out. I have 4 3k point whfb armies and will be sticking to that. I am very sad to see a system that I have grown up with butchered so much.
I can understand them making a completely new system rules wise but the change in fluff and names is just too much GW must be the laughingstock of the industry these days
At least it sounds like most of the old units will be around for a while and GW even state that it's best to get them before they change the boxes to round bases lol
Everyone knocking on the chaos beast, calling it musclular yet flabby? You do realize there are actual people who are chubby with muscular arms called "Muscle Bears" ...right?
I mean, I wouldn't google the term at work if I were you, but it doesn't look completely horrible due to my experience in the Bear Community. lol.
I actually kinda like it, I kinda wanna get a couple of them to convert into other things. Since it uses the Bloodthrister Base, I could make some more Greater Daemons of Khorne just for some variety in my army. I mean, having 4 Bloodthirsters all looking the same would look goofy, amirite?
Then I want to convert them into Khornate Helbrutes, in my opinion, this is what the helbrute should've been, shouldn't have retconned my dreadnoughts GW... Either way, I like it, I like all the Chaos models in this box ONLY for 40K though. Sadly, I don't think I can condone the actual rules for the game.
Kosake wrote: Damn, the chaos models are quite nice. Even with those skulls poking out of the skin it still looks pretty good.
The Thunderwarriors 0k on the other hand just look derpy to me.
I'm on the same camp as well. Sigmarines look incredibly bland and featureless to me. If they had normal human proportions I might give them a pass, but at their size hiding their shortfalls becomes even more difficult.
I'm not 100% sure I'll buy into AoS, but if I ever do these will most certainly be sold/traded/cannibalized for parts.
I love the chaos brute. The skulls do nothing for me, but that's an easy fix and the rest of the model is very well done, with plenty of opportunity for cool conversions.
I agree with you 100%, sadly though, we're on Dakkadakka, where the majority of rumormongers and forum trolls dwell and feast upon any negativity that they can get.
Call me wishful, but I am with the other camp of retailers on this one...
There is going to be a balanced way to play this game.
They do not look like Space Marines.
There is still going to be a form of Warhammer Fantasy battles 9th coming.
I will wait until the release to make any further assumptions.
That's a bold move Cotton, directly attacking a community to put yourself in a higher position. Let's see how that plays out.
But in response...
1. So far all signs are pointing to 'Wat.' A balanced way would be great - but so far, from what we've seen there isn't much. Maybe the 'Scrolls' have fixed unit numbers and assume people will only play with units of X models? If so that's terrible and a snub to Fantasy for 6 editions. People often field different sized units and 8th sealed the deal with Horde options.
2. They look like bizarre hybrids of Space Marines and Cygnar. It's the aesthetic I'm getting with their oversized hands, feet and shoulders. GW 'CAN' do full armoured models that don't look like that. We've seen that with things like Reiksguard and Greatswords...why do they go to the Pizza Feet now? Plus the multi-coloured, super vague Orders? Really not helping the cause there. The layout of that art is out of place and certainly doesn't match old Bret or Empire heraldry.
3. Considering the army books have all disappeared, the White Dwarf states there will be PDF scrolls for everyone and all the WFB related shelf displays etc. have become AoS...no no no. this is our 9th edition. A dramatic new shakeup in format. One that looks sloppy, out of place and craps on 20+ years of lore and established aesthetics for the sake of trademarks. Name changes across the board, new visual aesthetics for the 'Empire' and whole new world lore. No, the sad truth is this is what we get.
GW lost sight of the fact that Warhammer wasn't generic fantasy. It had its own unique aesthetic in the way different races were portrayed and to be fair, the fact you weren't able to copyright the word Elf isn't something GW should have thrown a fit over. Especially when they had a strong enough case in the way their Elves were modelled, written up and designed to protect them in a court case. Pretty sure if someone made Noble Elves, dressed in similar style armour with Mithilmar armour from the island kingdom of Multhan GW could have gone to town.
Now it's just a desperate grab for trademarks that is ruining their reputation on its own.
Bloodsecrators indeed.
Now to clarify...
The aesthetics...if this was a standalone thing? I would be OK with it. The aesthetics are nice on their own. It's when you consider what these are meant to be meshing with that they break and become disjointed.
And considering there's no balanced way of playing most GW games anyway, the possibility of this being balanced doesn't sound realistic really. Especially with the evidence at hand.
They don't look like Space Marines the same way Clark Kent doesn't look like Superman. "But he has glasses and he doesn't have a cape! Surely he can't be Superman."
I just googled that and now I'm shivering with disgust. I HATE HATE HATE fething irregular holey surfaces... It's the grossest thing on earth. Jesus Christ.
GW lost sight of the fact that Warhammer wasn't generic fantasy. It had its own unique aesthetic in the way different races were portrayed and to be fair, the fact you weren't able to copyright the word Elf isn't something GW should have thrown a fit over. Especially when they had a strong enough case in the way their Elves were modelled, written up and designed to protect them in a court case. Pretty sure if someone made Noble Elves, dressed in similar style armour with Mithilmar armour from the island kingdom of Multhan GW could have gone to town.
I thought we'd established with the CHS and Spots the Space Marine stuff that GW can't protect their IP for gak? I hate the new names and this AoS stuff looks like gak but complaining about this, when their old approach was to try and bully people for infringing on their non-protectable IP, is a bit of a weird one.
And yes, totally, they're transparently space marines for fantasy, that was clearly the idea there and going by this thread it's paid off... people love that gak. :(
They don't look like Space Marines the same way Clark Kent doesn't look like Superman. "But he has glasses and he doesn't have a cape! Surely he can't be Superman."
I think GW has learned a few hard lessons from their legal issues with Chapterhouse. Without condoning or condemning, they have to protect their IP.
As others have said, no-one's forcing anyone to play Age of Sigmar, if you're happy playing previous editions, then fine. Keep playing what you know and love. I for one, am pretty happy with this release, as I don't have to learn 2/300 pages of rules. My mantra is, KISS- Keep It Simple Stupid.
angelofvengeance wrote: As others have said, no-one's forcing anyone to play Age of Sigmar, if you're happy playing previous editions, then fine. Keep playing what you know and love.
And as others have said, that doesn't generally work for pickup games, in the same way that I can't wander into my local FLGS and easily find a game of WH40k 2nd or BFG.
GW lost sight of the fact that Warhammer wasn't generic fantasy. It had its own unique aesthetic in the way different races were portrayed and to be fair, the fact you weren't able to copyright the word Elf isn't something GW should have thrown a fit over. Especially when they had a strong enough case in the way their Elves were modelled, written up and designed to protect them in a court case. Pretty sure if someone made Noble Elves, dressed in similar style armour with Mithilmar armour from the island kingdom of Multhan GW could have gone to town.
I thought we'd established with the CHS and Spots the Space Marine stuff that GW can't protect their IP for gak? I hate the new names and this AoS stuff looks like gak but complaining about this, when their old approach was to try and bully people for infringing on their non-protectable IP, is a bit of a weird one.
To be honest, the CHS and Spots the Space Marine stuff were GW trying to throw their weight around in a sloppy way. An incompetent legal team is not a valid reason to slaughter your oldest primary IP. And CHS reminds me that GW is terrified of the idea of 'open source' content, which is laughable as the strongest example of an open resource system (d20) saved the parent system from an untimely death and still persists to this day. Dungeons and Dragons would have died if D20 had not come to be. The fact they made the rules open resource allowed other companies to add and contribute and ultimately has kept the playerbase in the hobby as it were.
Ugh. This whole thing has me sad.
I started into this hobby some 15 years ago with Warhammer. The Lizardmen aesthetic is what pulled me in and the lore just added to it with its elements of Stargate, Mayan/Aztec/Inca and dinosaurs. But now? I dread the new warscrolls and lore. I dread what travesty there is going to be for them. Even the name puts me off. Seraphon! Ew. No. Seraphon sounds like it would work better with elves or even a holy order of knights...not Lizardmen.
I miss my Lizardman army. It's only been about a month since I sold it but I miss them. Ugh, rent is rent but really, I want my Lizards back for old times sake...not to play in this AoS gak...but instead to use for other things.
angelofvengeance wrote: As others have said, no-one's forcing anyone to play Age of Sigmar, if you're happy playing previous editions, then fine. Keep playing what you know and love.
And as others have said, that doesn't generally work for pickup games, in the same way that I can't wander into my local FLGS and easily find a game of WH40k 2nd or BFG.
This.
Also, good luck going to officially supported tournaments or even unofficially supported ones. AoS is going to bleed over and replace because the latest edition of the rules is what most major tournaments run on. I don't see 2nd ed. Adepticon 40k events, do you?
It's enough to make a man vomit. I had to go and look up images of the Green Knight model, just to remind myself of the days when GW could do a sculpt.
angelofvengeance wrote: As others have said, no-one's forcing anyone to play Age of Sigmar, if you're happy playing previous editions, then fine. Keep playing what you know and love.
And as others have said, that doesn't generally work for pickup games, in the same way that I can't wander into my local FLGS and easily find a game of WH40k 2nd or BFG.
This.
Also, good luck going to officially supported tournaments or even unofficially supported ones. AoS is going to bleed over and replace because the latest edition of the rules is what most major tournaments run on. I don't see 2nd ed. Adepticon 40k events, do you?
Being someone who doesn't give a monkey's about tournaments, it's not really a problem for me lol.
It's enough to make a man vomit. I had to go and look up images of the Green Knight model, just to remind myself of the days when GW could do a sculpt.
God bless the Perry twins.
I heard once that the Green Knight was the last model Michael Perry sculpted with his right hand. It is a masterpiece.
It's enough to make a man vomit. I had to go and look up images of the Green Knight model, just to remind myself of the days when GW could do a sculpt.
God bless the Perry twins.
I heard once that the Green Knight was the last model Michael Perry sculpted with his right hand. It is a masterpiece.
Agreed. I've been wanting to paint it for years, but I've always been put off by the fact that my average paint skills won't do a superb model, justice.
At any rate, can you still buy the Green Knight model? Would be ace if you could use it in AOS.
They don't look like Space Marines the same way Clark Kent doesn't look like Superman. "But he has glasses and he doesn't have a cape! Surely he can't be Superman."
Thank you for making me laugh at work.
Glad to be of service. Are you the same Captain Blood in the Lead Adventure's forum? If so: I LOVE YOUR WORK. Just wanna say that.
Any clearer photos of the Chaos minions? I might use them as conversion fodder for various, non-GW things.
It's enough to make a man vomit. I had to go and look up images of the Green Knight model, just to remind myself of the days when GW could do a sculpt.
God bless the Perry twins.
I heard once that the Green Knight was the last model Michael Perry sculpted with his right hand. It is a masterpiece.
Agreed. I've been wanting to paint it for years, but I've always been put off by the fact that my average paint skills won't do a superb model, justice.
At any rate, can you still buy the Green Knight model? Would be ace if you could use it in AOS.
I'm looking for one as well. But only in metal. feth Finecast.
That model is a beauty. God bless the Perry twins indeed. (And this is why I buy from them instead of GW)
Daston wrote: With the name changes and lack of organisation I am out. I have 4 3k point whfb armies and will be sticking to that. I am very sad to see a system that I have grown up with butchered so much.
I can understand them making a completely new system rules wise but the change in fluff and names is just too much GW must be the laughingstock of the industry these days
At least it sounds like most of the old units will be around for a while and GW even state that it's best to get them before they change the boxes to round bases lol
I also grew up with WFB. I've played it since 2nd edition.
However, I give a huge thumbs up to a company who's willing to hit the revamp button, and they did it well with End Times. It takes a huge set of brass balls to take one of your money makers and shake it up.
angelofvengeance wrote: I think GW has learned a few hard lessons from their legal issues with Chapterhouse. Without condoning or condemning, they have to protect their IP.
If 'Orruks' and 'Ogors' are the result of those lessons, they weren't really paying attention to what was going on, though.
angelofvengeance wrote: As others have said, no-one's forcing anyone to play Age of Sigmar, if you're happy playing previous editions, then fine. Keep playing what you know and love.
And as others have said, that doesn't generally work for pickup games, in the same way that I can't wander into my local FLGS and easily find a game of WH40k 2nd or BFG.
This.
Also, good luck going to officially supported tournaments or even unofficially supported ones. AoS is going to bleed over and replace because the latest edition of the rules is what most major tournaments run on. I don't see 2nd ed. Adepticon 40k events, do you?
Being someone who doesn't give a monkey's about tournaments, it's not really a problem for me lol.
That doesn't mean it isn't a problem for everyone though, and acting like 'it's fine you can just play old editions' even though it's been pointed out multiple times that that doesn't actually work for everyone just because it might work for you is a very selfish viewpoint.
I'll pay 5€ per Khornebeast. What can I say, I love Gorilla-ish things for Khorne.
And complaining about his skulls and ribcages (yes, he has those in the deltoids it seems) but nobody mentioned the RIDICULOUS skulls in the LORD's m. rectus abdominis?!
The skull-skin concept is actually neat, it works well on Creatute Caster's Not-Thirster. With less harsh transitions it probably work on the Khornebeast as well. On the Lord? God damn it, did he EAT them and has a torn Nurgle-belly? Can he even touch his toes with skulls in his gastro-intestinal tract? I doubt it.
I have some hope that some tournaments may stick to 8th. Yes, most tournies use the latest edition, but I feel this is a bit different seeing how radically different AoS looks to be.
Next stop: skull abs. I would seriously buy a miniature with skull abs. Like 6 skulls arranged to look like abs.
Back on topic, I think it would've looked okay if it weren't for the insane number of skulls? The same way the Realm of Battle board would be okay if it weren't for the skull pits? Who the feth collect skulls (and just skulls) and put them in a goddamned pit?
nudibranch wrote: I have some hope that some tournaments may stick to 8th. Yes, most tournies use the latest edition, but I feel this is a bit different seeing how radically different AoS looks to be.
Our charity tournament on the 8th of October will almost certainly be sticking with 8th (and with prize support from Kromlech)
nudibranch wrote: I have some hope that some tournaments may stick to 8th. Yes, most tournies use the latest edition, but I feel this is a bit different seeing how radically different AoS looks to be.
Technically 8th is the latest edition of Warhammer Fantasy Battles and Age of Sigmar is a new game entirely. I would expect 8th edition WHFB's until either the numbers dwindle or a decent system gets sorted for AoS.
Not sure how I feel about the unit characteristics not interacting with the exception of saving throw/Rend.
True it will free up the game process but I hope that GW have gotten the Save spot on for every unit.
There seems to be some genuine interest in this game at our Club from across the spectrum. If the game is good then I can see it taking off. Big IF though.
I was on the fence on this one but I think I'll pick it up for the Chaos models and the premise has some promise (also the Mother-in-Law owes me a birthday present so it's free! )
Dwarf Warriors, Elf Bowmen and Human Cavalry here I come. It will be like the battle of the Five Armies without the embarrassment of buying a Hobbit product!
nudibranch wrote: I have some hope that some tournaments may stick to 8th. Yes, most tournies use the latest edition, but I feel this is a bit different seeing how radically different AoS looks to be.
Technically 8th is the latest edition of Warhammer Fantasy Battles and Age of Sigmar is a new game entirely. I would expect 8th edition WHFB's until either the numbers dwindle or a decent system gets sorted for AoS.
I actually dusted off my copy of 3rd Edition last week + Warhammer Siege + Warhammer Armies.
I just need to find a spare 8 hours to play a game.
That doesn't mean it isn't a problem for everyone though, and acting like 'it's fine you can just play old editions' even though it's been pointed out multiple times that that doesn't actually work for everyone just because it might work for you is a very selfish viewpoint.
Yeah, well GW has been catering to you and your playstyle for years now whilst myself and others like me have not been able to enter a store and play the way we want to play. It'd be nice if everyone could play the way they want to, but that hasn't been the case in a long time.
Perhaps now you'll have to do what we've been doing - finding like minded people to play with in garages and clubs. It's a little annoying sometimes, but you'll get used to it. Looks like there'll be plenty of dissatisfied competitive players out there still playing 8th so it shouldn't be too difficult.
notprop wrote: Not sure how I feel about the unit characteristics not interacting with the exception of saving throw/Rend.
True it will free up the game process but I hope that GW have gotten the Save spot on for every unit.
There seems to be some genuine interest in this game at our Club from across the spectrum. If the game is good then I can see it taking off. Big IF though.
I was on the fence on this one but I think I'll pick it up for the Chaos models and the premise has some promise (also the Mother-in-Law owes me a birthday present so it's free! )
Dwarf Warriors, Elf Bowmen and Human Cavalry here I come. It will be like the battle of the Five Armies without the embarrassment of buying a Hobbit product!
nudibranch wrote: I have some hope that some tournaments may stick to 8th. Yes, most tournies use the latest edition, but I feel this is a bit different seeing how radically different AoS looks to be.
Technically 8th is the latest edition of Warhammer Fantasy Battles and Age of Sigmar is a new game entirely. I would expect 8th edition WHFB's until either the numbers dwindle or a decent system gets sorted for AoS.
I actually dusted off my copy of 3rd Edition last week + Warhammer Siege + Warhammer Armies.
I just need to find a spare 8 hours to play a game.
You gotta have a back up plan!
Ouch, call me a new gen short attention span person but I think that's why I am looking forward to AoS, 8 hours for a game and I will either be to drunk to finish or to tired.
nudibranch wrote: I have some hope that some tournaments may stick to 8th. Yes, most tournies use the latest edition, but I feel this is a bit different seeing how radically different AoS looks to be.
Technically 8th is the latest edition of Warhammer Fantasy Battles and Age of Sigmar is a new game entirely. I would expect 8th edition WHFB's until either the numbers dwindle or a decent system gets sorted for AoS.
I actually dusted off my copy of 3rd Edition last week + Warhammer Siege + Warhammer Armies.
I just need to find a spare 8 hours to play a game.
You gotta have a back up plan!
And a referee really to get best use out of it. 3rd works great for all day games with a great scenario. Otherwise you're probably better off with 2nd edition.
That doesn't mean it isn't a problem for everyone though, and acting like 'it's fine you can just play old editions' even though it's been pointed out multiple times that that doesn't actually work for everyone just because it might work for you is a very selfish viewpoint.
Yeah, well GW has been catering to you and your playstyle for years now whilst myself and others like me have not been able to enter a store and play the way we want to play. It'd be nice if everyone could play the way they want to, but that hasn't been the case in a long time.
Perhaps now you'll have to do what we've been doing - finding like minded people to play with in garages and clubs. It's a little annoying sometimes, but you'll get used to it. Looks like there'll be plenty of dissatisfied competitive players out there still playing 8th so it shouldn't be too difficult.
I never said it was my playstyle, if anything I'm more casual/narrative. And the idea that GW has been catering to competitive play is just wrong, that would've required a tight ruleset which GW are either unwilling or incapable to write.
Speaking of third edition, anyone else looking forward to being able to use more interesting formations in Age of Sigmar? Last 5 editions have enforced boring blocks and lines (except for the bretonnian I guess).
Norsed wrote: Speaking of third edition, anyone else looking forward to being able to use more interesting formations in Age of Sigmar? Last 5 editions have enforced boring blocks and lines (except for the bretonnian I guess).
If they're anything like the formations in 40K (and the recent leaks suggest they are), then noooooooooooooooope. Formations are one of the things that, imho, are currently breaking 40K as many are completely broken and are purely designed to sell gakloads of models to you (notice how most of the more powerful formations (such as the War Convocation) are linked to expensive web bundles.)
heartserenade wrote: Wait, GW has been catering to the competitive crowd? WHAT?!?!
Competitive doesn't necessarily mean tournament. You plonk two armies built to the same points down in front of each other and play a pitched battle with the aim of beating your opponent in a straight fight with no real scenario or reasoning - then great GWs been catering to you.
Yeah, well GW has been catering to you and your playstyle for years now whilst myself and others like me have not been able to enter a store and play the way we want to play. It'd be nice if everyone could play the way they want to, but that hasn't been the case in a long time.
And it still won't be the case because this travesty will bomb harder than a Will E. Coyote plan!
Norsed wrote: Speaking of third edition, anyone else looking forward to being able to use more interesting formations in Age of Sigmar? Last 5 editions have enforced boring blocks and lines (except for the bretonnian I guess).
If they're anything like the formations in 40K (and the recent leaks suggest they are), then noooooooooooooooope. Formations are one of the things that, imho, are currently breaking 40K as many are completely broken and are purely designed to sell gakloads of models to you (notice how most of the more powerful formations (such as the War Convocation) are linked to expensive web bundles.)
By formation I'm talking about the placement of your troops. Hence the blocks and line stuff and third edition being mentioned. With free placement of troops suddenly we can do Tercio, Hedgehog, Boars Tooth and a whole lot of other things, and with the new melee weapon ranges thing it'll even make a difference.
heartserenade wrote: Wait, GW has been catering to the competitive crowd? WHAT?!?!
Competitive doesn't necessarily mean tournament. You plonk two armies built to the same points down in front of each other and play a pitched battle with the aim of beating your opponent in a straight fight with no real scenario or reasoning - then great GWs been catering to you.
Nothing was stopping you doing it your way though. It's easy to adapt a tight ruleset to narrative games, it's not so easy to do it the other way.
insaniak wrote: On reflection, the complaints about the Sigmarines seem a little odd... The connected-but-not-really-ness of WHFB and 40K has always been one of the fun things about GW's games. When the Hrud were first hinted at, everyone went 'Yay! Space Skaven!'. Nobody had an issue with Space Ogres, or Space Minotaurs, or Space Beastment, or Space Slann, or Space Elves... But the moment something goes in the other direction we're all (and yes, I included myself there) losing our minds over it.
I have an issue with most of those. Not the Space Elves and not as much the Space Ogres, but I dislike most animalman races even when they stick to fantasy. And I really do hate what they did with the Tomb Kings and the Necrons, ruining the former by making them more like the latter and ruining the latter by making them more like the former.
And that's the problem, I think. The Grey Knights were most interesting for me when sacrifice wasn't just something that the Grey Knights did to other people. I really like the idea of chapter of Space Marines who take the usual psycho-surgery to extremes, making themselves immune to the temptation of Chaos by cutting out everything that makes a human a person, but since 5th they've just been idiot fratboys. The Stormcast Eternals play with the same idea that was removed from the Grey Knights, but it's nowhere near as interesting.
Yeah, well GW has been catering to you and your playstyle for years now whilst myself and others like me have not been able to enter a store and play the way we want to play. It'd be nice if everyone could play the way they want to, but that hasn't been the case in a long time.
And it still won't be the case because this travesty will bomb harder than a Will E. Coyote plan!
Of course I still won't be able to go into a store and play a refereed scenario. I'm not sure it'll bomb as much as you say though. Vets clearly aren't the target audience. Time will tell.
heartserenade wrote: Wait, GW has been catering to the competitive crowd? WHAT?!?!
Competitive doesn't necessarily mean tournament. You plonk two armies built to the same points down in front of each other and play a pitched battle with the aim of beating your opponent in a straight fight with no real scenario or reasoning - then great GWs been catering to you.
Nothing was stopping you doing it your way though. It's easy to adapt a tight ruleset to narrative games, it's not so easy to do it the other way.
For crying out loud - please read the context.
We could not do that in stores. Some guy was complaining about not being able to play the way he wanted to in stores any more. I was just saying welcome to the fething club.
Norsed wrote: Speaking of third edition, anyone else looking forward to being able to use more interesting formations in Age of Sigmar? Last 5 editions have enforced boring blocks and lines (except for the bretonnian I guess).
If they're anything like the formations in 40K (and the recent leaks suggest they are), then noooooooooooooooope. Formations are one of the things that, imho, are currently breaking 40K as many are completely broken and are purely designed to sell gakloads of models to you (notice how most of the more powerful formations (such as the War Convocation) are linked to expensive web bundles.)
By formation I'm talking about the placement of your troops. Hence the blocks and line stuff and third edition being mentioned. With free placement of troops suddenly we can do Tercio, Hedgehog, Boars Tooth and a whole lot of other things, and with the new melee weapon ranges thing it'll even make a difference.
There's nothing to suggest you can do any of that in AoS. The core of the game looks to be nothing more than move/shoot/melee. Personally, I'd of thought that, as a narrative gamer, you'd be sad over the removal of the majority of thematic tactical depth. If anything, the game looks to be even more suited to hyper-competitive play now...
Norsed wrote: Speaking of third edition, anyone else looking forward to being able to use more interesting formations in Age of Sigmar? Last 5 editions have enforced boring blocks and lines (except for the bretonnian I guess).
If they're anything like the formations in 40K (and the recent leaks suggest they are), then noooooooooooooooope. Formations are one of the things that, imho, are currently breaking 40K as many are completely broken and are purely designed to sell gakloads of models to you (notice how most of the more powerful formations (such as the War Convocation) are linked to expensive web bundles.)
By formation I'm talking about the placement of your troops. Hence the blocks and line stuff and third edition being mentioned. With free placement of troops suddenly we can do Tercio, Hedgehog, Boars Tooth and a whole lot of other things, and with the new melee weapon ranges thing it'll even make a difference.
There's nothing to suggest you can do any of that in AoS. The core of the game looks to be nothing more than move/shoot/melee. Personally, I'd of thought that, as a narrative gamer, you'd be sad over the removal of the majority of thematic tactical depth. If anything, the game looks to be even more suited to hyper-competitive play now...
What thematic tactical depth? Hasn't been much of that in warhammer for a long time. And I don't really see how it can be suited to hyper-competitive play with no points values, but we'll see I guess. I'm going to give it a try with my existing models and judge once I've played.
Of course you can do any of that. You can put your figures anywhere you like as long as they're within an inch. And melee weapons now have a range and you can shoot through your mates. So:
Big block of pikes in the middle to provide a solid melee core with a handful of missile troops within protection of the pikes at the corners - Tercio.
Missiles in the middle surrounded by a fortress of spears - Hedgehog.
And so on and so forth. I'm looking forward to making up some interesting movement trays for this.
angelofvengeance wrote: As others have said, no-one's forcing anyone to play Age of Sigmar, if you're happy playing previous editions, then fine. Keep playing what you know and love.
And as others have said, that doesn't generally work for pickup games, in the same way that I can't wander into my local FLGS and easily find a game of WH40k 2nd or BFG.
This.
Also, good luck going to officially supported tournaments or even unofficially supported ones. AoS is going to bleed over and replace because the latest edition of the rules is what most major tournaments run on. I don't see 2nd ed. Adepticon 40k events, do you?
Surely no one is even going to attempt to run AoS tournaments with the rules in their current state ?
I wish GW would stop trying to make narrative games and bottling it at the last second by bolting on w/l conditions.
It's obvious narrative is what the design team favours, just do it properly if you're going to do it. Stop with the horrible competitive/narrative mash ups.
What thematic tactical depth? Hasn't been much of that in warhammer for a long time.
Never said there was much. Just said there's even less now.
And I don't really see how it can be suited to hyper-competitive play with no points values, but we'll see I guess. I'm going to give it a try with my existing models and judge once I've played.
So, I come into the store with my hypothetical Empire army. I've painted every single last one of them with pain-staking detail. I've created my own Imperial province, named my Elector Count and wrote a long document describing the history and culture of their region. Then I end up facing off against 60 unpainted Bloodthirsters backed up by Telion for some reason and get wiped off the board on turn one.
NARRATIVE FORGED *Tom Kirby playing a guitar solo in the distance*
What thematic tactical depth? Hasn't been much of that in warhammer for a long time.
Never said there was much. Just said there's even less now.
Fair enough. I'm reserving judgment on that one until I actually play. As I said above, the free form nature of figure placement in units and the attack ranges for melee weapons sounds like it could have some serious promise in the formations department.
And I don't really see how it can be suited to hyper-competitive play with no points values, but we'll see I guess. I'm going to give it a try with my existing models and judge once I've played.
So, I come into the store with my hypothetical Empire army. I've painted every single last one of them with pain-staking detail. I've created my own Imperial province, named my Elector Count and wrote a long document describing the history and culture of their region. Then I end up facing off against 60 unpainted Bloodthirsters backed up by Telion for some reason and get wiped off the board on turn one.
NARRATIVE FORGED *Jack Kirby playing a guitar solo in the distance*
I don't know what that last bit has to do with what I said...
Could some1 clarify: since there's no point cost, are there any brackets for small, medium, large sized games?
Also, it's stated, that a unit can have unlimited model count. So, it literally goes down to: player 1 takes Bloodthirster for 1 warscroll. Player 2 takes 100 (providing, he has enough cash to buy that many) of these Celestials and fits them all into once scroll (since a 'squad' can have unlimited numbers') and just goes "whatcha gonna do with that Thirster, bro?".
Apart from these unkwon things, I'm pretty excited about this new release. If I ain't grabbing the boxed set at first, I'm at least getting the BL book
migooo wrote: Hurd have a few similarities with skaven but not so much now.
And don't forget fantasy was first RT or 40k was billed as fantasy in space.
Maybe fantasy wasn't selling as much but to do this? Couldn't you have done something else anything else than this abomination.
It's far worse than white wolf and Requiem.
Seeing the khorne Lord and monster thing nope I don't want them.
I might get the winged guys of ebay or something as well as the relic guy.
But I'm really hesitant to give any money even by proxy to this thing.
It wasn't selling "not as much", from what we've heard, it basically wasn't selling at all compared to 40k. It was radical reboot or nothing.
Then nothing would be preferable to this and if you can't see that I'm sorry.
Look you want to know what really messed gw up ? Blisters the removal of 5 pounds metal blisters for all plastic .
Yes have your box sets of plastic but make 3 troop or command blisters too. I can't tell you how many units I built up that way that's what killed fantasy. Stopping the " pocket money" blister packs.
I'm saying that a system that allows players to take nothing but the strongest (and, 'conveniently' for GW, usually the most expensive) models renders fluffy armies inferior.
nudibranch wrote: I'm saying that a system that allows players to take nothing but the strongest (and, 'conveniently' for GW, usually the most expensive) models renders fluffy armies inferior.
Okay, that's fair enough but I still don't see what that has to do with what you quoted.
Binabik15 wrote: I'll pay 5€ per Khornebeast. What can I say, I love Gorilla-ish things for Khorne.
And complaining about his skulls and ribcages (yes, he has those in the deltoids it seems) but nobody mentioned the RIDICULOUS skulls in the LORD's m. rectus abdominis?!
The skull-skin concept is actually neat, it works well on Creatute Caster's Not-Thirster. With less harsh transitions it probably work on the Khornebeast as well. On the Lord? God damn it, did he EAT them and has a torn Nurgle-belly? Can he even touch his toes with skulls in his gastro-intestinal tract? I doubt it.
I don't think food is an issue for him anymore lol. Seems pretty well imbued with daemonic "gifts"
CragHack wrote: Could some1 clarify: since there's no point cost, are there any brackets for small, medium, large sized games?
Also, it's stated, that a unit can have unlimited model count. So, it literally goes down to: player 1 takes Bloodthirster for 1 warscroll. Player 2 takes 100 (providing, he has enough cash to buy that many) of these Celestials and fits them all into once scroll (since a 'squad' can have unlimited numbers') and just goes "whatcha gonna do with that Thirster, bro?".
Apart from these unkwon things, I'm pretty excited about this new release. If I ain't grabbing the boxed set at first, I'm at least getting the BL book
Their idea of balancing that is that the Bloodthirster now gets to pick a sudden death saying that if he can survive 4 turns he wins, and now he just flys away from your huge blob.
nudibranch wrote: I'm saying that a system that allows players to take nothing but the strongest (and, 'conveniently' for GW, usually the most expensive) models renders fluffy armies inferior.
Okay, that's fair enough but I still don't see what that has to do with what you quoted.
You suggested that the changes with AoS will make the game less hyper-competitive, despite the fact you'll most likely have to spam the strongest units in weird, unfluffy combinations in order to survive at all.
I think in the realm of games, Ultima Online and the shift to Trammel is perhaps the closest analogy. With the exception that they actually made a good product and kept the old anything goes PvP realm for existing players rather than throwing them out. But in terms of completely changing the rules and ethos of the game, its the one that instantly comes to mind.
I think in the realm of games, Ultima Online and the shift to Trammel is perhaps the closest analogy. With the exception that they actually made a good product and kept the old anything goes PvP realm for existing players rather than throwing them out. But in terms of completely changing the rules and ethos of the game, its the one that instantly comes to mind.
Possibly but the Narative was far stronger in Masquerade than in Requiem I was going for quality of the fluff in the original setting rather than lol vampires just exist
Possibly but the Narative was far stronger in Masquerade than in Requiem I was going for quality of the fluff in the original setting rather than lol vampires just exist
I can see that, definitely. Indeed, the thing that stands out for me about the new game, regardless of the design intentions, is that it is all just done very badly. A fewof the sculpts are OK, but none that are really game changing, and plenty that are sub par for GW, and the writing itself, not just fluff but the unintentional ambiguity in the rules, is just of a poor standard.
This coming from a games company that has been making TT wargames for 30 years is pretty inexcusable in itself, no matter what I think of the game itself.
Compared to the skaven/ elf sculpts for 8th yeah they seem uninspired. Chaos =skulls and now belly mouths apparently.
Ill get the WD for the mini but really that's the only reason. I want to reward good ideas i.e. free content occasionally but not reward the stupidity of AOS.
I really regret buying Requiem but it was recommended by fanboy friends and I guess I got caught up in it. The only decent thing was requiem for Rome and I converted it to masquerade pretty quickly.
I read the 4 page rulebook last night, this game looks pretty awesome to me! I never, EVER wanted to play fantasy due to the stupid movement rules and the way combat worked in general. Point values aren't needed because of the scaling nature of the battle shock phase and not knowing what your opponent is going to field. With sudden death victories of one model being alive on turn 6, hold a point on the table by turn 4, kill a powerful single model,or a decent sized unit of your choosing even one sided games are more fair. Especially if you DON'T have to tell your opponent what your objective is. That makes them think about unit placement and board control. That in itself forces tactical decision making. I'm excited, this may get me into fantasy..m
This is what we have to work with. This rules system and the warscrolls. From what we've seen, the warscrolls do not contain any qualifying structural data aside from 'keywords', but they have statlines, which at least provides some distinction between models and units.
GW has, by not providing a structure for us, evinced an intention for us to do so ourselves. This is not idle speculation, it is what I have been told by people who are in a position to know.
There are numerous criticisms we can levy against GW for this choice, most of them valid. But that doesn't help us.
So, that's what we should do. Hammer out some basic structural rules - unit size minimums and maximums, basic 'standard battle' force organisation charts, classifications of different unit types via their keywords etc etc.
This isn't for those people who (quite understandably) don't see the point. After all, why should we spend time putting in all of the vital structural components just because GW didn't? Isn't that their job, not ours? That's a completely valid stance to take, and I'm sorry that this new edition hasn't worked out. Hopefully you can either keep playing 8th or move to one of the numerous other fantasy war games available, and keep using the miniatures you paid for. But, as I said, this isn't for you.
This is for those of you, like me, who for some reason want to stay with Age of Sigmar. For me, it's because I have a group who want to stay with it and I won't get any games in any other system, that's the nature of my local community. I have to stay with AoS, so I want to make it as entertaining as possible. If we all work together, we can create something positive and fun out of this negative situation. I don't think that it's hopeless, or pointless. I think with cooperation we can come up with some really solid rules that we can then take to our local clubs or communities and maybe even have fun with this red-haired stepchild of a rules system.
I'll be creating a thread over in Proposed Rules for this purpose. If you're interested in forging this game into something playable, come and have a look, maybe even make some suggestions, I'll need all the help I can get.
For those of you (validly) don't see the point: please don't respond to this post, or comment in the new thread, with how this endeavor is pointless and/or how GW should've done this work for us. I don't care whether you think it is pointless, and yeah GW should've done it for us. But they didn't, so we've got to make the best of this bad situation.
TL;DR: I'm gonna make a thread in Proposed Rules to make something usable out of this bull-gak of a system. If you want to contribute, come and do so. If you don't see the point, remain silent here and in the new thread.
This is what we have to work with. This rules system and the warscrolls. From what we've seen, the warscrolls do not contain any qualifying structural data aside from 'keywords', but they have statlines, which at least provides some distinction between models and units.
GW has, by not providing a structure for us, evinced an intention for us to do so ourselves. This is not idle speculation, it is what I have been told by people who are in a position to know.
There are numerous criticisms we can levy against GW for this choice, most of them valid. But that doesn't help us.
So, that's what we should do. Hammer out some basic structural rules - unit size minimums and maximums, basic 'standard battle' force organisation charts, classifications of different unit types via their keywords etc etc.
This isn't for those people who (quite understandably) don't see the point. After all, why should we spend time putting in all of the vital structural components just because GW didn't? Isn't that their job, not ours? That's a completely valid stance to take, and I'm sorry that this new edition hasn't worked out. Hopefully you can either keep playing 8th or move to one of the numerous other fantasy war games available, and keep using the miniatures you paid for. But, as I said, this isn't for you.
This is for those of you, like me, who for some reason want to stay with Age of Sigmar. For me, it's because I have a group who want to stay with it and I won't get any games in any other system, that's the nature of my local community. I have to stay with AoS, so I want to make it as entertaining as possible. If we all work together, we can create something positive and fun out of this negative situation. I don't think that it's hopeless, or pointless. I think with cooperation we can come up with some really solid rules that we can then take to our local clubs or communities and maybe even have fun with this red-haired stepchild of a rules system.
I'll be creating a thread over in Proposed Rules for this purpose. If you're interested in forging this game into something playable, come and have a look, maybe even make some suggestions, I'll need all the help I can get.
For those of you (validly) don't see the point: please don't respond to this post, or comment in the new thread, with how this endeavor is pointless and/or how GW should've done this work for us. I don't care whether you think it is pointless, and yeah GW should've done it for us. But they didn't, so we've got to make the best of this bad situation.
TL;DR: I'm gonna make a thread in Proposed Rules to make something usable out of this bull-gak of a system. If you want to contribute, come and do so. If you don't see the point, remain silent here and in the new thread.
In the words of Shia Labeouf: DO IT!
Seems like a lot of hassle to go through. May as well go back to earlier versions or try different game systems...
The most tactical part of the old game, that made you think about unit placement and board control.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: snip.... That makes them think about unit placement and board control. That in itself forces tactical decision making. I'm excited, this may get me into fantasy..m
C'mon guys, he did say if you don't want to it's completely valid and hopefully you can keep playing 8th, and that his post was for people who want to sort something out with this game...
This is what we have to work with. This rules system and the warscrolls. From what we've seen, the warscrolls do not contain any qualifying structural data aside from 'keywords', but they have statlines, which at least provides some distinction between models and units.
GW has, by not providing a structure for us, evinced an intention for us to do so ourselves. This is not idle speculation, it is what I have been told by people who are in a position to know.
There are numerous criticisms we can levy against GW for this choice, most of them valid. But that doesn't help us.
So, that's what we should do. Hammer out some basic structural rules - unit size minimums and maximums, basic 'standard battle' force organisation charts, classifications of different unit types via their keywords etc etc.
This isn't for those people who (quite understandably) don't see the point. After all, why should we spend time putting in all of the vital structural components just because GW didn't? Isn't that their job, not ours? That's a completely valid stance to take, and I'm sorry that this new edition hasn't worked out. Hopefully you can either keep playing 8th or move to one of the numerous other fantasy war games available, and keep using the miniatures you paid for. But, as I said, this isn't for you.
This is for those of you, like me, who for some reason want to stay with Age of Sigmar. For me, it's because I have a group who want to stay with it and I won't get any games in any other system, that's the nature of my local community. I have to stay with AoS, so I want to make it as entertaining as possible. If we all work together, we can create something positive and fun out of this negative situation. I don't think that it's hopeless, or pointless. I think with cooperation we can come up with some really solid rules that we can then take to our local clubs or communities and maybe even have fun with this red-haired stepchild of a rules system.
I'll be creating a thread over in Proposed Rules for this purpose. If you're interested in forging this game into something playable, come and have a look, maybe even make some suggestions, I'll need all the help I can get.
For those of you (validly) don't see the point: please don't respond to this post, or comment in the new thread, with how this endeavor is pointless and/or how GW should've done this work for us. I don't care whether you think it is pointless, and yeah GW should've done it for us. But they didn't, so we've got to make the best of this bad situation.
TL;DR: I'm gonna make a thread in Proposed Rules to make something usable out of this bull-gak of a system. If you want to contribute, come and do so. If you don't see the point, remain silent here and in the new thread.
In the words of Shia Labeouf: DO IT!
I wish you luck. I'm not interested in such a system, I'm happy with what I'm seeing in AoS so far. But I can see that a lack of a points system is really getting on some people's tits, so if you can help provide that for them then that's great.
However, I think you're going to need lots of luck, because getting anyone to agree on anything is going to be a nightmare.
Also, whilst making a start on it as soon as possible is probably a good idea, I'd recommend waiting until Saturday before you make any big decisions.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Point values aren't needed because of the scaling nature of the battle shock phase and not knowing what your opponent is going to field.
With sudden death victories of one model being alive on turn 6, hold a point on the table by turn 4, kill a powerful single model,or a decent sized unit of your choosing even one sided games are more fair. Especially if you DON'T have to tell your opponent what your objective is. That makes them think about unit placement and board control. That in itself forces tactical decision making. I'm excited, this may get me into fantasy..m
This post makes no sense. Absolute rubbish.
Scaling nature of the battle shock phase? It doesn't scale at all. It's very linear:
Did you lose 1 or more models?
No -> Do nothing
Yes -> (d6 + Dead models) - (Bravery + Models/10). That's not scaling. For every 10 models in your unit you (possibly) save 1 dude. *finger twirl* woohoo
No points needed? With Warscrolls having no limitations beyond "only 1" or "1 to your deployment zone", how do you even begin to make a balanced game? Oh wait, we don't need a balanced game because reasons and Sudden Death!
Except you clearly didn't read Sudden Death. Because your opponent DOES know what your choice was, because in a full half the options HE HAS TO PICK YOUR TARGET!
"You pick assassination? Cool, you have to kill my ubernaught hero back here. I've put him in the back corner, with my deployment zone being nothing but literal shoulder to shoulder dragons and a unit of 100 Warriors of Chaos. Good luck!"
"You pick blunt? Cool, you have to wipe out that unit of 100 Warriors of Chaose. Good luck!"
"You want to get to terrain in my deployment zone? Cool, you will have to kill a model to even take one step. Good luck!"
"Your dude just has to live six turns? Awesome, I'm already outnumbering you 20 to 1 or more, so... Good luck!"
Sudden death is not a balancing factor. Sudden death is a band-aid over a gaping wound of crap tier writing.
My only problem with it so far is the "bring as many models as you like" army construction. With no model count restrictions and war scroll restrictions, I don't see how you can have a fair game with this even with the sudden death objectives for an outnumbered opponent. With the leaked war scrolls we have already seen, you can have unlimited models with a single scroll.
D6Damager wrote: My only problem with it so far is the "bring as many models as you like" army construction. With no model count restrictions and war scroll restrictions, I don't see how you can have a fair game with this even with the sudden death objectives for an outnumbered opponent. With the leaked war scrolls we have already seen, you can have unlimited models with a single scroll.
Well you can agree the number of models in each army with your opponent can't you?
Dr. Delorean wrote: This is for those of you, like me, who for some reason want to stay with Age of Sigmar. For me, it's because I have a group who want to stay with it and I won't get any games in any other system, that's the nature of my local community. I have to stay with AoS...
Are you sure about that? Do you really think that they will be more accepting of a new and terrible game and unsanctioned house rules than the game they already play?
D6Damager wrote: My only problem with it so far is the "bring as many models as you like" army construction. With no model count restrictions and war scroll restrictions, I don't see how you can have a fair game with this even with the sudden death objectives for an outnumbered opponent. With the leaked war scrolls we have already seen, you can have unlimited models with a single scroll.
This is also my concern. I like the models and prefer a squad based game over ranked troops, but non-existing balancing is just bad.
There is one tournament style that would work for AoS: matched pairs. Not saying it's necessarily practical or ideal for those that like tournaments, but it is an option.
(Matched Pairs: each player brings two forces. In each match only one player's pair of armies will be used, and the other player gets to pick which one they want to use. It's a system I've mostly seen in DBA tournaments - used to encourage historical match ups and to make sure people aren't just bringing either French Ordonnance or armies chosen to deal with French Ordonnance)
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Point values aren't needed because of the scaling nature of the battle shock phase and not knowing what your opponent is going to field.
With sudden death victories of one model being alive on turn 6, hold a point on the table by turn 4, kill a powerful single model,or a decent sized unit of your choosing even one sided games are more fair. Especially if you DON'T have to tell your opponent what your objective is. That makes them think about unit placement and board control. That in itself forces tactical decision making. I'm excited, this may get me into fantasy..m
This post makes no sense. Absolute rubbish.
Scaling nature of the battle shock phase? It doesn't scale at all. It's very linear:
Did you lose 1 or more models?
No -> Do nothing
Yes -> (d6 + Dead models) - (Bravery + Models/10). That's not scaling. For every 10 models in your unit you (possibly) save 1 dude. *finger twirl* woohoo
No points needed? With Warscrolls having no limitations beyond "only 1" or "1 to your deployment zone", how do you even begin to make a balanced game? Oh wait, we don't need a balanced game because reasons and Sudden Death!
Except you clearly didn't read Sudden Death. Because your opponent DOES know what your choice was, because in a full half the options HE HAS TO PICK YOUR TARGET!
"You pick assassination? Cool, you have to kill my ubernaught hero back here. I've put him in the back corner, with my deployment zone being nothing but literal shoulder to shoulder dragons and a unit of 100 Warriors of Chaos. Good luck!"
"You pick blunt? Cool, you have to wipe out that unit of 100 Warriors of Chaose. Good luck!"
"You want to get to terrain in my deployment zone? Cool, you will have to kill a model to even take one step. Good luck!"
"Your dude just has to live six turns? Awesome, I'm already outnumbering you 20 to 1 or more, so... Good luck!"
Sudden death is not a balancing factor. Sudden death is a band-aid over a gaping wound of crap tier writing.
You're right, I read the instant death rules wrong. But for scaling of the battle shock, if your unit has a huge pile of models, and I whipe out a significant chunk of them, the unit will drop people like crazy. Bigger units equals better ability to focus, the more damage they take the easier it is to make them run. seems pretty scalable to me.
Let's also not forget that you can always tell your opponent to stop putting models down on the table. Let them outnumber you, sure. But if I'm playing 150 orruks (or whatever they decided to call them) and the guy across the table from me brought 500 sigmarites, I can certainly ask he not put them all on the table because as a decent human being they should see that that would be unnecessary.
We have to look our opponent in the eye at some point folks, they are people too and deserve at least a modicum of respect.
angelofvengeance wrote: I think GW has learned a few hard lessons from their legal issues with Chapterhouse. Without condoning or condemning, they have to protect their IP.
If 'Orruks' and 'Ogors' are the result of those lessons, they weren't really paying attention to what was going on, though.
Remember, their IP guy doesn't have any background in IP law.... (For the amount of money he is taking home, you might think that he would at least have taken some classes on the subject, but nooooo....)
And with each misstep, their IP is worth less and less....
The Auld Grump, I think that this was the banana peel that will kill Fantasy - while GW will live, for a while, Fantasy is done. Not with an epic battle, but slipping on a banana peel and falling into its own grave.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Point values aren't needed because of the scaling nature of the battle shock phase and not knowing what your opponent is going to field.
With sudden death victories of one model being alive on turn 6, hold a point on the table by turn 4, kill a powerful single model,or a decent sized unit of your choosing even one sided games are more fair. Especially if you DON'T have to tell your opponent what your objective is. That makes them think about unit placement and board control. That in itself forces tactical decision making. I'm excited, this may get me into fantasy..m
This post makes no sense. Absolute rubbish.
Scaling nature of the battle shock phase? It doesn't scale at all. It's very linear:
Did you lose 1 or more models?
No -> Do nothing
Yes -> (d6 + Dead models) - (Bravery + Models/10). That's not scaling. For every 10 models in your unit you (possibly) save 1 dude. *finger twirl* woohoo
No points needed? With Warscrolls having no limitations beyond "only 1" or "1 to your deployment zone", how do you even begin to make a balanced game? Oh wait, we don't need a balanced game because reasons and Sudden Death!
Except you clearly didn't read Sudden Death. Because your opponent DOES know what your choice was, because in a full half the options HE HAS TO PICK YOUR TARGET!
"You pick assassination? Cool, you have to kill my ubernaught hero back here. I've put him in the back corner, with my deployment zone being nothing but literal shoulder to shoulder dragons and a unit of 100 Warriors of Chaos. Good luck!"
"You pick blunt? Cool, you have to wipe out that unit of 100 Warriors of Chaose. Good luck!"
"You want to get to terrain in my deployment zone? Cool, you will have to kill a model to even take one step. Good luck!"
"Your dude just has to live six turns? Awesome, I'm already outnumbering you 20 to 1 or more, so... Good luck!"
Sudden death is not a balancing factor. Sudden death is a band-aid over a gaping wound of crap tier writing.
You're right, I read the instant death rules wrong. But for scaling of the battle shock, if your unit has a huge pile of models, and I whipe out a significant chunk of them, the unit will drop people like crazy. Bigger units equals better ability to focus, the more damage they take the easier it is to make them run. seems pretty scalable to me.
Let's also not forget that you can always tell your opponent to stop putting models down on the table. Let them outnumber you, sure. But if I'm playing 150 orruks (or whatever they decided to call them) and the guy across the table from me brought 500 sigmarites, I can certainly ask he not put them all on the table because as a decent human being they should see that that would be unnecessary.
We have to look our opponent in the eye at some point folks, they are people too and deserve at least a modicum of respect.
For the Battle Shock, really only your kills on the opponent's units matter. It doesn't scale because even if you would "kill more" (you won't, you'll kill slightly less), those same kills on a smaller unit would wipe it out:
I have 15 models in my unit and bravery 7. You kill 8 models. I'm losing (1-to-6 + 8) - (7 + 7/10) = 2 to 7 models.
I have 150 models in my unit and bravery 7. You kill 8 models. I'm losing (1-to-6 + 8 - (7 + 143/10) = 0 models.
I have 15 models in my unit and bravery 7. You kill 15 models. I don't even take a test, I'm dead.
I have 150 models in my unit and bravery 7. You kill 15 models. I'm losing (1-to-6 + 15) - (7 + 135/10) = 0 to 1 model.
It's not "scaling" at all. It's basically like everyone just got the Strength in Numbers rule that Skaven used to have.
And while I agree that our opponents are people, this isn't A Streetcar Named Desire. We should not have to rely on the kindness of strangers to get a fair and even game. I would say "especially when we're paying for rules", but I suspect GW realized that the rules were so bad that no one would pay for them.
Why is it so hard to fathom that the STARTER box doesn't come with unit point costs(or whatever their new equivalent may be). If the box gives you 10 dudes in unit A and a unit card for unit A, then you already know exactly how many effin dudes are in the unit.
The expansions or "rule additions" they are planning after the starter box will most likely include the unit points/worth or whatever balancing aspect to each unit. Not for a moment did I see this as a game breaking "gap" like the rest of the web is crying about.
I cant recall a single starter box for fantasy or 40k that I have ever purchased that included the units or wargear points costs. Not to say there wasn't one, just not one that I ever purchased.
The rules seem overly simple. Once again, probably due to being a starter box and they want something easy and quick to learn in order to draw in new people. I have no doubt that they will enhance the rules complexity as new content rolls out. A tard could see this coming a mile away.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: I read the 4 page rulebook last night, this game looks pretty awesome to me! I never, EVER wanted to play fantasy due to the stupid movement rules and the way combat worked in general. Point values aren't needed because of the scaling nature of the battle shock phase and not knowing what your opponent is going to field. With sudden death victories of one model being alive on turn 6, hold a point on the table by turn 4, kill a powerful single model,or a decent sized unit of your choosing even one sided games are more fair. Especially if you DON'T have to tell your opponent what your objective is. That makes them think about unit placement and board control. That in itself forces tactical decision making. I'm excited, this may get me into fantasy..m
You realize that removing characteristics is just dumbing down?
Oh no I can't add up to 36 it's the end of the world
Oh no if I outnumber the enemy because he lost x amount of figures it means he runs away and I can follow and finish him off
It's not stupid it just requires learning a little addition. Or you know I'm sure you have a smart phone with a calculator.
What's next no dice because it hurts your hand. My figues cost 35 pounds I win yay go home poor person?
Yeah this came of more harsh than I meant it but still. Fantasy had more depth and a harder but more rewarding learning curve. Now it's just here you go little Timmy you win yay...
Rezyn wrote:Why is it so hard to fathom that the STARTER box doesn't come with unit point costs(or whatever their new equivalent may be).
it's not that there are no point costs in the book. It's that multiple retailers on these boards have ALSO been told that there are no additional rules coming; this is it. Notice that the rules don't even mention points, just "put your models on the table".
agnosto wrote:Your truescale marine prayers have been answered.
But agnosto, they don't look anything like Space Marines!
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: I read the 4 page rulebook last night, this game looks pretty awesome to me! I never, EVER wanted to play fantasy due to the stupid movement rules and the way combat worked in general. Point values aren't needed because of the scaling nature of the battle shock phase and not knowing what your opponent is going to field. With sudden death victories of one model being alive on turn 6, hold a point on the table by turn 4, kill a powerful single model,or a decent sized unit of your choosing even one sided games are more fair. Especially if you DON'T have to tell your opponent what your objective is. That makes them think about unit placement and board control. That in itself forces tactical decision making. I'm excited, this may get me into fantasy..m
You realize that removing characteristics is just dumbing down?
Oh no I can't add up to 36 it's the end of the world
Oh no if I outnumber the enemy because he lost x amount of figures it means he runs away and I can follow and finish him off
It's not stupid it just requires learning a little addition. Or you know I'm sure you have a smart phone with a calculator.
What's next no dice because it hurts your hand. My figues cost 35 pounds I win yay go home poor person?
Yeah this came of more harsh than I meant it but still. Fantasy had more depth and a harder but more rewarding learning curve. Now it's just here you go little Timmy you win yay...
Not that I agree with the sentiment behind Lythrandire Biehrellian's post... but where you see dumbing down I see a simple way to remove the necessity for charts. Which drastically reduces the page count needed to describe the game and potentially speeds up combat enormously. And, at the end of the day, 9 times out of 10 it ends up with the same sort of numbers anyway.
Yeah, Fantasy had a little more depth than 40k - but that really isn't hard.
Besides the characteristics thing and the points thing, perhaps you could point out what else you think it is now missing that would make it a deeper game? Because, honestly, I'm not seeing a whole lot.
Laughing Man wrote: So GW will really do anything to keep from having to update Brettonians, huh?
GW destroyed the entire WHFB universe to avoid updating Bretonnians.
The whole "Money" thing is just an elaborate scapegoat
Hmm, 40k may be in trouble as well with the Sisters of Battle...
Really this again?? Dark eldar a very low selling army got a revamp and it paid off. The amount of people who would jump at a SoB army is quite large it has nothing to do with the fact that it wouldn't be profitable because it would.
Some body powerful possibly Kirby or one of his hatchet men has a hatred for female forces that's it.
That's why and nobody at GW has the nerve to admit.
Laughing Man wrote: So GW will really do anything to keep from having to update Brettonians, huh?
GW destroyed the entire WHFB universe to avoid updating Bretonnians.
The whole "Money" thing is just an elaborate scapegoat
Hmm, 40k may be in trouble as well with the Sisters of Battle...
Really this again?? Dark eldar a very low selling army got a revamp and it paid off. The amount of people who would jump at a SoB army is quite large it has nothing to do with the fact that it wouldn't be profitable because it would.
Some body powerful possibly Kirby or one of his hatchet men has a hatred for female forces that's it.
That's why and nobody at GW has the nerve to admit.
Whoa there, migoo. It was just a silly joke going off the effective canning of the other fleur-de-lis-laden faction GW produces. No need to analyze the post, because it didn't really have a point
EDIT: added a smiley to that last post, less people not take it in jest
I get people want to make this work, they are invested in fantasy and are trying to make the best out of what is becoming a bit of a bad situation.
But here's the thing about house ruling point style restrictions and so on. It will work for those in groups, it will work for those who are experienced in wargaming and just want a friendly game with a stranger sometimes, it wont work for those waac guys, and most importantly, it is useless for new players who wont have the knowledge to do come up with such things in the first place.
If the idea here is to recue fantasy by attracting new players, the need to house rule it to make the game viable and enjoyable is itself an indication that this is just a failure in its intended purpose from day one. Something this broken will not attract new blood, indeed, casual game players are used to tight rules, that makes things easy. That is why settlers of catan, ticket to ride, munchkin and so on sell by the bucket load to a broad demographic, they are simply to play, but understandable, well written games. This is not.
It is a mess, and that is why I doubt there will be a GW fantasy game in 3 years time.
D6Damager wrote: My only problem with it so far is the "bring as many models as you like" army construction. With no model count restrictions and war scroll restrictions, I don't see how you can have a fair game with this even with the sudden death objectives for an outnumbered opponent. With the leaked war scrolls we have already seen, you can have unlimited models with a single scroll.
Well you can agree the number of models in each army with your opponent can't you?
Then you are already house ruling the game and number of models still doesn't necessarily = balance.
For example, because there is no points system; there is no guarantee that if we agree to say a "20 model limit game" that my army of greater daemons, daemon princes, soulgrinders and daemon heralds will utterly smash your starter box Stormcast Eternals army. From what we have seen of the single "hero" war scrolls this would seem to be true as the hero models have multiple attacks and can cause mortal wounds.
Opposite side of the coin: we agree to a small 4 war scroll game...well I just happen to have 80 Skaven Clan Rats for one of my scrolls...etc. etc.
Or simply going all WAAC and spamming the models that cause the most amount of mortal wounds (which allow no saves). For example, Munchkin walks into the store and plunks down his 20 wizard army which has a 50% chance to cause 20-60 mortal wounds each turn from range which he can continue to do since now you can now run away from close combat before it begins......
I predict this is what any type of tournament play will look like. Spamming fast or ranged mortal wound causing units with TO's placing some sort of warscroll and model count limit. Which again is not rules as written or rules as intended by GW.
If all were are getting is this 4 page ruleset, then I can't help but think it's future is doomed to exploitation unless house ruled. It's already happening to 40K which arguably has a tighter ruleset in regards to army construction.
At the end of the day, I don't have to consult/house rule/argue/compromise with my opponent on how to set up an army list for any other miniature game system I play other than "How many points would you like to play?". Army construction for Age of Sigmar is just too open ended to have any semblance of fair play.
agnosto wrote: Your truescale marine prayers have been answered.
They have been... by Forgeworld and their Tartaros terminator kits... but not by the sigmarines. I don't like their look either in fantasy nor kitbashed into 40k.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: I read the 4 page rulebook last night, this game looks pretty awesome to me! I never, EVER wanted to play fantasy due to the stupid movement rules and the way combat worked in general. Point values aren't needed because of the scaling nature of the battle shock phase and not knowing what your opponent is going to field. With sudden death victories of one model being alive on turn 6, hold a point on the table by turn 4, kill a powerful single model,or a decent sized unit of your choosing even one sided games are more fair. Especially if you DON'T have to tell your opponent what your objective is. That makes them think about unit placement and board control. That in itself forces tactical decision making. I'm excited, this may get me into fantasy..m
You realize that removing characteristics is just dumbing down?
Oh no I can't add up to 36 it's the end of the world
Oh no if I outnumber the enemy because he lost x amount of figures it means he runs away and I can follow and finish him off
It's not stupid it just requires learning a little addition. Or you know I'm sure you have a smart phone with a calculator.
What's next no dice because it hurts your hand. My figues cost 35 pounds I win yay go home poor person?
Yeah this came of more harsh than I meant it but still. Fantasy had more depth and a harder but more rewarding learning curve. Now it's just here you go little Timmy you win yay...
Not that I agree with the sentiment behind Lythrandire Biehrellian's post... but where you see dumbing down I see a simple way to remove the necessity for charts. Which drastically reduces the page count needed to describe the game and potentially speeds up combat enormously. And, at the end of the day, 9 times out of 10 it ends up with the same sort of numbers anyway.
Yeah, Fantasy had a little more depth than 40k - but that really isn't hard.
Besides the characteristics thing and the points thing, perhaps you could point out what else you think it is now missing that would make it a deeper game? Because, honestly, I'm not seeing a whole lot.
It certainly can be thought of that way and if you want to play I certainly won't stop you.
Fantasy had a rich dynamic system not only "charts" but the way the game came out on the board, okay fine blocks were sometimes hard to move hence movement trays. Magic now is basically a gun or ranged weapon or maybe a buff. Before a spell could make or break a round and some races were dependant on this now it seems that magic will just be a shooting attack.
Those characteristics were important they defined a wood elf from a bloodletter it was like a little story in itself. It made the figures meaningful now they aren't so much. So if you were never a fan of them I can't really explain. Just don't complain when 40k gets the same treatment and it certainly will.
Maybe I'm old and bitter but it's too far from the original
The background is now some kind of bad fanfiction.net entry and yeah background is a huge part of a games narrative. All those custom armies all those blogs including my Sewer pirate skaven are just gone
I'm a larger fan of the Rock Paper Scissors that PP uses.
Laughing Man wrote: So GW will really do anything to keep from having to update Brettonians, huh?
GW destroyed the entire WHFB universe to avoid updating Bretonnians.
The whole "Money" thing is just an elaborate scapegoat
Hmm, 40k may be in trouble as well with the Sisters of Battle...
Really this again?? Dark eldar a very low selling army got a revamp and it paid off. The amount of people who would jump at a SoB army is quite large it has nothing to do with the fact that it wouldn't be profitable because it would.
Some body powerful possibly Kirby or one of his hatchet men has a hatred for female forces that's it.
That's why and nobody at GW has the nerve to admit.
Whoa there, migoo. It was just a silly joke going off the effective canning of the other fleur-de-lis-laden faction GW produces. No need to analyze the post, because it didn't really have a point
EDIT: added a smiley to that last post, less people not take it in jest
Sorry Sisters are my first love in the setting and I tend to defend them very vocally.
Then you are already house ruling the game and number of models still doesn't necessarily = balance.
It's not really house ruling if the game (company) explicitly asks you to make pre-game arrangements with your opponent to ensure the game is fun. It would be house-ruling not to.
Either way, whatever you call it, even with points, 40K isn't really playable out of the book without some ad-hoc agreements/mutual restrictions/last-minute army-list-changes to ensure both players have fun at the game.
Not saying that is how it should be, just how it is.
Mymearan wrote: It wasn't selling "not as much", from what we've heard, it basically wasn't selling at all compared to 40k. It was radical reboot or nothing.
No. No, it wasn't. It was only "radical reboot or nothing" because that's what GW up and decided to do, since the company doesn't do market research. They could have figured out what was wrong with Fantasy and fixed it if they wanted to.
What they've done here is near insanity, an overly drastic solution to the problem (which they caused in the first place, but they don't know that), which is most likely going to fail and cost GW even more money in the end.
migooo wrote: It certainly can be thought of that way and if you want to play I certainly won't stop you.
Fantasy had a rich dynamic system not only "charts" but the way the game came out on the board, okay fine blocks were sometimes hard to move hence movement trays. Magic now is basically a gun or ranged weapon or maybe a buff. Before a spell could make or break a round and some races were dependant on this now it seems that magic will just be a shooting attack.
Those characteristics were important they defined a wood elf from a bloodletter it was like a little story in itself. It made the figures meaningful now they aren't so much. So if you were never a fan of them I can't really explain. Just don't complain when 40k gets the same treatment and it certainly will.
Maybe I'm old and bitter but it's too far from the original
The background is now some kind of bad fanfiction.net entry and yeah background is a huge part of a games narrative. All those custom armies all those blogs including my Sewer pirate skaven are just gone
I'm a larger fan of the Rock Paper Scissors that PP uses.
I think this is a bit of sensationalist thinking. The point of war-scrolls (as far as I have seen) is so that each unit has their special rules conveniently placed in a single spot for easier reference. Age of Sigmar doesn't look to be a perfect game (I liked block movement, and no points is something else) but it does look like its easier and faster to play. With Warhammer previously and 40k now if you don't have your special rules memorized you have to do a lot of flipping through your rulebook to even play. This isn't a fun way to play a game for new players. I know I have felt like I'm doing a research assignment then playing a game at times. The warscrolls give you everything in one spot, no looking.
I guess what I am saying is, yes, expert elves (or Aelfs) should be harder to hit than your average troop, so a special rule like that can be put on the warscroll. Look at Heroscape for an example of this, each unit only has wounds, attack, defense, and range, but each unit is unique because each unit has special rules. Of course each unit has points too...
Did anyone else notice that there will be a "Special Edition" AoS "Gates of Azyn" story book that is both direct only and twice the price. So now they want to sell us special editions storybooks that have 7 more pages but for 100% more? GW is really really making it hard for me to be a supporter of theirs anymore.
Whoops turns out I was wrong. It is not 15 dollars more for those extra seven pages it is 20 dollars more. So that is actually 133% more.
Edit for my bad math skills and to put this post in the proper thread.
It certainly can be thought of that way and if you want to play I certainly won't stop you.
Fantasy had a rich dynamic system not only "charts" but the way the game came out on the board, okay fine blocks were sometimes hard to move hence movement trays. Magic now is basically a gun or ranged weapon or maybe a buff. Before a spell could make or break a round and some races were dependant on this now it seems that magic will just be a shooting attack.
Those characteristics were important they defined a wood elf from a bloodletter it was like a little story in itself. It made the figures meaningful now they aren't so much. So if you were never a fan of them I can't really explain. Just don't complain when 40k gets the same treatment and it certainly will.
Maybe I'm old and bitter but it's too far from the original
The background is now some kind of bad fanfiction.net entry and yeah background is a huge part of a games narrative. All those custom armies all those blogs including my Sewer pirate skaven are just gone
I'm a larger fan of the Rock Paper Scissors that PP uses.
But you still haven't actually pointed out to anything that so drastically reduces the depth of the gameplay here.
I won't be complaining when 40k gets the same treatment - because I still play Rogue Trader and I couldn't give a flying toss what corporate GW does with a game that hasn't been to my taste for decades.
It's not that I was never a fan of characteristics. I play oldhammer, where we still have seperate Willpower, Cool and Intelligence characteristics. But considering Warhammer hasn't had any connection to roleplaying scenarios for a long time I can see the advantage of removing chart reliance to make things faster on the tabletop.
Nothing is stopping you using blocks. In fact, as I pointed out above, perhaps you can explore all new and interesting formations to try out now that you have the flexibility to do so - I will certainly be making new movement trays to take advantage of that. True, the rank bonus is gone which means the game is no longer about steamrollers bashing into each other - but to my mind that's no big loss. Forming up still has a lot of advantages that I can see in AoS over fighting in a big cloud.
And all we've seen of the magic is the two basic spells every wizard has. Every wizard will have their own spells on their warscroll, so I can see a lot of interesting stuff coming there.
Yeah, the background is a bit naff. Destroying the old world really annoys me. But, guess what, nothing's stopping you from still using those custom armies and coming up with new backgrounds the way you want them to be.
Is Age of Sigmar perfect? No. But I can see GW trying something new. Free core rules and warscrolls available for everything means that as a referee I might actually be able to run proper refereed scenarios again in a current edition of Warhammer - something that was impossible with the individual army book setup. And I can see being able to build Tercios and operate lines of relief and all sorts of things. So I'm cautiously optimistic and can't wait to try it out.
The new scenery prices can be seen in the background of the contents images at the start of the thread. But that ROB section does look new.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The new scenery prices can be seen in the background of the contents images at the start of the thread. But that ROB section does look new.
Something I have been wondering about for a while is scale creep, and are the sigmarines really a lot bigger than everything else, or are the chaos guys also a lot bigger, and thus won't fit in with an existing army quite as well as we think?
The picture on the new arch terrain box is small, but I beleive it shows a sigmarine and a khorne guy, and they are of a very similar size.
Thraxas Of Turai wrote: Apologies if this picture has already been posted but here is the Khorne Lord and his pet "Snuggles" im all of their glory:
And this thing:
Really liking these two models, Im sure I can find something to do with them, I doubt il play AOS, I dont think they look that much like space marines either, totally different armour and weapons, but when you start reading the fluff it sounds more than a little similar, still the hate seems pretty over the top to me, but then again im about as casual as you get, the rules are the least of my concerns.
I really hope the game turns out to be fun, still wont affect me buying the set though, might have to try and snag an extra 3 prosecutors as I am dead set on using 2 for a minotaur chaplain and captain, skyhammer annihilation force minotaur style, yes please.
The big Khorne guy with all the skulls creating holes in his skin and that it looks like they are flowing around his body gives me the creeps, honestly don't think I could stomach painting it without cringing.
It certainly can be thought of that way and if you want to play I certainly won't stop you.
Fantasy had a rich dynamic system not only "charts" but the way the game came out on the board, okay fine blocks were sometimes hard to move hence movement trays. Magic now is basically a gun or ranged weapon or maybe a buff. Before a spell could make or break a round and some races were dependant on this now it seems that magic will just be a shooting attack.
Those characteristics were important they defined a wood elf from a bloodletter it was like a little story in itself. It made the figures meaningful now they aren't so much. So if you were never a fan of them I can't really explain. Just don't complain when 40k gets the same treatment and it certainly will.
Maybe I'm old and bitter but it's too far from the original
The background is now some kind of bad fanfiction.net entry and yeah background is a huge part of a games narrative. All those custom armies all those blogs including my Sewer pirate skaven are just gone
I'm a larger fan of the Rock Paper Scissors that PP uses.
But you still haven't actually pointed out to anything that so drastically reduces the depth of the gameplay here.
I won't be complaining when 40k gets the same treatment - because I still play Rogue Trader and I couldn't give a flying toss what corporate GW does with a game that hasn't been to my taste for decades.
It's not that I was never a fan of characteristics. I play oldhammer, where we still have seperate Willpower, Cool and Intelligence characteristics. But considering Warhammer hasn't had any connection to roleplaying scenarios for a long time I can see the advantage of removing chart reliance to make things faster on the tabletop.
Nothing is stopping you using blocks. In fact, as I pointed out above, perhaps you can explore all new and interesting formations to try out now that you have the flexibility to do so - I will certainly be making new movement trays to take advantage of that. True, the rank bonus is gone which means the game is no longer about steamrollers bashing into each other - but to my mind that's no big loss. Forming up still has a lot of advantages that I can see in AoS over fighting in a big cloud.
And all we've seen of the magic is the two basic spells every wizard has. Every wizard will have their own spells on their warscroll, so I can see a lot of interesting stuff coming there.
Yeah, the background is a bit naff. Destroying the old world really annoys me. But, guess what, nothing's stopping you from still using those custom armies and coming up with new backgrounds the way you want them to be.
Is Age of Sigmar perfect? No. But I can see GW trying something new. Free core rules and warscrolls available for everything means that as a referee I might actually be able to run proper refereed scenarios again in a current edition of Warhammer - something that was impossible with the individual army book setup. And I can see being able to build Tercios and operate lines of relief and all sorts of things. So I'm cautiously optimistic and can't wait to try it out.
Position and how a unit faced was essential AOS supposedly removes this.in one way I can see the upside but it feels like half a game.
I lost Chaos Dwarfs, I lost Squats I'm loosing sisters and now all of warhammer
How will poison work or plague spells? , again I play second so really I don't care if 40k gets sigmarized.in the beginning when I started to read the rules I thought okay cool but to change so much so fast is not for me.
Maybe it has the same amount of tactical options that old warhammer has but I just don't see it.
That Chaos Lord is beyond awesome, I'll be ebaying him for sure.
In fact there's loads about this release I'd love to love, I just can't endorse the halfassery of the rules, so no direct cash injection from me, unless things get patched further down the line at least.
streamdragon wrote: But this? One of the best parts of WHFB is that you didn't have that shining beacon faction. Even the "good" factions had their flaws. The Empire wasn't exactly a shining beacon, and even the Holier Than Most Brettonians had plenty of "we give 0 craps about peasants" to offset having a literal faith shield.
But that's a more adult sensibility, right? And even a lot of adults like more brightness and the concept of the "good guy." Meanwhile, you're trying to sell the game to kids.
This is something that I think some vet GW gamers have trouble accepting. GW games are for kids. We're playing kids' games. Maybe 40K is more adolescent in tone, but it's still sub-18. There's nothing wrong with enjoying kid stuff as your hobby, but I think you have to accept and own that, and with that comes some understanding when GW creates something that seems childish.
Along those lines, it's always perplexing to me how people can get bent out of shape about a single silly name or cartoony story when both Warhammer universes are so incredibly cheesy and over-the-top. It's a drop in an Olympic-sized pool.
Old enough to know the battle cry of "they are dumbing down the game" really means "I don't like change". When you young kids have a wife and kids, you won't have time for complex (and tedious) rules. And it's not like Warhammer rules were elegant or a great simulation. They were just clunky and familiar. Good riddance.
Now bring on the elves... or what ever they are called!
I admit, when I found out this was real, my reaction was the same as most others here. After giving it some time to sink in though, I think I can see some positives.
First of all, the design isn't bad. The new miniatures are pretty cool, although rather OTT. But I kind of like that look.
Also, there are some good ides there. The multiple realms thing makes it more like D&D or Magic:The Gathering, in other words, more like a fantasy universe. Funny how this aspect almost gets it away from 40k as much as it brings it closer.
However, it seems to have been implemented poorly. The writing that we've seen so far is pretty cringeworthy.
As others have mentioned, they seem to be going for a typical good guys vs bad guys story, which takes away a lot of what made Warhammer so unique.
But what I hate the most is that this new setting comes at the expense of the old one. The Old World literally blew up. If these were additions to the old fluff, rather than replacements, maybe I could get behind it.
As it is the bad really outweighs the good for me. I'm afraid this probably won't help Fantasy in the long run. And I'm reluctant to buy the miniatures just to have them at the prices they are likely to be, especially if this does end up failing in 3 years time.
So, like so many other things coming out of GW, we have some really good ideas ruined by the heavy-handed way they are implemented.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: Point values aren't needed because of the scaling nature of the battle shock phase and not knowing what your opponent is going to field.
With sudden death victories of one model being alive on turn 6, hold a point on the table by turn 4, kill a powerful single model,or a decent sized unit of your choosing even one sided games are more fair. Especially if you DON'T have to tell your opponent what your objective is. That makes them think about unit placement and board control. That in itself forces tactical decision making. I'm excited, this may get me into fantasy..m
This post makes no sense. Absolute rubbish.
Scaling nature of the battle shock phase? It doesn't scale at all. It's very linear:
Did you lose 1 or more models?
No -> Do nothing
Yes -> (d6 + Dead models) - (Bravery + Models/10). That's not scaling. For every 10 models in your unit you (possibly) save 1 dude. *finger twirl* woohoo
No points needed? With Warscrolls having no limitations beyond "only 1" or "1 to your deployment zone", how do you even begin to make a balanced game? Oh wait, we don't need a balanced game because reasons and Sudden Death!
Except you clearly didn't read Sudden Death. Because your opponent DOES know what your choice was, because in a full half the options HE HAS TO PICK YOUR TARGET!
"You pick assassination? Cool, you have to kill my ubernaught hero back here. I've put him in the back corner, with my deployment zone being nothing but literal shoulder to shoulder dragons and a unit of 100 Warriors of Chaos. Good luck!"
"You pick blunt? Cool, you have to wipe out that unit of 100 Warriors of Chaose. Good luck!"
"You want to get to terrain in my deployment zone? Cool, you will have to kill a model to even take one step. Good luck!"
"Your dude just has to live six turns? Awesome, I'm already outnumbering you 20 to 1 or more, so... Good luck!"
Sudden death is not a balancing factor. Sudden death is a band-aid over a gaping wound of crap tier writing.
This really should be quoted for truth. To be quite honest it's not the modes that bother me - shoot space marines in fantasy why not my dwarves will still crush them - new wars scrolls - hell wrath of kings does that and I love that game - BUT no points and instead unlimited unit size or warscroll size is unbelievable stupid. If you wanted to go the wrath of kings route then you give limited to to squads and you say take X amount of squads in one type of battle - but this makes it idiotic. And the sudden death rules, while a step in the right direction, still allows you opponent to choose - what?!?!? So you want to kill me leader do you - here is my T7 7W dwarf lord with a 1+ save and a 4+ ward.
That brings me to an even scarier point though.... How the hell are they going to do dwarves? If everything is in warscrolls how in the hell do dwarves get runes. Sigh I am really worried about this nonsense.
Dark Lord Seanron wrote:There's been one good thing about this whole thing so far, it's made me go take a look at Kings of War...
THEY HAVE CHAOS DWARVES (or Abyssal Dwarves to use their lingo)
Gotta check it out I have heard good things! If you want recommendations I really do recommend wrath of kings - it's war machine skirmish without castor kill and really cool balancing objectives.
streamdragon wrote: But this? One of the best parts of WHFB is that you didn't have that shining beacon faction. Even the "good" factions had their flaws. The Empire wasn't exactly a shining beacon, and even the Holier Than Most Brettonians had plenty of "we give 0 craps about peasants" to offset having a literal faith shield.
But that's a more adult sensibility, right? And even a lot of adults like more brightness and the concept of the "good guy." Meanwhile, you're trying to sell the game to kids.
This is something that I think some vet GW gamers have trouble accepting. GW games are for kids. We're playing kids' games. Maybe 40K is more adolescent in tone, but it's still sub-18. There's nothing wrong with enjoying kid stuff as your hobby, but I think you have to accept and own that, and with that comes some understanding when GW creates something that seems childish.
Along those lines, it's always perplexing to me how people can get bent out of shape about a single silly name or cartoony story when both Warhammer universes are so incredibly cheesy and over-the-top. It's a drop in an Olympic-sized pool.
This is not a game for kids.
A successful kids game has structure, an understandable framework to play in. This is just simpler in concept but with no structure at all, I have no idea who it is for. Warmahordes is a better game for kids to get to grips with, despite its complexity found in unit synergies, because it is well defined and easy to follow.
New terrain piece looks tasty. I don't want Age of Sigmar at all but every time I see one of those beautiful boxes my nostalgia gland goes into overdrive... resist... it's crap... resist...
Chairman Aeon wrote: Old enough to know the battle cry of "they are dumbing down the game" really means "I don't like change". When you young kids have a wife and kids, you won't have time for complex (and tedious) rules. And it's not like Warhammer rules were elegant or a great simulation. They were just clunky and familiar. Good riddance.
Now bring on the elves... or what ever they are called!
Iain.
I'm not saying change is wrong I'm saying that what they have done is too much. Refine, improve, and fix not throw everything away .
If you don't see it as dumbing down then okay fine.
Reading this makes me think I should try it but I can try the system without putting up with the lol Aelfs because we must have copyright
Bull0 wrote: New terrain piece looks tasty. I don't want Age of Sigmar at all but every time I see one of those beautiful boxes my nostalgia gland goes into overdrive... resist... it's crap... resist...
Haha
I bet there's a fair few that rip it apart on here and then order a couple of copies as well !!
Bull0 wrote: New terrain piece looks tasty. I don't want Age of Sigmar at all but every time I see one of those beautiful boxes my nostalgia gland goes into overdrive... resist... it's crap... resist...
That arch fits in well with my themed counts as blood angels, the angels of sparta. It may well find a home in the far future. The game is badly written dross, doesn't mean I can't pick out the good bits.
streamdragon wrote: But this? One of the best parts of WHFB is that you didn't have that shining beacon faction. Even the "good" factions had their flaws. The Empire wasn't exactly a shining beacon, and even the Holier Than Most Brettonians had plenty of "we give 0 craps about peasants" to offset having a literal faith shield.
But that's a more adult sensibility, right? And even a lot of adults like more brightness and the concept of the "good guy." Meanwhile, you're trying to sell the game to kids.
This is something that I think some vet GW gamers have trouble accepting. GW games are for kids. We're playing kids' games. Maybe 40K is more adolescent in tone, but it's still sub-18. There's nothing wrong with enjoying kid stuff as your hobby, but I think you have to accept and own that, and with that comes some understanding when GW creates something that seems childish.
Along those lines, it's always perplexing to me how people can get bent out of shape about a single silly name or cartoony story when both Warhammer universes are so incredibly cheesy and over-the-top. It's a drop in an Olympic-sized pool.
This is not a game for kids.
A successful kids game has structure, an understandable framework to play in. This is just simpler in concept but with no structure at all, I have no idea who it is for. Warmahordes is a better game for kids to get to grips with, despite its complexity found in unit synergies, because it is well defined and easy to follow.
This.
Plus it is another symptom of the GW disconnect between who they think they're selling to and who actually buys their stuff. Do kids buy it? Sure, but some of those kids kept buying it, and are still buying it now, 30 years on in some cases. In many cases, without wanting to generalise too much, those kids were smart kids too, and they grew into smart adults, they can handle a little complexity.
Bull0 wrote: New terrain piece looks tasty. I don't want Age of Sigmar at all but every time I see one of those beautiful boxes my nostalgia gland goes into overdrive... resist... it's crap... resist...
Haha
I bet there's a fair few that rip it apart on here and then order a couple of copies as well !!
Ooooorrrrr people like certain parts of this release (multiple dimensions, dire universe, that arch kit), and hate other parts (Sigmarine concept, that big Khorne thingy, new rules?).
You know, not having to love or hate every aspect of the release in some sort of black-and-white fashion
Accolade wrote: people like certain parts of this release (multiple dimensions, dire universe, that arch kit)
The mulitple dimensions thing is really cool IMO. It allows the Fantasy world the kind of room that 40k has without the space empire setting. Very simple idea but it has so much potential.
Accolade wrote: people like certain parts of this release (multiple dimensions, dire universe, that arch kit)
The mulitple dimensions thing is really cool IMO. It allows the Fantasy world the kind of room that 40k has without the space empire setting. Very simple idea but it has so much potential.
I think it'll make more sense once we see it in action and have some more reference - how much of the familiar has survived? Are there still human and dwarf settlements in the bubbleverse that are recognizably similar to their old world counterparts? What is the culture like? At the moment all we really know about the fluff is MAGIC DAEMONS ELEMENTALS HEROISM LIGHTNING GATES OF AZYR SIGMARITE
I CALL FAKE! There are NO SKULLS in the cracks on that Realm of Battle board!!!!!!
Those cost extra.. they're released as the "skulls for the skullgod insert" and are specially shaped to fit the board.. The plastic is also engineered to melt if it comes in contact with 3rd party products.
Accolade wrote: people like certain parts of this release (multiple dimensions, dire universe, that arch kit)
The mulitple dimensions thing is really cool IMO. It allows the Fantasy world the kind of room that 40k has without the space empire setting. Very simple idea but it has so much potential.
I agree, it gives quite a bit more freedom.
I'm still considering ordering one of the boxes, I love the models, really not sure on the rules yet though so I haven't decided.
Accolade wrote: people like certain parts of this release (multiple dimensions, dire universe, that arch kit)
The mulitple dimensions thing is really cool IMO. It allows the Fantasy world the kind of room that 40k has without the space empire setting. Very simple idea but it has so much potential.
Yeah, most of the stuff I mentioned happened to be the things I liked
It definitely gives a breadth of scope to create whatever you want in the same fashion as 40k. And, like you said, this will be something that benefits the game far more than other concepts- the sense of open creativity.
We actually know a bit about that; yes there are settlements of the other races besieged by Chaos among the various realms of mortals. The Stormcast are heroes from these realms, gathered together by Sigmar. Azyr seems to basically be a sort of Valhalla where Sigmar has been assembling his Ragnarok army.
Bull0 wrote: New terrain piece looks tasty. I don't want Age of Sigmar at all but every time I see one of those beautiful boxes my nostalgia gland goes into overdrive... resist... it's crap... resist...
I have to say...yes...yes it does.
But not for GW purposes. It looks like it'll be nice for some thematic roleplaying setup.
Hopefully I have a package coming today with that sweet scenery piece and the ROB board, and a demo copy. Anxious to get painting on new models, and we'll try out a few games today.
And for those of you in the US, i tossed up a deal for Age of Sigmar box in swapshop. Sorry, can't ship it outside the US. It's 90 bucks to the east coast area, 95 to midwest, 100 to westcoast, I'm covering shipping.
mikhaila wrote: Hopefully I have a package coming today with that sweet scenery piece and the ROB board, and a demo copy. Anxious to get painting on new models, and we'll try out a few games today.
And for those of you in the US, i tossed up a deal for Age of Sigmar box in swapshop. Sorry, can't ship it outside the US. It's 90 bucks to the east coast area, 95 to midwest, 100 to westcoast, I'm covering shipping.
I can't wait to see that scenery piece all painted up in some more muted colors.
Position and how a unit faced was essential AOS supposedly removes this.in one way I can see the upside but it feels like half a game.
I lost Chaos Dwarfs, I lost Squats I'm loosing sisters and now all of warhammer
How will poison work or plague spells? , again I play second so really I don't care if 40k gets sigmarized.in the beginning when I started to read the rules I thought okay cool but to change so much so fast is not for me.
Maybe it has the same amount of tactical options that old warhammer has but I just don't see it.
Okay, so you can't flank people anymore. But historically that only really worked against hoplites and more recent conflicts. But position will still matter.
Yeah, you've lost them in the stores. But I still have and use my squats.
We don't know how poison or plague spells will work yet, you'll have to wait for the warscrolls to come out and find out.
Perhaps you are focusing too much on what AoS explicitly states you can do instead of looking at the rules and thinking about what you can do with them. No explicit rules for challenges? Nope, but you can do something similar. No rules for blocks? Nope, but operating your units in formation will have serious benefits.
mikhaila wrote: Hopefully I have a package coming today with that sweet scenery piece and the ROB board, and a demo copy. Anxious to get painting on new models, and we'll try out a few games today.
And for those of you in the US, i tossed up a deal for Age of Sigmar box in swapshop. Sorry, can't ship it outside the US. It's 90 bucks to the east coast area, 95 to midwest, 100 to westcoast, I'm covering shipping.
For that price I'm tempted just based on the models I'd like to get out of the box. Plus I kinda want the story book to see the new background for this game. I'm still super hopeful they'll release an actual rulebook for larger scale battles and some kind of balance mechanism. But for 25% off I think I'll grab a box set just for the models
Bull0 wrote: New terrain piece looks tasty. I don't want Age of Sigmar at all but every time I see one of those beautiful boxes my nostalgia gland goes into overdrive... resist... it's crap... resist...
Haha
I bet there's a fair few that rip it apart on here and then order a couple of copies as well !!
Ooooorrrrr people like certain parts of this release (multiple dimensions, dire universe, that arch kit), and hate other parts (Sigmarine concept, that big Khorne thingy, new rules?).
You know, not having to love or hate every aspect of the release in some sort of black-and-white fashion
Those that like certain parts would not be the ones that i was referring to as ripping it apart then now would they ??
I just don't think your'e doing yourself any good by creating this internal narrative of evil gamers trying to undermine GW at every turn. This release is obviously going to be extremely polarizing, and so strong emotions will prevail.
I can only imagine what things would look like if they re-booted 40k The forums would be torn asunder!
I'm in the camp that likes some of this but isn't sold. I think GW is pulling a fast one too. I predict that this release is just that.. a release. An actual WHFB boxed set will be waiting but GW wouldn't say that because they want people to snatch this up. If we know there's an actual WHFB starter coming then why buy this ... thing?
Yeah that's probably wishful thinking but hey.. wait.. brb, I'm going to go buy an Island Of Blood in case I'm wrong..
Okay, so you can't flank people anymore. But historically that only really worked against hoplites and more recent conflicts. But position will still matter.
Flanking worked in every kind of armed human conflict from the time the first caveman picked up a stick to poke his neighbour in the eye as punishment for taking away its dinosaur up to modern days. If your opponents attention is focused elsewhere while you are attacking him your attack should be much more effective (not to mention that in gaming terms it adds tactical depth).
And since there are no LoS restrictions and you can kill models in melee that you aren't engaged with, how does position still matter?
streamdragon wrote: But this? One of the best parts of WHFB is that you didn't have that shining beacon faction. Even the "good" factions had their flaws. The Empire wasn't exactly a shining beacon, and even the Holier Than Most Brettonians had plenty of "we give 0 craps about peasants" to offset having a literal faith shield.
But that's a more adult sensibility, right? And even a lot of adults like more brightness and the concept of the "good guy."
I'd call it a childish view of adult sensibilities. We all have flaws (except Dolph Lundgren, the black belt chemical engineer movie star) but we don't all have the same flaw of being an absolute bastard.
I just don't think your'e doing yourself any good by creating this internal narrative of evil gamers trying to undermine GW at every turn. This release is obviously going to be extremely polarizing, and so strong emotions will prevail.
I can only imagine what things would look like if they re-booted 40k The forums would be torn asunder!
So where am i creating this narrative then ???
I dont think you are doing yourself any good by assuming you know what I am thinking and then going all black and white like you told me not to do.
I am on no ones side,
I was simply saying that some people will claim to hate it and then go out and buy a few copies.
And where do you get your evidence that this is happening? I sincerely doubt that there is a group of people flagellating themselves and condemning WH-AOS as they buy it. It's the same as me saying there's a group of people who would literally buy boxes of dog gak if it had "GW" tacked on it- it's not reality.
Okay, so you can't flank people anymore. But historically that only really worked against hoplites and more recent conflicts. But position will still matter.
Flanking worked in every kind of armed human conflict from the time the first caveman picked up a stick to poke his neighbour in the eye as punishment for taking away its dinosaur up to modern days. If your opponents attention is focused elsewhere while you are attacking him your attack should be much more effective (not to mention that in gaming terms it adds tactical depth).
And since there are no LoS restrictions and you can kill models in melee that you aren't engaged with, how does position still matter?
Incorrect - most historical formations were flexible enough to react to someone attempting to attack them in the side - reducing the advantage to simply being one of numbers. This was true until the last few hundred years. Of course, if you don't see them coming it's a different matter, but that would more accurately be termed an ambush. In a pitched battle the sergeants and officers not directly involved in a fight to their front will be prepared for movements on the flank and react accordingly.
And if an enemy model is in range of your melee weapon then you are engaged with them - so I'm not sure what your point is there.
gorgon wrote:
But that's a more adult sensibility, right? And even a lot of adults like more brightness and the concept of the "good guy." Meanwhile, you're trying to sell the game to kids.
This is something that I think some vet GW gamers have trouble accepting. GW games are for kids. We're playing kids' games. Maybe 40K is more adolescent in tone, but it's still sub-18. There's nothing wrong with enjoying kid stuff as your hobby, but I think you have to accept and own that, and with that comes some understanding when GW creates something that seems childish.
Along those lines, it's always perplexing to me how people can get bent out of shape about a single silly name or cartoony story when both Warhammer universes are so incredibly cheesy and over-the-top. It's a drop in an Olympic-sized pool.
I disagree with basically this entire post. They're not kids games. Kids may play them, but that doesn't make them "kids games". Now, I don't have actual demographics for GW customers, so I'm going off speculation and anecdotes, neither of which are actually reliable or anything. But given the costs and requirements for the hobby, combined with the people I see (or at least, saw) in Games Workshop stores and other FLGS stores, saying "GW games are for kids" is completely disingenuous.
And the naming thing? I've rolled my eyes every time they've come out with some ridiculous sounding thing. Bloodcrushers! Bloodfists! So when it comes to ridiculous named things, I am nothing if not consistent in my disdain for GW's recent trend to idiotic names. It's possible to do cheesy and over-the-top without falling into ridiculous. GW used to do that, for the most part.
But agnosto, they don't look anything like Space Marines!
DO YOU EVEN BLOOD ANGELS, SON? Sanguinary guard!
Space Wolves for life son!
I thought the italicized "anything" showed I was being sarcastic in that post, I've been pretty clear on my "they're space marines for Fantasy" stance.
But the multiple universe thing and armies that may appear depend on the initial sales from AOS. This will be the first starter box that I don't get. the first for like 25 years.
That's huge for me, this is only the second "game" from GW I haven't bought the first being the assassin one.
I bought every army box that I wanted when they did them until they stopped. This is just so sad, like the end of an era.
mikhaila wrote: Hopefully I have a package coming today with that sweet scenery piece and the ROB board, and a demo copy. Anxious to get painting on new models, and we'll try out a few games today.
And for those of you in the US, i tossed up a deal for Age of Sigmar box in swapshop. Sorry, can't ship it outside the US. It's 90 bucks to the east coast area, 95 to midwest, 100 to westcoast, I'm covering shipping.
Our local store was supposed to get the same today but that was cancelled for him (in the comments). I don't know the details obviously though beyond what he posted.
Incorrect - most historical formations were flexible enough to react to someone attempting to attack them in the side - reducing the advantage to simply being one of numbers. This was true until the last few hundred years. Of course, if you don't see them coming it's a different matter, but that would more accurately be termed an ambush. In a pitched battle the sergeants and officers not directly involved in a fight to their front will be prepared for movements on the flank and react accordingly.
And do you know how those flexible formations reacted to someone attempting to attack them in the side? By reforming and presenting their front to this new attack.
If they were unable to do this because they were already engaged or simply because their attention was elsewhere, then they where outflanked and suffered incredibly because of it.
And if an enemy model is in range of your melee weapon then you are engaged with them - so I'm not sure what your point is there.
The point is exactly what I said, when fighting a unit you don't necessarily kill the model that you are engaged with so number of available attacks, for example, will always trump clever positioning of models inside a unit.
gorgon wrote:
But that's a more adult sensibility, right? And even a lot of adults like more brightness and the concept of the "good guy." Meanwhile, you're trying to sell the game to kids.
This is something that I think some vet GW gamers have trouble accepting. GW games are for kids. We're playing kids' games. Maybe 40K is more adolescent in tone, but it's still sub-18. There's nothing wrong with enjoying kid stuff as your hobby, but I think you have to accept and own that, and with that comes some understanding when GW creates something that seems childish.
Along those lines, it's always perplexing to me how people can get bent out of shape about a single silly name or cartoony story when both Warhammer universes are so incredibly cheesy and over-the-top. It's a drop in an Olympic-sized pool.
I disagree with basically this entire post. They're not kids games. Kids may play them, but that doesn't make them "kids games". Now, I don't have actual demographics for GW customers, so I'm going off speculation and anecdotes, neither of which are actually reliable or anything. But given the costs and requirements for the hobby, combined with the people I see (or at least, saw) in Games Workshop stores and other FLGS stores, saying "GW games are for kids" is completely disingenuous.
And the naming thing? I've rolled my eyes every time they've come out with some ridiculous sounding thing. Bloodcrushers! Bloodfists! So when it comes to ridiculous named things, I am nothing if not consistent in my disdain for GW's recent trend to idiotic names. It's possible to do cheesy and over-the-top without falling into ridiculous. GW used to do that, for the most part.
Now we get "Bloodsecrators".
So when the CEO goes on and on about kids in his missives...he has no idea who the main TARGET audience is for their products? I think you're deeply in denial. I don't care if there's a retirement community filled with octogenerians playing 40K. That just makes them old people playing kiddie stuff. GW has identified kids as where their bread is buttered.
FW can be described as more adult-oriented, for reasons including prices and the modeling demands of some of their kits. But even there you're still talking about playing battles between little space knight models, right? Pew-pew!
Okay, so you can't flank people anymore. But historically that only really worked against hoplites and more recent conflicts. But position will still matter.
Flanking worked in every kind of armed human conflict from the time the first caveman picked up a stick to poke his neighbour in the eye as punishment for taking away its dinosaur up to modern days. If your opponents attention is focused elsewhere while you are attacking him your attack should be much more effective (not to mention that in gaming terms it adds tactical depth).
And since there are no LoS restrictions and you can kill models in melee that you aren't engaged with, how does position still matter?
Incorrect - most historical formations were flexible enough to react to someone attempting to attack them in the side - reducing the advantage to simply being one of numbers. This was true until the last few hundred years. Of course, if you don't see them coming it's a different matter, but that would more accurately be termed an ambush. In a pitched battle the sergeants and officers not directly involved in a fight to their front will be prepared for movements on the flank and react accordingly.
And if an enemy model is in range of your melee weapon then you are engaged with them - so I'm not sure what your point is there.
We're talking about model versus model here, yes? So that means one on one fights most of the time.
Ever been in a fistfight, a boxing match or an MMA match? It's harder to defend when your opponent is attacking you from the side.
And strange that historically, attacking someone's flank, you know, where their spear aren't pointing or where their shields aren't protecting them is the most basic of maneuvers. But then again, what do I know. I'm sure a formation of 5000 men 6 flanks deep is flexible enough to move in a couple of seconds: just like that!
Incorrect - most historical formations were flexible enough to react to someone attempting to attack them in the side - reducing the advantage to simply being one of numbers. This was true until the last few hundred years. Of course, if you don't see them coming it's a different matter, but that would more accurately be termed an ambush. In a pitched battle the sergeants and officers not directly involved in a fight to their front will be prepared for movements on the flank and react accordingly.
And do you know how those flexible formations reacted to someone attempting to attack them in the side? By reforming and presenting their front to this new attack.
If they were unable to do this because they were already engaged or simply because their attention was elsewhere, then they where outflanked and suffered incredibly because of it.
And if an enemy model is in range of your melee weapon then you are engaged with them - so I'm not sure what your point is there.
The point is exactly what I said, when fighting a unit you don't necessarily kill the model that you are engaged with so number of available attacks, for example, will always trump clever positioning of models inside a unit.
Seriously mate, I'm not going to have someone who referred to cavemen and dinosaurs trying to teach me military history. They did not reform their entire front, they reformed to have more than one front. Of course they still do badly, because this generally results in the opposing side concentrating more force in one place. But that is a separate issue, and one that AoS covers. There is a reason why "flanking manoeuvres" weren't a thing until the period when infantry became vulnerable to fast cavalry.
But agnosto, they don't look anything like Space Marines!
DO YOU EVEN BLOOD ANGELS, SON? Sanguinary guard!
While I agree about the Sigmarines being 40k inspired it's tough to not think that when all the "Space" Marine examples look like something straight from fantasy. Do Marines even have ranged weapons in 40k any more?
Manchu wrote: We actually know a bit about that; yes there are settlements of the other races besieged by Chaos among the various realms of mortals. The Stormcast are heroes from these realms, gathered together by Sigmar. Azyr seems to basically be a sort of Valhalla where Sigmar has been assembling his Ragnarok army.
But that's one of the things that most confuses me about the new background. One of the main reasons people who wanted the setting to change gave for it being necessary in their eyes for the fluff to evolve drastically was that Warhammer had been stuck in a state of limbo, with the clock set at one minute to midnight and everything teetering just on the edge of disaster, for too long. But they're loving this new setting despite the fact that GW have done exactly the same thing; fast-forwarded through all the hundreds of thousands of years of "history" and plonked us down on the first day of the big final battle for dominance.
So, what, in a couple of years time the same people will get over the new-shiny of the rejigged world and start demanding GW rip everything up and start over again?
Also, I would appreciate if one of the folk with the Sigmarine model could take a scale pic alongside a Terminator rather than a standard Marine - it's whether they match the former that's important for truescaling potential.
Could do some really cool lava/water effects with that new robg board piece. And 3 of those archways arranged circular would make a pretty cool arena-esque centrepiece. I like.
But agnosto, they don't look anything like Space Marines!
DO YOU EVEN BLOOD ANGELS, SON? Sanguinary guard!
While I agree about the Sigmarines being 40k inspired it's tough to not think that when all the "Space" Marine examples look like something straight from fantasy. Do Marines even have ranged weapons in 40k any more?
Yes. The ones in that photo have guns on their wrists. But I agree SMs are pretty fantasy. 40k is more fantasy in space than Sci-Fi really.
Popped into my local GW today to try and talk to the staff about AOS...that was fun.
I basically laid out the contents, rules, price etc etc and the staff had to claim that they did not know a thing, not a snippet or even the merest hint of what may come from them.
The end result? It really dampened my enthusiasm for AOS and I really lost some respect for the staff for having to act dumb. Admittedly that is from orders from head office but you would have thought they could offer something given how much has already been leaked about the game. GW continue to shoot themselves in the foot.
Every example there is from a later period or is an envelopment of a flank, not a flank strike as is represented in Warhammer. Two completely different concepts.
The point is exactly what I said, when fighting a unit you don't necessarily kill the model that you are engaged with so number of available attacks, for example, will always trump clever positioning of models inside a unit.
Except that you can't mix two different types of figure in a unit anyway. But what if you have a unit of vulnerable bowmen protected by spears? Very different kettle of fish.
We're talking about model versus model here, yes? So that means one on one fights most of the time.
Ever been in a fistfight, a boxing match or an MMA match? It's harder to defend when your opponent is attacking you from the side.
And strange that historically, attacking someone's flank, you know, where their spear aren't pointing or where their shields aren't protecting them is the most basic of maneuvers. But then again, what do I know. I'm sure a formation of 5000 men 6 flanks deep is flexible enough to move in a couple of seconds: just like that!
I do wonder where you're getting your "facts".
Yeah, I've been in a fistfight. It was a very confusing experience to be sure. But that's still not relevant. Of course it's harder to defend when you have a second opponent attacking you in the side. But historically, an element of troops was almost always able to prevent that from being an issue.
And you don't have to move all 5000 men. You only have to move a few files on the flank in question.
Norsed wrote: There is a reason why "flanking manoeuvres" weren't a thing until the period when infantry became vulnerable to fast cavalry.
Uh, Battle of Cannae? Battle of Pharsalus?
Seriously, where do you get these "facts"?
If he's saying that flanking only occurred with hoplites and more 'recent' conflicts, then probably from Wikipedia.
Then again, he's demonstrated to have very different definitions for words from the vast majority of us (like 'narrative' and 'competitive' games) so I'm not even sure we're thinking of the same thing when it comes to flanking in combat.
Popped into our GW at lunch as my wife wanted to pick up a woodelf box whilst they still came with square bases.
I asked the manager if the current stock is going anywhere, he said "think of AoS as a new game and not 9th edition, we have not been told to take the current line down and all books are still in print"
The AoS will have round bases and current fantasy stuff will have square, sounds like at worst we can still buy 8th stuff and at best have 2 games we can use the stuff with
Then you only have six men facing against the enemy and certainly they'll envelop them. Congratulations, you just lost your flank.
You really don't know much about historical battles, do you? Even Sun Tzu has written about flanking maneuvers in Art of War, and as far as I know heavy cavalry charge is not a thing in Chinese warfare.
Please don't insult our intelligence by pulling stuff out of your ass.
mikhaila wrote: Hopefully I have a package coming today with that sweet scenery piece and the ROB board, and a demo copy. Anxious to get painting on new models, and we'll try out a few games today.
And for those of you in the US, i tossed up a deal for Age of Sigmar box in swapshop. Sorry, can't ship it outside the US. It's 90 bucks to the east coast area, 95 to midwest, 100 to westcoast, I'm covering shipping.
This is a bit of a nitpick, but if you were covering shipping, wouldn't the cost be the same for all US locations? It seems to me that the buyer is clearly covering the shipping via the increased cost.
heartserenade wrote: Then you only have six men facing against the enemy and certainly they'll envelop them. Congratulations, you just lost your flank.
You really don't know much about historical battles, do you? Even Sun Tzu has written about flanking maneuvers in Art of War, and as far as I know heavy cavalry charge is not a thing in Chinese warfare.
Please don't insult our intelligence by pulling stuff out of your ass.
There is a difference between an envelopment of a flank and a strike in the flank. The thing people are complaining about is that AoS removed the flank strike thing. THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPTS. Please get that into your head and stop insulting me.
Thraxas Of Turai wrote: Popped into my local GW today to try and talk to the staff about AOS...that was fun.
I basically laid out the contents, rules, price etc etc and the staff had to claim that they did not know a thing, not a snippet or even the merest hint of what may come from them.
The end result? It really dampened my enthusiasm for AOS and I really lost some respect for the staff for having to act dumb. Admittedly that is from orders from head office but you would have thought they could offer something given how much has already been leaked about the game. GW continue to shoot themselves in the foot.
Have you ever been in the shop before?
Because if you hadn't, then I don't know why you really thought you would be able to have some kind of conversation with them about a major release which has had such issues with leaks.
mikhaila wrote: Hopefully I have a package coming today with that sweet scenery piece and the ROB board, and a demo copy. Anxious to get painting on new models, and we'll try out a few games today.
And for those of you in the US, i tossed up a deal for Age of Sigmar box in swapshop. Sorry, can't ship it outside the US. It's 90 bucks to the east coast area, 95 to midwest, 100 to westcoast, I'm covering shipping.
This is a bit of a nitpick, but if you were covering shipping, wouldn't the cost be the same for all US locations? It seems to me that the buyer is clearly covering the shipping via the increased cost.
Unless you're using flat rate, the cost for different parts of the US is certainly not the same.
Manchu wrote: We actually know a bit about that; yes there are settlements of the other races besieged by Chaos among the various realms of mortals. The Stormcast are heroes from these realms, gathered together by Sigmar. Azyr seems to basically be a sort of Valhalla where Sigmar has been assembling his Ragnarok army.
But that's one of the things that most confuses me about the new background. One of the main reasons people who wanted the setting to change gave for it being necessary in their eyes for the fluff to evolve drastically was that Warhammer had been stuck in a state of limbo, with the clock set at one minute to midnight and everything teetering just on the edge of disaster, for too long. But they're loving this new setting despite the fact that GW have done exactly the same thing; fast-forwarded through all the hundreds of thousands of years of "history" and plonked us down on the first day of the big final battle for dominance.
So, what, in a couple of years time the same people will get over the new-shiny of the rejigged world and start demanding GW rip everything up and start over again?
Also, I would appreciate if one of the folk with the Sigmarine model could take a scale pic alongside a Terminator rather than a standard Marine - it's whether they match the former that's important for truescaling potential.
Does seem like a bit of a missed opportunity to actually have their fluff advance for a bit. Could just release a bright and shiny setting and then over the course of a year of releases / campaign stuff, turn it slowly towards darkness again.
heartserenade wrote: Then you only have six men facing against the enemy and certainly they'll envelop them. Congratulations, you just lost your flank.
You really don't know much about historical battles, do you? Even Sun Tzu has written about flanking maneuvers in Art of War, and as far as I know heavy cavalry charge is not a thing in Chinese warfare.
Please don't insult our intelligence by pulling stuff out of your ass.
There is a difference between an envelopment of a flank and a strike in the flank. The thing people are complaining about is that AoS removed the flank strike thing. THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPTS. Please get that into your head and stop insulting me.
"Flank attacks are a variant of the envelopment, in which access to the enemy's flank and rear is furnished by the enemy's own forward movement."
In fact, every time I try looking up anything about the term flank stirke, it refers to attacking the flank of an enemy by the flanking/envelopment of a flank maneuver.
heartserenade wrote: Then you only have six men facing against the enemy and certainly they'll envelop them. Congratulations, you just lost your flank.
You really don't know much about historical battles, do you? Even Sun Tzu has written about flanking maneuvers in Art of War, and as far as I know heavy cavalry charge is not a thing in Chinese warfare.
Please don't insult our intelligence by pulling stuff out of your ass.
There is a difference between an envelopment of a flank and a strike in the flank. The thing people are complaining about is that AoS removed the flank strike thing. THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPTS. Please get that into your head and stop insulting me.
Then let's go back to my example earlier: 5000 men 6 ranks deep getting charged by 5000 men 6 ranks deep on their flank. What are they gonna do, have 6 men face the enemy? Now the enemy in your flank is fighting your six men, and since they have a wider line, they can envelopment your whole one side. Even if they don't envelop you (since you don't define envelopment as flanking), that's 6 men fighting a lot of enemies facing their way. If the whole formation readjusts itself they'll be out of formation. That's a strike on the flank.
Again, where do you get your facts? It seems to me you're just making them up, based entirely on no evidence.
heartserenade wrote: Then you only have six men facing against the enemy and certainly they'll envelop them. Congratulations, you just lost your flank.
You really don't know much about historical battles, do you? Even Sun Tzu has written about flanking maneuvers in Art of War, and as far as I know heavy cavalry charge is not a thing in Chinese warfare.
Please don't insult our intelligence by pulling stuff out of your ass.
There is a difference between an envelopment of a flank and a strike in the flank. The thing people are complaining about is that AoS removed the flank strike thing. THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPTS. Please get that into your head and stop insulting me.
"Flank attacks are a variant of the envelopment, in which access to the enemy's flank and rear is furnished by the enemy's own forward movement."
Yes. But that is not what the flanking rule in previous editions of warhammer represents. Okay, so there has been some confusion of terminology here. But still. The rule in previous editions of warhammer represents the disruption caused by an attack on an unprepared flank or rear. I simply pointed out that traditionally this only worked on certain formations because others were flexible enough to see it coming and prepare for it. That is an entirely different concept to the envelopment of a flank. Which is something that AoS deals with no differently than eighth or any other edition.
Are we debating whether being flanked is a thing? It's a time-honoured military maneuver. As units aren't physically ranked anymore, application has changed, but a flank is a flank is a flank. It really is and has pretty much always been.
If reacting to a flanking maneuver was that easy then a few bajillion battles might have been a little different. But they weren't. Confusion, reaction, repositioning all takes time, and the outflanker gets to press that advantage.
Suffice to say, it may all end up being simplified a little in a wargame where little plastic men are in nice little formations, be they loose or base-to-base. But being flanked, outflanked, attacked in the side/rear IS a thing, whether in a strict formation or not. It really just is.
ON TOPIC
I like the minis the more I look at them. The fact they're MAHOOSIVE is hilarious and cool.
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?
No, I think most of us are balking at the fact that some people can't tell the difference between flanking on a strategic level and an individual person being attacked from a 90 degree angle.
heartserenade wrote: Then let's go back to my example earlier: 5000 men 6 ranks deep getting charged by 5000 men 6 ranks deep on their flank. What are they gonna do, have 6 men face the enemy? Now the enemy in your flank is fighting your six men, and since they have a wider line, they can envelopment your whole one side. Even if they don't envelop you (since you don't define envelopment as flanking), that's 6 men fighting a lot of enemies facing their way. If the whole formation readjusts itself they'll be out of formation. That's a strike on the flank.
Again, where do you get your facts? It seems to me you're just making them up, based entirely on no evidence.
Yes, exactly, 6 men are now facing the entire width of the enemy until the flank can be sufficiently redeployed. That's something that still works in AoS. But they are still facing the enemy and not mysteriously unable to do anything or use their shields to protect themselves.
Ancient formations tended to have very deep elements. They wouldn't generally only be in 6 ranks. Which is why crossing the t is less of a thing. But envelopment still works.
That terrain piece is awesome, the box art is very good, and other art-work I've seen is first class.
AOS could have been something special. Instead, it's crashed and burned. Awful rules, terrible fluff
Tragedy.
Are you trolling or have you actually played the game already?
I am excited for this release. Perhaps because I Ebayed all my Fantasy stuff when these rumours began months ago and now I have a clean slate to begin on Saturday.
Do I need to play a single game to find out the weaknesses of it? No.
People have been playing wargames for 20+ years. Some dozends of different games and editions. You cannot deny people their expertise on game rules. We KNOW when something is broken.
heartserenade wrote: Then let's go back to my example earlier: 5000 men 6 ranks deep getting charged by 5000 men 6 ranks deep on their flank. What are they gonna do, have 6 men face the enemy? Now the enemy in your flank is fighting your six men, and since they have a wider line, they can envelopment your whole one side. Even if they don't envelop you (since you don't define envelopment as flanking), that's 6 men fighting a lot of enemies facing their way. If the whole formation readjusts itself they'll be out of formation. That's a strike on the flank.
Again, where do you get your facts? It seems to me you're just making them up, based entirely on no evidence.
Yes, exactly, 6 men are now facing the entire width of the enemy until the flank can be sufficiently redeployed. That's something that still works in AoS. But they are still facing the enemy and not mysteriously unable to do anything or use their shields to protect themselves.
And the enemy will just merrily wait until you redeploy, right? Because redeploying won't break formation whatsoever, and I'm sure those enemies are really fine gentlemen who just attacked your flank by accident and not because it's strategically sound.
I give up. Clearly you know more about military tactics.
As for AoS, I really want to like it, I really do. It just seems like GW doesn't want me to.
heartserenade wrote: Then you only have six men facing against the enemy and certainly they'll envelop them. Congratulations, you just lost your flank.
You really don't know much about historical battles, do you? Even Sun Tzu has written about flanking maneuvers in Art of War, and as far as I know heavy cavalry charge is not a thing in Chinese warfare.
Please don't insult our intelligence by pulling stuff out of your ass.
There is a difference between an envelopment of a flank and a strike in the flank. The thing people are complaining about is that AoS removed the flank strike thing. THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPTS. Please get that into your head and stop insulting me.
"Flank attacks are a variant of the envelopment, in which access to the enemy's flank and rear is furnished by the enemy's own forward movement."
Yes. But that is not what the flanking rule in previous editions of warhammer represents. Okay, so there has been some confusion of terminology here. But still. The rule in previous editions of warhammer represents the disruption caused by an attack on an unprepared flank or rear. I simply pointed out that traditionally this only worked on certain formations because others were flexible enough to see it coming and prepare for it. That is an entirely different concept to the envelopment of a flank. Which is something that AoS deals with no differently than eighth or any other edition.
8th didn't have envelopment but previous editions did, it was called "lap around".
Do I need to play a single game to find out the weaknesses of it? No.
People have been playing wargames for 20+ years. Some dozends of different games and editions. You cannot deny people their expertise on game rules. We KNOW when something is broken.
And with GW's track record I would be more surprised if it's super balanced and nothing is broken. Pleasantly surprised, but surprised nonetheless.
And the enemy will just merrily wait until you redeploy, right?
Of course they won't you fool. Did you actually bother to read what I was saying? That still works in AoS. As it should. But that is a different thing entirely to assuming that an attack on a flank will be an attack on an unprepared surface as previous editions of warhammer do.
As a very long-time (2nd/3rd Ed) player, collector and dabbler, mainly in The Empire and Skaven, with a long term interest in the background of the Warhammer world this whole project is somewhat heartbreaking for me. I've had to reconfigure, relearn and replace before but nothing like this sounds like it'll be. The rules hints and fluff which is leaking out thus far does not bode well IMHO so I think I'll be taking myself off and returning to my roots in Oldhammer.
That terrain piece is awesome, the box art is very good, and other art-work I've seen is first class.
AOS could have been something special. Instead, it's crashed and burned. Awful rules, terrible fluff
Tragedy.
Are you trolling or have you actually played the game already?
I am excited for this release. Perhaps because I Ebayed all my Fantasy stuff when these rumours began months ago and now I have a clean slate to begin on Saturday.
I don't need to play the game. I read the leaked rules, and in my experience of playing war games for 20+ years, the rules don't work for me.
Similarly I've been cycling for years as well. If a bike has no wheels, I don't need to get on it to realise that it won't get very far.
Don't get me wrong. If people are hyped for this, good luck to them. I hope they enjoy AOS, but IMO, I don't think it'll work.
Do I need to play a single game to find out the weaknesses of it? No.
People have been playing wargames for 20+ years. Some dozends of different games and editions. You cannot deny people their expertise on game rules. We KNOW when something is broken.
What I wanted to say. I honestly thought GW would adopt the LOTR approach - round bases for an entry level skirmish game to get people involved, then war of the ring move trays for larger battles. It worked before, it was a no brainer.
That terrain piece is awesome, the box art is very good, and other art-work I've seen is first class.
AOS could have been something special. Instead, it's crashed and burned. Awful rules, terrible fluff
Tragedy.
Are you trolling or have you actually played the game already?
I am excited for this release. Perhaps because I Ebayed all my Fantasy stuff when these rumours began months ago and now I have a clean slate to begin on Saturday.
Are you trolling or just willfully ignorant since the rules are available across the interwebs? We've seen examples of warscrolls and battalions; the only thing I haven't seen are examples of the scenarios but I detest being locked into a scenario so that's not a selling point for me, YMMV.
If all you're looking to do is push models around and make pew-pew noises, sorry clang-clang since this is fantasy, AoS is the *cringe* game for you!
*note, the poster does not actually believe AoS is a game nor does he condone the making of pew-pew or clang-clang noises when pushing your models around.
A fluff question for people: Khorne troops have loads of skulls, obviously. But could a necromancer bring those skulls back to life and have them biting the Khorne troops in the ass or getting them to act like nipple clamps?
The art at the end is nice. Those khorne guys remind me of the shirtless but armored waist down khorne guys that came out earlier this year or late last year. I guess their increased size (both model and base) was predictive of what was to come. That big giant creature is even more ridiculous than the hellwhatever dreadnought though.
...
awful.
