That's a really good rebuttal. I had not thought about any of that. I guess it raises hope that with scenarios the game might become more fleshed out.
I'm sort of on the fence about the game though. My buddy and I both pretty much agreed that unless buying the new stuff coming out (Sigmarines or the not warriors of chaos warriors of chaos), there isn't much incentive to buy anything right now. My understanding of the first AoS book is that the scenarios are only for the two new factions. That is worrying for the game going forward.
I'm presently debating selling off all of my chaos dwarfs for a clean slate. I do feel a bit dirty at the prospect of making a new big investment from GW after their invalidating my existing army as a supported thing. A part of me is debating simply leaving gaming. Warhammer was my toe in the sand holding me from drifting away on the current. Now it's done...
Don't leave wargaming. Outside the GW bubble its a golden age of gaming. There are so many awesome games from companies that don't actually despise you.
No, don't leave gaming. It's too much fun and too exciting to quit.
I'd go for WMH, Infinity, Xwing, or BA. They are almost equally played in our area.
We need your input and insights here.
Noir wrote: Or go KoW and not worry about, if your army will be removed from the system your playing.
Do you have any reason to say that Mantic won't ever remove support for armies?
Yes, I do. It is funny what you learn when you keep up with more then one company.
Okay, then. Could you please share it, then? I know that condescending is fun and all, but I can also say I have reasons to say Mantic will. Unless I provide them it's meaningless.
Noir wrote: Or go KoW and not worry about, if your army will be removed from the system your playing.
Do you have any reason to say that Mantic won't ever remove support for armies?
Yes, I do. It is funny what you learn when you keep up with more then one company.
Okay, then. Could you please share it, then? I know that condescending is fun and all, but I can also say I have reasons to say Mantic will. Unless I provide them it's meaningless.
You can look it up if you want, it buried in the internet likely next to GW saying they will not squat any more armies. I not going to waste my time look for either, but I know what one I'll belive. Until they prove otherwise.
Just got to love the "I know why, but won't tell you, go find out and see I am right". That doesn't prove anything. You don't even have to dig anything out as you say, just say why you think. Simple as that.
Can't prove your point? Then don't say anything, otherwise you look wrong.
As someone who watched Fantasy from afar whilst playing 40K I found the old model of blocks of infantry less than appealing, it seemed more of a block shuffle with limited posing allowed in modelling choices in the interests of ensuring your models ranked up. The strategy of things like flank charging and overunning looked cool though I wasnt ready to commit financially to a very "samey" looking unit.
With the release of Age of Sigmar and transfer to a model but model movement/fighting system and round basing I found it far more appelaing from a modelling perspective and with a low model count force and the greater ability to customise based on how models "should" look to me rather than ranking up I've actually bitten the bullet and started a Giant-kin themed force.
Having played a few games with the AoS core game i found it quick and fun to play, though the base rules are very simplistic I found alot of opponents forget the rules within their own warscrolls (weapon ranges, bonuses for numbers, unit leaders, unit special rules) which may be rectified with more experience with their units.
To summarise, as a non-fantasy player AoS gives me a modelling fix and a fun second game to play )40K Primary) and has let me make a Giant-kin force which I think is awesome.
Whilst not the best skirmish game on the market I do believe there is a cracking game lurking inside AoS, there are some neat parts to it it needs some decent rule writers love and another 4 pages to iron out the ambiguity. A better magic system wouldn't hurt either.
The background is alright, I wish they'd pushed further away from old wfb to be honest. If it's been so long between the old world and AoS why are skaven still armed as they are? I'd have pushed for a new really unique set of factions and wiped away the past totally.
I think they've really shot themselves in the foot by sticking the rules and warscrolls inside the books as it prevents them from having a living ruleset that's easily modified without reprinting massive amounts of material.
Unlike many others I like the stormcast eternals, the blend of norse and Greek mythology and the Renaissance-esque Christian artwork really floats my boat.
I am hoping after all the rage and people are calmer and further on (unless it dies) GW will start expanding the warscrolls BEYOND just the typical armies, I think with AoS they are no longer limited to just releasing typical units for each of the basic races... nothing stops them from say releasing an undead fish people of some kind or aelfen demons or insectoid types, which people have all more or less wanted of some kind in WHFB (and there have been hints for all of them like I belive an underwater race has always been in the lore somewher).. AoS allows the GW miniature designers to really flourish, I do hope they take advantage of that... fimir anyone?
Rihgu wrote: So, you don't have any reasons, then. Okay, thanks.
All drama aside, it's as simple as this. Abyssal Dwarves are one of the main races of Kings of War. Not only is a preview portion of their army list with 14 available units downloadable for free from Mantic, alongside the others and the core rules, they will have those army entries and their full list (with 10 additional units on top of the free 14) included in the upcoming rulebook for KoW 2.0 at the end of the month, alongside 10 (I think?) other full armylists.
Proof they won't squat an army? Because they are also releasing a half dozen other army lists to be analogues of the main WHFB factions (Like Empire, Lizardmen, Beastmen and Ratlings so that absolutely every Warhammer player can bring over their armies and play KoW.
The only "main" race that does not have a free army list yet is the Dark Elves, who are still being tweaked. But even then they exist on a beta list in spreadsheet form on the Mantic forums, which is listed as fully tournament legal despite not being in the main free factions- just with the disclaimer that some units/stats may change a bit when the real list is finished.
I can provide links if anyone wants but doesn't want to dig on the Mantic forums., as I have been doing extensive research on KoW after finally looking into their rules for my 15mm army project and to plan out any upcoming Gencon purchases towards that end. Also to see if a newly discovered LGS might be interested in continuing Warhammer Fantasy in such a way as opposed to AoS in 28mm, or if any of them would be interested in the game as a 15mm side game, even if I had to use any 15mm armies I might build for demo games.
I don't know how much more proof there can be. It's much more info than you would ever get from GW on the subject, where who the hell knows how many of the original WHFB races will essentially be squatted in AoS.
Rihgu wrote: So, you don't have any reasons, then. Okay, thanks.
Simple as this. Abyssal Dwarves are one of the main races of Kings of War. Not only is a preview portion of their army list downloadable for free from Mantic, alongside the others and the core rules, they will have their full list included in the upcoming rulebook for KoW 2.0 at the end of the month, alongside 11 other full armylists.
Okay, so it's not likely that Abyssal Dwarves will be removed, but how about the side races? Like the Beastmen or Tomb Kings standins? They're not main races (yet, at least) so they aren't offered the same protection as Abyssal Dwarves.
Proof they won't squat an army? Because they are also releasing a half dozen other army lists to be analogues of the main WHFB factions (Like Empire, Lizardmen, Beastmen and Ratlings so that absolutely every Warhammer player can bring over their armies and play KoW.
Releasing rules to nab 'refugees' from a similar game system doesn't mean that they won't take back those armies when they're satisfied that they've pulled in enough people. They *might* indefinitely support all of these armies, but whose to say that they won't come out and say "We aren't going to be supporting the rules for the Lizardmen any more as we don't intend to release any models for the army and do not see the investment of maintaining the rules for an army we make no money off of to be worth the effort. If you wish to continue using Lizardmen models in your Kings of War games, you can still use the rules for any of our other armies with your models."?
I don't see any reason to take their word for it (if they've even come out and said that they will indefinitely support all armies). I also see no reason to not believe them, if I'm being perfectly honest.
It seems to me thatif you wanted to switch systems for a "guarantee" of never having your army squatted, you'd switch to a system with an analog of your faction already well cemented in the game system/lore rather than switch to a system with a faction built entirely to get you to play their system.
With the release of Age of Sigmar and transfer to a model but model movement/fighting system and round basing I found it far more appelaing from a modelling perspective and with a low model count force and the greater ability to customise based on how models "should" look to me rather than ranking up I've actually bitten the bullet and started a Giant-kin themed force.
Very cool! As a 40k player who tried to dabble in fantasy and was put off by the high model count needed, I feel Age of Sigmar has a similar appeal to me as well.
In particular, I think the lack of army structure rules frees me up to create armies I have always thought would be cool thematically, but which were impossible to do before.
Take the Goblin army for example - within the Orc & Goblin list are three models that I think look really cool together. That is, the Goblin Big Boss on Spider, Spider Riders, and the Arachnarok giant spider. The Goblins on spiders are depicted very differently from their plain or night goblin cousins, with feathers and primitive totems and such all over their bodies, indicating a much more tribal and feral existence than the rest of their generic kin. (A lot like how Savage Orcs are in relation to plain Orcs)
Now, I think it would be cool if the various Chaos invasions led to a burning of the forest within which a given spider worshiping tribe of goblins lived, forcing them to abandon their home on spider-back, and ride off into the canyons of the desert, where their spiders cling to the underside of cliffs and outcrops, and weave temporary encampments for their Goblin cohorts. When the time is right, they ride out as a cavalry raiding force, looting mortal settlements for food and treasure, while putting Chaos encampments to the torch. This makes them the enemy and the ally of the forces of order, depending on the situation, but ultimately they are their own people, and dream of the day they may return to the dark and green shelter of the forest.
That list just doesn't work in any previous version of WFB, unless they're attached to a larger and more traditional army, and even then I've been cautioned that Wolf Riders are just plain better under most versions of the army book. In AOS, there's nothing stopping a force from like this from being played, and further won't take more than a handful of spider rider boxes and a few special models to accomplish.
The idea of unique, characterful armies, at a price I can reasonably afford, is enough to make me give the game a chance.
It's impossible to prove that Mantic will never squat an army because nobody can see into the future. However given their past actions it is unlikely they will do so right now. Whereas the term "squatting" as it pertains to getting rid of an entire model line from the game actually comes from GW.
Abyssal Dwarves are one of Mantic's core factions and for that reason they are unlikely to be discontinued any time soon. I would say Lizardmen or Beastmen are less sure, but still likely to be supported for the entirety of 2nd edition, which should last a good few years at least. Better than nothing.
Played a scenario out of the book. Limited to 80 wounds for each starting force. WoC chewed through Bretonnia due to summoning/slaves of darkness reserve rolls. However, if we'd had no cap on wounds, he could have deployed in a U shape around me, taking up almost the entire table. I would have had 1/6th of the table (ambush game). Requesting using the Azyr rules Mikhaila was given from now on. Yes, I won. But I want limitations. I didn't bring any models on that could continue summoning, and I still ended with 4 new DPs in addition to my starting force.
Rihgu wrote: So, you don't have any reasons, then. Okay, thanks.
Simple as this. Abyssal Dwarves are one of the main races of Kings of War. Not only is a preview portion of their army list downloadable for free from Mantic, alongside the others and the core rules, they will have their full list included in the upcoming rulebook for KoW 2.0 at the end of the month, alongside 11 other full armylists.
Okay, so it's not likely that Abyssal Dwarves will be removed, but how about the side races? Like the Beastmen or Tomb Kings standins? They're not main races (yet, at least) so they aren't offered the same protection as Abyssal Dwarves.
Proof they won't squat an army? Because they are also releasing a half dozen other army lists to be analogues of the main WHFB factions (Like Empire, Lizardmen, Beastmen and Ratlings so that absolutely every Warhammer player can bring over their armies and play KoW.
Releasing rules to nab 'refugees' from a similar game system doesn't mean that they won't take back those armies when they're satisfied that they've pulled in enough people. They *might* indefinitely support all of these armies, but whose to say that they won't come out and say "We aren't going to be supporting the rules for the Lizardmen any more as we don't intend to release any models for the army and do not see the investment of maintaining the rules for an army we make no money off of to be worth the effort. If you wish to continue using Lizardmen models in your Kings of War games, you can still use the rules for any of our other armies with your models."?
I don't see any reason to take their word for it (if they've even come out and said that they will indefinitely support all armies). I also see no reason to not believe them, if I'm being perfectly honest.
It seems to me thatif you wanted to switch systems for a "guarantee" of never having your army squatted, you'd switch to a system with an analog of your faction already well cemented in the game system/lore rather than switch to a system with a faction built entirely to get you to play their system.
Well, I'm not sure why you were so up in arms at other posters being snarky, as it doesn't seem like you are really all that interested in being convinced in the first place - you (seem) to have your mind made up that Mantic is somehow going to come out and epic screw the players that have switched over from WHFB by removing those armies from being played (or even core KoW armies that have been there from the start), while there's about as best a guarantee as you can get in this business that things will stay the same as they are right now with that ruleset, at least for the foreseeable future of KoW 2.0 which could be several years of gaming.
I can't see how GW can give any more proof that they will not drop a so-far existing army any more than any other company could/couldn't. I can't honestly say that any of the old WHFB armies are any safer from the chopping block than any others as they exist right now on warscrolls, except maybe Chaos Warriors/Daemons. All the other races could change drastically with little to no warning.
All I can say is that either right now, or at least soon in the future for some factions, if you like their rules, but are pissed at GW, Mantic is a way to currently keep playing WHFB-style regiment/blocks of troops fantasy gaming with the armies that everyone has bought from GW in the past.
I wasn't asking so much for my own sake, moreso for readers of this thread. It's good to have as much information as possible when making decisions so I thought that it would be helpful for people researching Mantic, especially in the wake of Age of Sigmar, to know WHY the poster I originally responded to thought the way he did.
"I think X because [reasons]" is vastly more helpful than "I think X".
And, I'm sorry for giving the impression that I think KoW *will* pull the rug out on their armies. (Like I said, I see no reason to believe that they will).
I haven't been comparing Mantic's army policy to Games Workshop's at all. A poster made a statement and I asked if they could clarify, as it seemed an unreasonable statement without proof backing it up.
To be clear on how I think GW is going: I do 100% believe that the warscrolls for all 8th edition armies WILL be phased out. I think this because the warscrolls for Tree people were originally posted as Treeman Ancient and Treeman. In the Age of Sigmar book, they're listed as Treelord Ancient and Treelord, which shows to me that the old units have been phased out (even if the rules are the same)
I expect the same for future releases (Fyreslayers replacing Slayers, for example).
I also believe that they will maintain compatibility in the same way that they ever have - you CAN use a Dark Elf swordsman model to represent an Aelf Realmguard but the rules and fluff may not fit the model any more. And I see no reason for Mantic to not do the same.
The con census at Tokyo West Wargamers was that AoS was GW jumping the shark.(Or the introduction of "Poochy" to 'Itchy a& Scratchy', if you prefer). We're still going to be doing oldhammer (3rd ed.) and some of us kicked around the idea of getting the KoW rules to give them a test drive. If you're around here, come check us out.
To address the query of whether Mantic will drop support for any armies...
Mantic's strategy is to capture the players leaving GW because GW has canned their armies and game rules or made them too expensive to continue. Therefore to discontinue support for those armies would be logically absurd.
That does not mean that some business reason might not force Mantic to discontinue an unpopular army, but it cannot be predicted at all.
Obviously Mantic can't promise anything, nor they did - even if they carved it in a titanium slab and bolted to Washington Memorial for everyone to see they couldn't guarantee it 100% that they will continue to support the faction forever.
But if it's one of their core factions it's -extremely- unlikely for them to drop it, so it can, within the bounds of human reasoning and common sense, be taken for somewhat granted that they'll not drop the army.
With that said, you can stop your silly argument here, as it's nothing else than joyful buttslapping between the two of you right now. :'D
I feel a bit silly chiming in on this topic seeing as I’ve been extremely inactive when it comes to any GW related gaming the last few years. It’s just that WHF has a very special place in my heart and when I heard the news about AoS I just had to get informed.
Now before I get into it let it be known that I personally have not played AoS yet, my opinions are based off reading the rules and checking out battle reports.
I fail to see how this is in any way or form a worthy replacement of WHF. Is it supposed to be a 40k light in a fantasy setting? The way it seems right now is extremely watered down, uninteresting ruleset and as previously mentioned by so many a complete lack of a point system. Without a point system to work within I feel the game becomes totally pointless, you need a frame within which to work in order to attempt some form of balance. The large amount of rules and choices within the army lists and core rules was what in my humble opinion defined WHF and made it fun, interesting and extremely replayable.
What’s the actual appeal of the game? How does it set itself apart from the other GW games? It just doesn’t feel like it has any character. While WHF and 40K had similar rule structures and point systems they still played vastly different, one of the reasons I played both back in the day. I guess the bottom line is; Why play a poor mans 40K (AoS), when you can play 40K right away?
For those of you who’ve made arguments about the difficulty of getting into WHF, the cost and so on. You’re totally right, this is probably the only positive thing I see about the game right now.
The big downside of a game like WHF was the fact that it took quite a big investment, both money and timewise. As a new player you’d have to get the rules, the army list and somehow piece together valid little 1000p army without any prior knowledge of how to build an army. More often than not you’d learn the hard way that your army wasn’t overly balanced and you’d have to invest even more money in making sure it worked. The latter probably isn’t a huge issue as such, you’d probably want to build towards 1500-2000p anyway, but it could probably make getting into the game a frustrating experience.
I don’t know if anyone remembers this, but there used to be a nice little ruleset for something called Warbands back in 5th or 6th edition. Basically it would modify some basic rules in order to balance the game around playing 1-199p games and 200-500p games, this in my opinion would have been the way to go. If they ever make a 9th edition, I hope they include this form of entry level gaming written in the core book, which gives people a great way to get started and then later on ease in to the full ruleset as people start getting in to 1500p+ teretory.
This form of gaming is something I greatly enjoyed myself even though me and my friends all had several 3000p+ armies. It was just good fun to have a couple of less serious short games and a nice way to try out different armies.
Kilkrazy wrote: To address the query of whether Mantic will drop support for any armies...
Mantic's strategy is to capture the players leaving GW because GW has canned their armies and game rules or made them too expensive to continue. Therefore to discontinue support for those armies would be logically absurd.
That does not mean that some business reason might not force Mantic to discontinue an unpopular army, but it cannot be predicted at all.
Given that the former GW armies are almost certainty going to be nothing more than army lists and as such easy to update I can see no reason why Mantic would ever 'Squat' any army during the life of KoW.
I tried AoS with my Skaven last week and the game was just awful we played rules as written. I think I had more fun getting a cavity filled by the dentist with no Novocain. Played 3 turns when my buddy and I decided it was enough. Could not imagine playing 6 turns of AoS. Our game was pretty much pile in the middle and roll 3 and 4's until something died. The game has the strategy of Yatzee with the fun factor of visiting your 100 year old great aunt at the nursing home.
Age of Sigmar has re-ignited my interest in the hobby.
I've played Warhammer off and on for the last 14 years or so. In the last two or three, I haven't played at all.
I checked back in to see what was new right when AoS was getting rolled out.
I'm a fan, but I understand how people would be miffed about it.
Things I like:
- Fresh start. I love fresh starts in general, and the old Warhammer world was too convoluted, too much backstory, too many models and rules for me. I like simplifying things and starting over. I never liked the old lore of the world being doomed and Chaos being all-powerful.
- New business direction. I think GW is being very smart with AoS from a business perspective. Breaking free of army books and points allows them to put out models in a much more organic fashion and not blow their load on each army once every several years. Losing points, in my opinion, is the best thing that has happened to Warhammer, as no longer are models rendered useless if their points are too much and no longer does power creep matter. I see myself buying a lot more without having to justify points.
Things I don't like:
- Lack of army building. This is where points are useful. Most gamers I know, even if they don't play a single game, spend hours coming up with army lists. This could still be done without points, and I think GW should implement a way to do so, because army building is one of the funnest parts of the hobby. I don't want points dictating army lists, but I do want ideas to build my force around, if that makes sense.
- Lack of rules clarity. Four pages of rules are great, but these four pages are not very well edited. I don't think they have a technical writer on staff. There is a combination of wasted space and lack of clarity in the rule set.
Anyway, I picked up the starter set and have been having fun painting them up. I'm not sure I can justify the price of the campaign books, but I will likely be buying new releases as they come out, because no longer do I have to worry about putting all of my resources into one army, and now I can buy pretty much whatever I like and it will have some use.
burningstuff wrote: Losing points, in my opinion, is the best thing that has happened to Warhammer, as no longer are models rendered useless if their points are too much and no longer does power creep matter.
I'm sorry, but what?
No, models are no longer rendered "useless" because of points, instead now every single model that isn't the absolutely best combination of stats is automatically "useless" since you don't have any incentive to use anything but the absolutely best models in your game.
burningstuff wrote: Losing points, in my opinion, is the best thing that has happened to Warhammer, as no longer are models rendered useless if their points are too much and no longer does power creep matter.
I'm sorry, but what?
No, models are no longer rendered "useless" because of points, instead now every single model that isn't the absolutely best combination of stats is automatically "useless" since you don't have any incentive to use anything but the absolutely best models in your game.
Yep. I now have no need to take gnoblars, because everything else is so much better. Or High Elf Archers (since sisters are a thousand times better).
burningstuff wrote: Losing points, in my opinion, is the best thing that has happened to Warhammer, as no longer are models rendered useless if their points are too much and no longer does power creep matter.
I'm sorry, but what?
No, models are no longer rendered "useless" because of points, instead now every single model that isn't the absolutely best combination of stats is automatically "useless" since you don't have any incentive to use anything but the absolutely best models in your game.
Yep. I now have no need to take gnoblars, because everything else is so much better. Or High Elf Archers (since sisters are a thousand times better).
I do understand that perspective on it, but it's not how I view the change. I'm not so inclined to design my force to maximize the effectiveness of every unit I put down.
burningstuff wrote: Losing points, in my opinion, is the best thing that has happened to Warhammer, as no longer are models rendered useless if their points are too much and no longer does power creep matter.
I'm sorry, but what?
No, models are no longer rendered "useless" because of points, instead now every single model that isn't the absolutely best combination of stats is automatically "useless" since you don't have any incentive to use anything but the absolutely best models in your game.
True, but there are other ways of playing that don't focus on points or optimum combinations of things; this at least tries to be one of those games.
It's about scenario building, and Playing what's appropriate, within the context of the scenario.
A structure to build armies would help enormously though, but 'open ended' isn't strictly bad with the right mind set at least.
Chute82 wrote: I tried AoS with my Skaven last week and the game was just awful we played rules as written. I think I had more fun getting a cavity filled by the dentist with no Novocain. Played 3 turns when my buddy and I decided it was enough. Could not imagine playing 6 turns of AoS. Our game was pretty much pile in the middle and roll 3 and 4's until something died. The game has the strategy of Yatzee with the fun factor of visiting your 100 year old great aunt at the nursing home.
This is what has been reported here and there.
A grand melee in the centre of the battlefield makes the game uninteresting after a few matches.
Chute82 wrote: I tried AoS with my Skaven last week and the game was just awful we played rules as written. I think I had more fun getting a cavity filled by the dentist with no Novocain. Played 3 turns when my buddy and I decided it was enough. Could not imagine playing 6 turns of AoS. Our game was pretty much pile in the middle and roll 3 and 4's until something died. The game has the strategy of Yatzee with the fun factor of visiting your 100 year old great aunt at the nursing home.
This is what has been reported here and there.
A grand melee in the centre of the battlefield makes the game uninteresting after a few matches.
It's almost like that's what happened back in olden times. People had to hit each other with [Danny DeVito voice] SWOOOAAARDS!
I can get why people might think mosh pitting to be a boring thing. Then again, I play Orks in 40k and love close combat over shooty battles. Same would/will apply for Fantasy/AoS. Standing back and shooting bows/artillery for days is just as much of a snooze fest. I guess right now there's no real winning unless they make the battlefields a little bigger.
burningstuff wrote: Losing points, in my opinion, is the best thing that has happened to Warhammer, as no longer are models rendered useless if their points are too much and no longer does power creep matter.
I'm sorry, but what?
No, models are no longer rendered "useless" because of points, instead now every single model that isn't the absolutely best combination of stats is automatically "useless" since you don't have any incentive to use anything but the absolutely best models in your game.
True, but there are other ways of playing that don't focus on points or optimum combinations of things; this at least tries to be one of those games.
It's about scenario building, and Playing what's appropriate, within the context of the scenario.
A structure to build armies would help enormously though, but 'open ended' isn't strictly bad with the right mind set at least.
Which works wonderfully in a game like Malifaux, where you only have a handful of models per side, so the logistics of bringing everything you have and building a force for the appropriate scenario is a lot easier.
A game the scale of AoS which could potentially have a hundred models per side (not even taking into account summoning), less so.
Chute82 wrote: I tried AoS with my Skaven last week and the game was just awful we played rules as written. I think I had more fun getting a cavity filled by the dentist with no Novocain. Played 3 turns when my buddy and I decided it was enough. Could not imagine playing 6 turns of AoS. Our game was pretty much pile in the middle and roll 3 and 4's until something died. The game has the strategy of Yatzee with the fun factor of visiting your 100 year old great aunt at the nursing home.
This is what has been reported here and there.
A grand melee in the centre of the battlefield makes the game uninteresting after a few matches.
Some people have said this is the way to lose. It would depend on the type of units available.
Missile units tend to have worse H2H attacks and saves, so they would be best held out of the scrum until you need to apply maximum pressure. The best units to put into H2H would be the ones with the highest saves, number of wounds and bravery, to outlast the enemy while you chip them down with a combination of missile fire and melee.
Weapon range is also a factor, allowing units with longer weapons to get more models into attack. The enemy will be doing the same things to you, of course.
As far as movement goes, it's important to realise that units cannot retreat from H2H if the move would bring them closer to another enemy unit. The relative strength doesn't matter, so a Grot can block Emporer Sigmar. This means if you can charge a couple of hefty units of Oruks into Emporer Sigmar, and get a unit of Grots round behind him, the Grots can shoot up the Emporer's bum while the Oruks stick it in his face.
Magic should also be considered to (a) wear down your primary target with Magic Missile, and (b) protect your most crucial melee unit with the protect spell.
Overall there are tactics to be had, same as found in all warfare, minus most of the kind of bonuses you get for position, morale and so on.
The big imponderable is the special rules, that allow some units to summon large amounts of reinforcements, or other such way out west effects.
True, but there are other ways of playing that don't focus on points or optimum combinations of things; this at least tries to be one of those games.
It's about scenario building, and Playing what's appropriate, within the context of the scenario.
A structure to build armies would help enormously though, but 'open ended' isn't strictly bad with the right mind set at least.
'Being about scenario building' is a rationalization for poorly written rules lacking any kind of balance feature. Any game can be used for scenario driven entertainment.
The thing about a scenario is you can take a historical scenario like say the Battle of Shiloh and translate it into WW2 or fantasy terms, to surprise the players who hopefully won't recognise it. But if the units involved in the new scenario are completely different to the historical originals, you can get a totally unbalanced result.
burningstuff wrote: Losing points, in my opinion, is the best thing that has happened to Warhammer, as no longer are models rendered useless if their points are too much and no longer does power creep matter.
I'm sorry, but what?
No, models are no longer rendered "useless" because of points, instead now every single model that isn't the absolutely best combination of stats is automatically "useless" since you don't have any incentive to use anything but the absolutely best models in your game.
Thank goodness I don't have to play pick up games with strangers. The idea that I'd need all my minis to have the best Stats for their type, maxed out if you will, or else Left unused, seems like such a limited way to view games. I know I'm in the extreme minority, but I really can't see how the hobby is fun with a mindset that reduces amazing miniatures of interesting characters into a series of stat lines so that the low numbers can be culled.
I'll just play with the minis I like forming the force I like. That way, I'll have fun even as they all get slaughtered.
My buddy and I played another random game yesterday.
His force: 20 chaos warriors with halberds, mounted sorcerer lord, chimera, 3 skull crushers
My force: 2x 5 hounds, 20 marauders with flails, 10 warriors with hand weapons and shields, nurgle sorcerer, 3 dragon ogres, gorebeast chariot
Roughly what happened was the dragon ogres fought the skull crushers, his unit of warriors fought my warriors, marauders, chariot and nurgle sorcerer, and his chimera ate the hounds and then flanked the big combat.
More thoughts:
-The chimera was totally and utterly overpowered. The sheer number of rending or high damage attacks it puts out in combat is bad, but then you realise that it can put out between 1 and 6 mortal wounds anywhere within 14 inches each turn... How is that fair? Admittedly, it should have destroyed the dogs, however I realised that I had nothing that could reasonably deal with it. The dragon ogres might have stood a chance, but that is assuming they were able to hit it first and luck out in doing some wounds to it before it struck first and wrecked them.
-The marauders, even at 20 models, were still utterly worthless. I basically concluded coming out of the game that I would never, ever field them. The hounds were similarly worthless. We both sort of resolved that things with no armour and low bravery were pretty useless.
-That weapons are usually rending OR damaging makes killing things with high armour and lots of wounds an exercise in futility. My dragon ogres were pretty ineffective against the skull crushers... Frankly, I'm not sure what in my army could have dealt with them effectively.
-Battleshock is pretty dumb. That you remove models and not number of wounds for battleshock seemed like it was maybe a balancing factor against units of high wound models. The phase just further makes me feel like this is Grindhammer. You do a bunch of wounds hopefully killing models, but then they lose more models to battleshock. It's a much less interesting mechanic than psychology previously, with fleeing.
-The game again felt really stale. It felt like an excuse just to roll lots of dice. Other than deployment and selection of forces, tactics didn't seem very deep. Not being able to strategize for who was going to go first in combat or who was going to get the charge off meant that all you could do was roughly position your units and then cross your fingers. Maybe this would be less of a factor in bigger games where there would be more "pivotal" combats from which you had to choose the order of attack, but in our game it was pretty trivial.
-I did not go into the game feeling ferociously competitive, gunning to absolutely win the game. Even in spite of that, I just found it entirely uninteresting. Movement was boring. Magic was boring. We had no shooting. And then combat just amounted to rolling a bunch of dice and slowly whittling away at the opponent. Where was the nuance? Where was the opportunity for high skill? I'm not denying that there isn't still strategy in the game in list selection and, to some degree, deployment and how your units engage. But it's absolutely nowhere near what fantasy used to offer.
I'm really trying to see how this game could be enjoyable, but even when playing with my best friend, it was boring.
without some sort of army composition system, this game is doomed and will never be sucessful.
Hurry up GW, start adding points to your warscrolls and make restriction like rare/special/hero/core otherwise you will never see a tournament of warhammer ever again and your customers will move to other systems.
True, but there are other ways of playing that don't focus on points or optimum combinations of things; this at least tries to be one of those games.
It's about scenario building, and Playing what's appropriate, within the context of the scenario.
A structure to build armies would help enormously though, but 'open ended' isn't strictly bad with the right mind set at least.
'Being about scenario building' is a rationalization for poorly written rules lacking any kind of balance feature. Any game can be used for scenario driven entertainment.
Completely true striker. So why not use this one for scenario building as well then?
cyberjonesy wrote: without some sort of army composition system, this game is doomed and will never be sucessful.
Hurry up GW, start adding points to your warscrolls and make restriction like rare/special/hero/core otherwise you will never see a tournament of warhammer ever again and your customers will move to other systems.
I genuinely don't believe this game needs a point system. If they could come up with a good army construction outline, such as X scrolls with limitations on specific unit types, with max unit sizes, I think they game would be fine. Points just muddle things up in the long run.
Jojoba can you expound on the following "movement was boring, magic was boring"?
99% of table top war games move in the same way as this game... ruler, move models for best strategic placement for shooting, assault, or objectives, etc. Magic is achieved nearly the same as 8th fantasy and 40k... pick spell, roll dice, try to deny spell, effects happen.
Yes there is no flanking but I rather like the less restrictive movements. If you want to move trays buy lotrwotr movement trays and you can still move them in squished crowded blocks.
Movement does matter due to pile ins and weapon ranges if you get in the side of a unit theres less to hit back at you. Oh look flanking. Hit ghem front and back your opponant either splits attacks or takes a full units attack damage. how do you do this? by movement with fast units how to stop it is setting up 3" nogo zones with your own troops which require movement and thought. Oh strange these sound almost like tactics but no AoS doesn't have any. At least thats whats most people say.
Apoligies for the rant and this isnt directed at any one person.
Please, stop saying that not caring about most min-maxed army is the way to go.
Using the very example brought here - Player A has fluffy High Elf army with archers. Quite generic, which he likes. One that typically shows up in books.
Player B has a fluffy High Elf army based on Avelorn, spamming Sisters. Less generic, but fluffy nonetheless.
No matter if it's a scenario or regular slaughterfest - Player B has an obvious, blatant advantage despite, say, same model count. Or wound count. Or whatever. What do they do next? Do they give Player A additional wounds to spend on more models? How many exactly? How many is enough, how many is too much, how many is too little? Do they reduce Player B's army? By how many wounds exactly? Et caetera.
Or maybe adjust the scenario to be a bit more in favour of Player A? But by how much? What is the right balance?
Pro tip - you don't know. They don't know either. You don't know that if you don't playtest it a dozen times with various combinations.
Point values (or any other balancing mechanism) are VITAL to wargames. Sure, you probably can come up with one or two examples of games where you don't have any, but then look at how many do have them in comparison.
I think that examples are the best at showing the issue. You can be fluffy player, you can not care about minmaxing and just be fielding a force you think is cool and it can be much, much better than your opponent's even if you're not being TFG.
As for the game - endless torrent of 4+, 3+ really hurts it. After three turns of smacking each other furiously with constant 4's and 3's I actually forgot what armies I was playing as they all felt the same (aside from monsters and heroes).
Why is a blatant advantage a bad thing? Is the game only fun if it is a contest to determine who wins? I hear AOS doesn't support that.
I guess the problem here is trying to make the square peg fit in the round hole. AOS is an iconoclastic hipster who challenges our very assumptions about what it means to game.
Our group has tried Age of Sigmar a little bit and found it pretty poor at best. We are split on the Yay or Nay Question of are the "Funny" Rules any good. I like them a lot, they're pretty funny as long as you take the game in the spirit of a specialist game from GW, rather than take it as the latest edition of Fantasy. The people that weren't trying out Age of Sigmar did get pretty surprised when the Beastman player started making a gargling noise, which I think was completely worth it.
Again, we found the rules where a bit too short to solve all the rules debates that happened during the game which was disappointing, but full credit for Games Workshop for releasing rules and lists for free, regardless of quality.
What we really didn't like was the lack of magic (a problem shared by the other game we looked at, Kings of War), and the lack of real movement options to set up flanking manoeuvres and the like. We found there was a lot of big lines of units as they piled in, which lead to a lot of gridlock, which is surprising considering how much more fluid units should be. I think the fact that we started with the models on movement trays meant it wasn't brilliant for piling in, because although it felt right (wider units wrapping around smaller units), the fact that the units immediately broke coherency when units impacted felt very off for us Fantasy Players. I really think that having formations like the rumours suggested (loose, tight, square etc) would have really helped, and would have helped to stop more rules debates (and would only have required another page of rules, which could have been a nice summary sheet). Magic was very disappointing, with our Vampire Counts player pointing out how boring it was to be able to summon unit after unit with no chance of being stopped (a mass of models kept any enemy wizards completely out of range).
What we did really like where the Command Actions. It felt right that Standard Bearers and the like had to stay still and concentrate on waving a flag (or other such stuff) in order to inspire nearby troops, which meant that we really had to think about positioning, compared to fantasy when it was a lot easier to shuffle the command elements and provide good leadership to the army. We are thinking of using those command rules in Fantasy, which should help with Steadfast and the like (no gunlines in our meta, so having to move is actually important). We might play around with the attacking distance as well, which should encourage wide rather than deep units to wrap around enemy units, but it might be more work than it would be worth.
-Battleshock is pretty dumb. That you remove models and not number of wounds for battleshock seemed like it was maybe a balancing factor against units of high wound models. The phase just further makes me feel like this is Grindhammer. You do a bunch of wounds hopefully killing models, but then they lose more models to battleshock. It's a much less interesting mechanic than psychology previously, with fleeing.
As an Ogre player, I found Battleshock is pretty harsh. What doesn't help is the massive divide between a unit of multi wound models, and a single multi wound model.
No, models are no longer rendered "useless" because of points, instead now every single model that isn't the absolutely best combination of stats is automatically "useless" since you don't have any incentive to use anything but the absolutely best models in your game.
I would argue that this isn't necessarily true, simply due to people's physical collections. Whilst no-one can argue that taking 10 Chaos Marauders is as good as taking 10 Bloodthirsters, only you're physical collection will stop you from doing both. I will concede the point that there's nothing to stop you from using an "upgraded" version of a unit that has identical models - after all, why take Chaos Warriors when you can take Chaos Chosen instead? Or to go even further, why take a squad of Warriors or Chosen with the Mark of Khorne, when you could take an entire army of Khorne Hero's. My only defence against these points would be that both players can do this, which could lead to interesting situations - Army of Chaos Lords vs Army of Orc Warbosses for example would be entertaining at the very least.
I genuinely don't believe this game needs a point system. If they could come up with a good army construction outline, such as X scrolls with limitations on specific unit types, with max unit sizes, I think they game would be fine. Points just muddle things up in the long run.
I agree, I would have like to see more of a Decurion Style detachment from 40k, using the Keywords. So maybe you would have to take 1 unit with the "Core" keyword for every 1 with the "Hero" Keyword. It would add definition between the different levels of Heroes, Lords and Monsters. The whole list building aspect being removed from the game isn't brilliant as far as my groups found, although playing a game of bluff with your opponent when deciding how many models you're going to put down is a new and interesting experience
From the point of aiming Age of Sigmar at kids rather than adults - at the Library club I help out at, no interest at all has been shown about Age of Sigmar. I'm not 100% sure, but I think generally 40k tends to appeal to the kids more than fantasy stuff. I imagine as they expand the model range with the new more 40k-esque models that they might become more interested, as it seems to be the sort of things that kids like (humans in big suits of armour and all that). In particular, I think the Sigmarines will become popular with the kids, and that might lead them into looking into it, which I suppose is GW's plan.
TL-DR - Age of Sigmar isn't the worst thing ever, but if you want proper fantasy battles avoid it. Its not the game they needed to replace fantasy at the minute either. If you want a fun game by GW, then play the Fantasy expansion "Triumph & Treachery", it works for both Competitive and Casual gamers, and is likely the only version of traditional Fantasy that will be kept alive at little gaming clubs. If you want a small fantasy game, with very simplistic rules and you want a bit of a laugh, then I can see Age of Sigmar working well for you.
Here's the thing, balance isn't necessary for a fun game. By extension points or equivalent system isn't needed for AoS to be good. But without such a system in place, AoS has alienated all of the players who wanted that. If it had a points system, then players who wanted to play without it could still do so but there is this pervasive idea that AoS somehow invented playing without points out of thin air and it is impossible to do that if the game had points. Similarly, WAAC/TFG could not be ignored in a game with points; we HAD to play against those people. But now with AoS we can walk away when they try to break the game, which we were somehow unable to do before.
To put it another way, most people want some semblance of balance in their games. A version of chess where one side has pawns instead of rooks might be fun for some folks, but would never sell as well as the version where both sides were equal.
I know what I'm saying here is an exaggeration, but regardless of one's opinion on the rules themselves we should be able to agree the total lack of a balance mechanism was not a good choice for players or for business. GW may want to be a model company with a light game on the side, but that attitude is not what made them successful in the first place, and will never sell as many models than if they had a great game alongside them.
Sidenote: AoS can have tactics, but that requires some semblance of balance first. The tactics available won't help you if my force is crushingly superior (which, as has been stated before, is possible even among friendly players trying to have a balanced game).
I haven't played AoS myself yet, or seen much of it played, but going through the rules, I wanted to add to what NinthMusketeer is saying, it's one thing to have a game without points, that's fine, but that usually doesn't jive for most people outside of trying it once or twice. The exception is when there's a scenario or story involved, with an actual narrative structure and pre-dseigned scenarios with specific units and terrain setup, or a 3rd player GM (the way say, Rogue Trader had in 1987).
AoS doesn't offer any of the latter really, it's still fundamentally approaching actual play from something of an easy "pickup" perspective, without wanting to shoulder the responsibility for balance, while ostensibly wanting to be more of a "narrative" or "cinematic" experience but without providing any tools or structure for narrative construction.
Vaktathi wrote: I haven't played AoS myself yet, or seen much of it played, but going through the rules, I wanted to add to what NinthMusketeer is saying, it's one thing to have a game without points, that's fine, but that usually doesn't jive for most people outside of trying it once or twice. The exception is when there's a scenario or story involved, with an actual narrative structure and pre-dseigned scenarios with specific units and terrain setup, or a 3rd player GM (the way say, Rogue Trader had in 1987).
AoS doesn't offer any of the latter really, it's still fundamentally approaching actual play from something of an easy "pickup" perspective, without wanting to shoulder the responsibility for balance, while ostensibly wanting to be more of a "narrative" or "cinematic" experience but without providing any tools or structure for narrative construction.
This is a big concern I have. We've seen plenty of people claim that AoS is a great "narrative" game, but there's nothing there that supports a narrative in the game beyond what the players make themselves. And at that stage, any wargame becomes a "narrative" experience. And there are other games that do more to support that play style.
So what I am reading as one of the issues is once melee starts it become a confusing mess of most everyone for themselves in the middle of the battle field.
Sound like every War I was in with my Medieval Recreation Group.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Here's the thing, balance isn't necessary for a fun game. By extension points or equivalent system isn't needed for AoS to be good. But without such a system in place, AoS has alienated all of the players who wanted that. If it had a points system, then players who wanted to play without it could still do so but there is this pervasive idea that AoS somehow invented playing without points out of thin air and it is impossible to do that if the game had points. Similarly, WAAC/TFG could not be ignored in a game with points; we HAD to play against those people. But now with AoS we can walk away when they try to break the game, which we were somehow unable to do before.
To put it another way, most people want some semblance of balance in their games. A version of chess where one side has pawns instead of rooks might be fun for some folks, but would never sell as well as the version where both sides were equal.
I know what I'm saying here is an exaggeration, but regardless of one's opinion on the rules themselves we should be able to agree the total lack of a balance mechanism was not a good choice for players or for business. GW may want to be a model company with a light game on the side, but that attitude is not what made them successful in the first place, and will never sell as many models than if they had a great game alongside them.
Sidenote: AoS can have tactics, but that requires some semblance of balance first. The tactics available won't help you if my force is crushingly superior (which, as has been stated before, is possible even among friendly players trying to have a balanced game).
Obviously abandoning everything their long term customers loved about WHF was a mistake if they care about repeat customers or word of mouth. However, AOS can still have its own merits once one gets past that. If one gets past that.
I expect to see gamers using KoW rules for their armies and only supporting the GW products they find worthwhile, such as FW or 40k starter sets.
AoS has caused my entire gaming group to give up completely on Games Workshop games. They are all in the process of trading or selling their stuff for other games or money. They find absolutely nothing exciting or interesting about AoS because it reminds them of playing like a little kid with his G I Joe action figures. Basically this:
friend 1. "I shot your guy with my big super laser, he's dead!"
friend 2. "Nuh uh!, he's got a laser shield that stops ALL lasers from hurting him. Your shot bounces off and back to you! Now your guy is dead!"
friend 1." No way! cuz my guns don't hurt my guys!"
friend 2." Uh huh! because when it bounced off, it took part of my guys energy with it so my energy hurts him! Your guy is dead!"
friend 1." Nuh uh! because my guy dodges out of the way of the ricocheting shot!"
friend 2." My energy has tracking. It tracks where your guy dodges and hits him. He's dead!"
friend 1 " No, because........"
That's about the extent of the way they feel AoS is. After years of playing GW games they have just grown tired of the way Gw does things and have moved on to Star Wars Armada, Wild West Exodus, Warmachine, Hordes, and any other non GW game that they find interesting.
They won't even consider playing any of the specialist games I have because there won't be any new miniatures coming out for them.
Your group has a very poor understanding of the rules if they think there's any level of that stuff going on. Or, they should at least be saying the same thing about any of the other wargames they play...
Rihgu wrote: Your group has a very poor understanding of the rules if they think there's any level of that stuff going on. Or, they should at least be saying the same thing about any of the other wargames they play...
No, they just think the rules are that stupid. And considering I have read the rules and seen the silly things in the game such as getting re-rolls to dwarfs to hit rolls because you have a longer beard than your opponent, they aren't far wrong. It doesn't matter if those rules are simply a get you by list, they are still the only current rules set. And that is just too much for some people.
Rihgu wrote: Your group has a very poor understanding of the rules if they think there's any level of that stuff going on. Or, they should at least be saying the same thing about any of the other wargames they play...
No, they just think the rules are that stupid. And considering I have read the rules and seen the silly things in the game such as getting bonuses to dwarfs to hit rolls because you have a longer beard than your opponent, they aren't far wrong. It doesn't matter if those rules are simply a get you by list, they are still the only current rules set. And that is just too much for some people.
At least the GM is not making the Players sing 'Denton' from the 'Rocky Horror Picture Show' every time the name 'Denton' came up.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Here's the thing, balance isn't necessary for a fun game. By extension points or equivalent system isn't needed for AoS to be good. But without such a system in place, AoS has alienated all of the players who wanted that. If it had a points system, then players who wanted to play without it could still do so but there is this pervasive idea that AoS somehow invented playing without points out of thin air and it is impossible to do that if the game had points. Similarly, WAAC/TFG could not be ignored in a game with points; we HAD to play against those people. But now with AoS we can walk away when they try to break the game, which we were somehow unable to do before.
To put it another way, most people want some semblance of balance in their games. A version of chess where one side has pawns instead of rooks might be fun for some folks, but would never sell as well as the version where both sides were equal.
I know what I'm saying here is an exaggeration, but regardless of one's opinion on the rules themselves we should be able to agree the total lack of a balance mechanism was not a good choice for players or for business. GW may want to be a model company with a light game on the side, but that attitude is not what made them successful in the first place, and will never sell as many models than if they had a great game alongside them.
.
Sidenote: AoS can have tactics, but that requires some semblance of balance first. The tactics available won't help you if my force is crushingly superior (which, as has been stated before, is possible even among friendly players trying to have a balanced game).
Obviously abandoning everything their long term customers loved about WHF was a mistake if they care about repeat customers or word of mouth. However, AOS can still have its own merits once one gets past that. If one gets past that.
I expect to see gamers using KoW rules for their armies and only supporting the GW products they find worthwhile, such as FW or 40k starter sets.
Fair enough. My post was a bit strongly worded due to frustration; I do see merits in AoS, its the attempts to justify what are clearly flaws in the design (regardless if one likes the result or not) that rub me the wrong way. Count me among those shipping over to KoW for mass fantasy battles, and if a balance system starts getting widely accepted (I'm looking at the PPC in proposed rules in particular) I would likely end up playing AoS on the side. Still, with the way GW released AoS they have really diminished my interest in them long term because what little confidence I had in the continuity of their games is now gone. I briefly looked to getting back into 40k but then thought "its not unlikely that they sigmarify (or something equivalent) 40k in the next two years" and gave up on the idea almost immediately.
99% of table top war games move in the same way as this game... ruler, move models for best strategic placement for shooting, assault, or objectives, etc. ...
Yes there is no flanking but I rather like the less restrictive movements.
The movement in the game is less pivotal than it has been in previous editions of warhammer. The randomness of how charging works now (particularly for rolling off for who goes first) and the removal of psychology and fleeing both simplify movement far too much for my liking.
You're calling it less restrictive and I'm calling it less nuanced. I guess we have to agree to disagree.
Movement does matter due to pile ins and weapon ranges if you get in the side of a unit theres less to hit back at you. Oh look flanking. Hit ghem front and back your opponant either splits attacks or takes a full units attack damage. how do you do this? by movement with fast units how to stop it is setting up 3" nogo zones with your own troops which require movement and thought.
Are you suggesting movement matters because you want to get closer to the enemy so you can hit more of them? If that's what I'm reading then that's not really comparable to previous editions of WFB which included definite charge ranges and fleeing.
As to your comment about flanking, if you hit them in the flank, you're just as limited in the number of attacks you can bring to bear, given that its all based on who's in base to base contact.
As to hitting them in the front and back, I cede to you that yes, if you have more units in combat with a single unit, they have to split their attacks. And the easiest way to achieve this is through higher movement speed.
I believe I said that there did still seem to be some degree of tactics in the game but that they paled in comparison to previous editions of warhammer. If you are happy with AoS, I'm happy for you. I don't enjoy that everything has been simplified.
99% of table top war games move in the same way as this game... ruler, move models for best strategic placement for shooting, assault, or objectives, etc. ...
Yes there is no flanking but I rather like the less restrictive movements.
The movement in the game is less pivotal than it has been in previous editions of warhammer. The randomness of how charging works now (particularly for rolling off for who goes first) and the removal of psychology and fleeing both simplify movement far too much for my liking.
You're calling it less restrictive and I'm calling it less nuanced. I guess we have to agree to disagree.
Movement does matter due to pile ins and weapon ranges if you get in the side of a unit theres less to hit back at you. Oh look flanking. Hit ghem front and back your opponant either splits attacks or takes a full units attack damage. how do you do this? by movement with fast units how to stop it is setting up 3" nogo zones with your own troops which require movement and thought.
Are you suggesting movement matters because you want to get closer to the enemy so you can hit more of them? If that's what I'm reading then that's not really comparable to previous editions of WFB which included definite charge ranges and fleeing.
As to your comment about flanking, if you hit them in the flank, you're just as limited in the number of attacks you can bring to bear, given that its all based on who's in base to base contact.
As to hitting them in the front and back, I cede to you that yes, if you have more units in combat with a single unit, they have to split their attacks. And the easiest way to achieve this is through higher movement speed.
I believe I said that there did still seem to be some degree of tactics in the game but that they paled in comparison to previous editions of warhammer. If you are happy with AoS, I'm happy for you. I don't enjoy that everything has been simplified.
Your are definitely in a stronger position if you attack the flank, provided you play the vanilla AoS pile-in rules. If you play the 40k moshpit pile-in, then no, you won't think there is any point to flanking. Also, when you charge, only 1 model has to end 1/2" from the target - you can position the rest of your unit in a way to maximise the damage you cause, minimise the counter-damage he causes, or somewhere in between. Remember, the pile-in is not mandatory, and the way you position your models affects the way he can pile-in.
I take your point about psychology and fleeing, but to some degree this is replaced by battleshock (which is fleeing with no hope of return), and retreating.
I think the biggest problem AoS has is the failure of GW to make it really clear to people that this is a totally different type of game to WHFB. The "narrative" type game does not appeal to everyone, certainly not to existing WHFB players who prefer an all-encompassing rule structure, rather than the more "make it up as you go along" GM type of genre.
These players will either leave, and concentrate on KOW etc. or try to introduce points systems and army compostion structures to "fix" AoS.
If GW don't start bringing out the equivalent of the roleplay books needed to support this type of game, they will not recruit significant numbers of new players.
Frankly, given the failure of Inquisitor, their previous attempt at a narrative game, and the handing over of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay to FFG, the future doesn't look bright for this area of the business at the moment.
I'm sorry, but I think there are very few things more wrong than saying "balance isn't necessary for a fun game". If I scoop enough of my free time to have that one or two odd games in a week, I want to play a game where I actually can beat my opponent without having to hope that I roll only 6's the whole match or I'm outright going to lose. Sure, there are fun scenarios that I sometimes play with friends like 10 Sternguard marines and a techmarine operating a Thunderfire Cannon holing up in rubble barricades for their last stand amidst the ruins of an imperial city swarming with hormagaunts and genestealers to see how many turns they can survive, but those are just substitutes, occasional little fun games between bigger battles.
NinthMusketeer wrote: By extension points or equivalent system isn't needed for AoS to be good.
Except that it just simply is! I know that "good" is a subjective thing, but trying to be as objective in your opinion as possible, basing it on other games and their forums you can tell that a game with such glaring issues can't be "good". It can be improved, sure, but isn't yet. You can't just ignore a huge aspect of the game and still say it might be good. You know what makes a good game in my opinion? A balanced one where you both can have fun making a cool army AND be able to play competitively with it. See, the issue here is that this is a wargame. It's a competitive game. Even when playing for fun, with beer and pretzels, you still play against each other and while losing might not be a problem for either or both of you, you still do your best to defeat the opponent. Now add limited free time to play games every week and you'll end up with having unchallenging, meh games where one player obviously lost not even due to his bad tactics. Sure, it might not have been a wasted evening, because he had some fun, but it definetely wasn't a "good" experience, it'd be good if they both had equal chances to win and skill determined it, not one of their forces being outright weaker than the other.
NinthMusketeer wrote: If it had a points system, then players who wanted to play without it could still do so but there is this pervasive idea that AoS somehow invented playing without points out of thin air and it is impossible to do that if the game had points.
Now THAT would be a good call. Giving both the old and new players an option to enjoy the game the way they want. Especially that old players make up about 90% of AoS playerbase, and suddenly they've been cut off from their game and left on ice.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Similarly, WAAC/TFG could not be ignored in a game with points; we HAD to play against those people. But now with AoS we can walk away when they try to break the game, which we were somehow unable to do before.
I think I fail to see how is this any different from before - you always could have walked away from a game. AoS, WFB, chess, WM/H - you don't HAVE to play against anyone. You can always stand up and leave. Be it whether he brings the cheesiest Tau-Eldar army that has 90% chance to win against your Orks or when he brings Nagash with necromancers and Tzeentch daemons to pump out a billion miniatures on the table in one turn. You are a free man, you can go anytime you want and, just the same way, if you walk out of an AoS tournament or WFB tournament you lose, so it doesn't change anything at all. Also comparing it to WFB or 40k is a bad idea, because these games were poorly balanced, everyone knows that. Grab anything else, though, and you will never have any problems like Tau-Eldar popping up.
NinthMusketeer wrote: [...]and will never sell as many models than if they had a great game alongside them.
That's true. A bad game won't sell as well as a good one.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Sidenote: AoS can have tactics, but that requires some semblance of balance first.
AoS at the moment has little to no tactics. As simple as that. The only tactic right now is to get a charge off first before he does it just to attack first, because you rarely get any bonuses for charging at all. What killed a lot of tactics is lack of flank charges. 40k might be fine with that because it's focused on shooting and even if two armies fight in melee, it's many, many more models in action. Here it's those odd 20, 30 models having a mosh pit in the middle, rolling 4+/3+ all the time. There's no incentive for you to try to surround your enemy as you don't get any bonuses for that at all.
NinthMusketeer wrote: [...] as has been stated before, is possible even among friendly players trying to have a balanced game).
I disagree wholeheartedly. It takes time and effort to come up with at least a little balanced forces for two players. You never know if 10 greatswords will be good enough a counter to his 10 stormvermin, or how many clanrats equal 10 greatswords. You will never be sure if the proportions you two came up with are right, because one side may win through luck or skill rather than balanced forces - that's what playtests are for. That's what GW should've done and that's what point values/balancing mechanisms are for - to give the players an indicator of how "good" one unit is. If greatsword is 4 points and clanrat is 2 you can easily decide to have 2:1 ratio. See, the points aren't just for competitive players, they can help with fun games too - coming up with a nice ratio for, say, attacker and defender is much easier with points than without them.
That being said, please, don't say that AoS is good at something else, because as it is now, you could do everything it does in WFB, and it was just better there and had more depth. Maybe aside from the regiment movement system which I hated, but you had skirmishers too. Right now it's like turning back from advanced, realistic Airsoft games to some silly Laser Tag "Call of Duty" run forward and have fun shooting game with little to no tactics. Sure, it might be fun for some, but that doesn't mean it's good.
Right now the only good sides I see in the game are:
- viable units and monsters. As simple as that - overall many units became viable while they were meh before, although it was WFB's issue in the first place that they weren't priced appropriately.
- simplified stats. I like them, all those statistics were unnecessary and bloated the game.
- oval bases and overall skirmish movement - hated the regiments, especially once the Horde rule kicked in - I liked a couple 15-20 man units from before better than having just two 30-40 man units in a 2400 points army.
- little synergies between heroes and units through their abilities and command skills - they're no longer just walking Ld bubbles/solo beatsticks.
And... that's it. I hate oversimplified magic, which is a joke and noone can convince me otherwise, I hate lack of balance, I hate poorly designed rules that require players to make the game playable, I hate mindless melee in the middle... and many more.
Now don't get me wrong - I want to like AoS and I still hope that they'll fix it's issues to make it a good system, but the longer it stays raw and unappealing, the worse it seems to be.
I have only played a few games so far but flanking seems pretty good to me. It lets you get more of your models into melee, so they actually get to attack instead of just sitting there trapped behind their friends. I suppose that is my perspective as someone who's been playing chaos vs sigmarines and so has many more models, meaning my frontage matters whereas the sigmarines maximise their frontage without even trying.
I am not sure what to make of points. It is true that if you have a system with points you can also just ignore the points, but I have never really seen anyone actually do that. Points are also context-free - they don't account for synergies in the models (which, from a certain perspective, is the whole idea). It's possible forcing players to actually think about balancing the armies instead of just providing a very flawed alternative will lead to better games.
ETA: it occurs to me that from the sigmarines' perspective, they don't want my models to be in melee so they have an incentive to not get flanked, get fights at good angles, etc.
Anpu42 wrote: So what I am reading as one of the issues is once melee starts it become a confusing mess of most everyone for themselves in the middle of the battle field.
Sound like every War I was in with my Medieval Recreation Group.
Very false.
Medieval warfare was far more organized than what we see in movies. If you don't maintain your formation you will loose as the enemy flank you and roll you up. The "pile in the middle" idea comes from amateurs and Hollywood.
That AOS is all about piling in the middle makes it even less attractive.
Anpu42 wrote: So what I am reading as one of the issues is once melee starts it become a confusing mess of most everyone for themselves in the middle of the battle field.
Sound like every War I was in with my Medieval Recreation Group.
Very false.
Medieval warfare was far more organized than what we see in movies. If you don't maintain your formation you will loose as the enemy flank you and roll you up. The "pile in the middle" idea comes from amateurs and Hollywood.
That AOS is all about piling in the middle makes it even less attractive.
Yes for Organized Units that Train together constantly, but we are talking about about a bunch of Want-To-Be-Weekend-Stick-Jocks [We used real swords though]. With only a few exceptions this how most of our wars went.
Anpu42 wrote: So what I am reading as one of the issues is once melee starts it become a confusing mess of most everyone for themselves in the middle of the battle field.
Sound like every War I was in with my Medieval Recreation Group.
Very false.
Medieval warfare was far more organized than what we see in movies. If you don't maintain your formation you will loose as the enemy flank you and roll you up. The "pile in the middle" idea comes from amateurs and Hollywood.
That AOS is all about piling in the middle makes it even less attractive.
Piling in the middle is one reason for prolonged close combats.
Another is the lack of game objectives.
However, there is the possibility of retreat from combat.
I guess this is a less favorable option.
It could be interesting in WMH since turns are not handled by phases but by unit activation.
However, there is the possibility of retreat from combat.
I guess this is a less favorable option.
It could be interesting in WMH since turns are not handled by phases but by unit activation.
I'm sorry, but I think there are very few things more wrong than saying "balance isn't necessary for a fun game". If I scoop enough of my free time to have that one or two odd games in a week, I want to play a game where I actually can beat my opponent without having to hope that I roll only 6's the whole match or I'm outright going to lose. Sure, there are fun scenarios that I sometimes play with friends like 10 Sternguard marines and a techmarine operating a Thunderfire Cannon holing up in rubble barricades for their last stand amidst the ruins of an imperial city swarming with hormagaunts and genestealers to see how many turns they can survive, but those are just substitutes, occasional little fun games between bigger battles.
NinthMusketeer wrote: By extension points or equivalent system isn't needed for AoS to be good.
Except that it just simply is! I know that "good" is a subjective thing, but trying to be as objective in your opinion as possible, basing it on other games and their forums you can tell that a game with such glaring issues can't be "good". It can be improved, sure, but isn't yet. You can't just ignore a huge aspect of the game and still say it might be good. You know what makes a good game in my opinion? A balanced one where you both can have fun making a cool army AND be able to play competitively with it. See, the issue here is that this is a wargame. It's a competitive game. Even when playing for fun, with beer and pretzels, you still play against each other and while losing might not be a problem for either or both of you, you still do your best to defeat the opponent. Now add limited free time to play games every week and you'll end up with having unchallenging, meh games where one player obviously lost not even due to his bad tactics. Sure, it might not have been a wasted evening, because he had some fun, but it definetely wasn't a "good" experience, it'd be good if they both had equal chances to win and skill determined it, not one of their forces being outright weaker than the other.
NinthMusketeer wrote: If it had a points system, then players who wanted to play without it could still do so but there is this pervasive idea that AoS somehow invented playing without points out of thin air and it is impossible to do that if the game had points.
Now THAT would be a good call. Giving both the old and new players an option to enjoy the game the way they want. Especially that old players make up about 90% of AoS playerbase, and suddenly they've been cut off from their game and left on ice.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Similarly, WAAC/TFG could not be ignored in a game with points; we HAD to play against those people. But now with AoS we can walk away when they try to break the game, which we were somehow unable to do before.
I think I fail to see how is this any different from before - you always could have walked away from a game. AoS, WFB, chess, WM/H - you don't HAVE to play against anyone. You can always stand up and leave. Be it whether he brings the cheesiest Tau-Eldar army that has 90% chance to win against your Orks or when he brings Nagash with necromancers and Tzeentch daemons to pump out a billion miniatures on the table in one turn. You are a free man, you can go anytime you want and, just the same way, if you walk out of an AoS tournament or WFB tournament you lose, so it doesn't change anything at all. Also comparing it to WFB or 40k is a bad idea, because these games were poorly balanced, everyone knows that. Grab anything else, though, and you will never have any problems like Tau-Eldar popping up.
NinthMusketeer wrote: [...]and will never sell as many models than if they had a great game alongside them.
That's true. A bad game won't sell as well as a good one.
NinthMusketeer wrote: Sidenote: AoS can have tactics, but that requires some semblance of balance first.
AoS at the moment has little to no tactics. As simple as that. The only tactic right now is to get a charge off first before he does it just to attack first, because you rarely get any bonuses for charging at all. What killed a lot of tactics is lack of flank charges. 40k might be fine with that because it's focused on shooting and even if two armies fight in melee, it's many, many more models in action. Here it's those odd 20, 30 models having a mosh pit in the middle, rolling 4+/3+ all the time. There's no incentive for you to try to surround your enemy as you don't get any bonuses for that at all.
NinthMusketeer wrote: [...] as has been stated before, is possible even among friendly players trying to have a balanced game).
I disagree wholeheartedly. It takes time and effort to come up with at least a little balanced forces for two players. You never know if 10 greatswords will be good enough a counter to his 10 stormvermin, or how many clanrats equal 10 greatswords. You will never be sure if the proportions you two came up with are right, because one side may win through luck or skill rather than balanced forces - that's what playtests are for. That's what GW should've done and that's what point values/balancing mechanisms are for - to give the players an indicator of how "good" one unit is. If greatsword is 4 points and clanrat is 2 you can easily decide to have 2:1 ratio. See, the points aren't just for competitive players, they can help with fun games too - coming up with a nice ratio for, say, attacker and defender is much easier with points than without them.
That being said, please, don't say that AoS is good at something else, because as it is now, you could do everything it does in WFB, and it was just better there and had more depth. Maybe aside from the regiment movement system which I hated, but you had skirmishers too. Right now it's like turning back from advanced, realistic Airsoft games to some silly Laser Tag "Call of Duty" run forward and have fun shooting game with little to no tactics. Sure, it might be fun for some, but that doesn't mean it's good.
Right now the only good sides I see in the game are:
- viable units and monsters. As simple as that - overall many units became viable while they were meh before, although it was WFB's issue in the first place that they weren't priced appropriately.
- simplified stats. I like them, all those statistics were unnecessary and bloated the game.
- oval bases and overall skirmish movement - hated the regiments, especially once the Horde rule kicked in - I liked a couple 15-20 man units from before better than having just two 30-40 man units in a 2400 points army.
- little synergies between heroes and units through their abilities and command skills - they're no longer just walking Ld bubbles/solo beatsticks.
And... that's it. I hate oversimplified magic, which is a joke and noone can convince me otherwise, I hate lack of balance, I hate poorly designed rules that require players to make the game playable, I hate mindless melee in the middle... and many more.
Now don't get me wrong - I want to like AoS and I still hope that they'll fix it's issues to make it a good system, but the longer it stays raw and unappealing, the worse it seems to be.
I think you misunderstood me entirely. I wasn't speaking in support of AoS' design choices, quite the opposite. Your example of the doomed techmarine is the sort I was referring to when I said an unbalanced game can be fun, but my ultimate point is that a game will simply be better when it IS balanced. Similarly, I am saying that we could just walk away from TFG before, and I disagree with arguments being presented which imply that we couldn't do that with points costs in place. I largely agree with everything you said, and wholeheartedly with the final comment, I just didn't intent to present myself at the original position you took me for!
However, there is the possibility of retreat from combat.
I guess this is a less favorable option.
It could be interesting in WMH since turns are not handled by phases but by unit activation.
You can already retreat from combat in WMH.
Indeed, but most of the units or models will get free strikes.
Not when the unit is ghostly or whatever.
However, there is the possibility of retreat from combat.
I guess this is a less favorable option.
It could be interesting in WMH since turns are not handled by phases but by unit activation.
You can already retreat from combat in WMH.
Indeed, but most of the units or models will get free strikes.
Not when the unit is ghostly or whatever.
Which is perfectly reasonable in my opinion - there should be harsh penalties for leaving combat, free strikes are a good idea. You are, in fact, running from an enemy who gets a chance to answer to your actions after all!
Well, we played some AoS battles in our gaming group today.
The overall opinion is positive. We may organize an internal tourney in Sept. using the rule extensions from Toronto floating around at the 75 wound level.
AoS is probably the most boring and broke miniature wargame out there.
If was from a new company ,it would have been a bankruptcy.
90&of the old Whfb in my meta talks about AoS only to makes Jokes. The 10% that wanna play it and modify comes from bored player of 40k that missed the last 2 ed.....
We are all waiting from the guys of swed comp some good news
If your games are turning into middle of the field mosh pits, you are playing it wrong. Most of the time, you do want to stay in a formation, because the weapons have a rang value and being in a block maximises your damage potential due to reach and needing to move towards the nearest model (meaning if you are swinging around other models and reaching other enemy models, you are actually going against the rules.)
The balance come from your collection. Two players with e variety of units to put on the table are having a good game of it. Those who are trying to force house rules into the system and playing it exactly the same way as before with minimal terrain and a pre built army roster are the ones failing to get the picture.
Watching battlereports I am seeing a slow swing towards favorability by people deciding to play by (all) the rules instead of sitting around complaining about how the game changed. That is because they are letting go of the old, unnecessarily bloated warhammer rules and realising that the game has legitimacy in regards to tactics that aren't reliant on trying to get around shoddy game mechanics.
To the guy who couldn't stop the vampire counts spells, where were your cavalry, archers, deepstirking units, artillery and flyers? When he put down necromancers and sat a box of skeletons to the side, those should have been dropped into your deployment zone first chance you had. If those weren't available, then pile on more models when he gets done and hope to overwhelm him before his reinforcements become a major factor.
The game wants you to bring a collection, not an army. You will start to see more balanced games when you both agree to do that.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: If your games are turning into middle of the field mosh pits, you are playing it wrong. Most of the time, you do want to stay in a formation, because the weapons have a rang value and being in a block maximises your damage potential due to reach and needing to move towards the nearest model (meaning if you are swinging around other models and reaching other enemy models, you are actually going against the rules.)
The balance come from your collection. Two players with e variety of units to put on the table are having a good game of it. Those who are trying to force house rules into the system and playing it exactly the same way as before with minimal terrain and a pre built army roster are the ones failing to get the picture.
Watching battlereports I am seeing a slow swing towards favorability by people deciding to play by (all) the rules instead of sitting around complaining about how the game changed. That is because they are letting go of the old, unnecessarily bloated warhammer rules and realising that the game has legitimacy in regards to tactics that aren't reliant on trying to get around shoddy game mechanics.
To the guy who couldn't stop the vampire counts spells, where were your cavalry, archers, deepstirking units, artillery and flyers? When he put down necromancers and sat a box of skeletons to the side, those should have been dropped into your deployment zone first chance you had. If those weren't available, then pile on more models when he gets done and hope to overwhelm him before his reinforcements become a major factor.
The game wants you to bring a collection, not an army. You will start to see more balanced games when you both agree to do that.
This comes across as exactly the sort of holier-than-thou attitude that annoys people. If you want others to listen to what you have to say and successfully argue a point, than insulting those who disagree with you (implied or directly) is the exact opposite of what to do. And as an aside, when playing strictly by the rules formations mean even less than if you add house rules, because you can literally stack your models on top of each other in a pile if you like. Further, any sort of tactical potential is meaningless if your opponent puts down a force ten times stronger than yours or pulls one of the numerous game-breaking combos which are completely legal by the rules given. Of course doing these things is ridiculous, but so is the argument that a large number of disgruntled players are simply "doing it wrong" or even the argument that such people trying to have fun their way could be 'wrong' at all.
Looking at the rules, I don't see it as too bad as its own game.
In the grand scheme of things though, I find it a bit weird that they would choose to replace the already well developed WHFB setting with a new one. The ruleset also looks like it may lead to a few issues in the competitive light, and since AoS is a replacement for 8th edition from what I heard, it may be difficult to bring 8th ed back for stuff like tournaments.
Just my opinion of course.
I really fail to see why AoS actually needed to completely replace warhammer. How could have two systems that use the same models been a bad thing for GW? If people don't like games with ranked units, you have AoS. If people like games with ranked units you have warhammer. Keeping AoS on round bases would of allowed for crossover between the two. People of then used AoS as a gateway product.
I'm not really impressed with the rules, but if GW doesn't want my money, I can spend it on other things.
then the whole no points, bring whatever nonsense happened, and seeing how I had an army of Bretonnian peasants, everything curbstomps them.
where I used to have 2-3 peasants for every model my opponent had, I now have 1 peasant. And they're still just as crappy.
I have now moved my WHF monthly stipend to Bolt action, seeing as how my $50 can get me 30-40 models instead of the new GW 5 man boxes, I feel like I get my moneys worth.
The Sylvaneths models look fantastic.
I'm inclined to get me a 100 wounds force for a local tourney in Sept.
One Treelord, 2 units of Dryads, and 2 Wizards seem to be a good starter.
It's a great shame that GW didn't keep WHFB available to satisfy the more competitive gamers. Of course, the rulebook will still be available on ebay etc. but that's just not the same is it.
The new AoS rules are really only ever going to suit people who want to go beyond the purely competitive side of things, which seems to be quite a small minority of gamers. You can't convert a tractor into a racecar, even if it does have a powerful engine I don't think its a question of being a more advanced, or experienced gamer, as some would like to think. I know people who have been narrative gamers right from the start, and also veterans who are happy to be dyed in the wool points obsessive! Neither is right, or wrong - just different.
I for one am looking forward to developing some interesting narrative games in the Old World using the new AoS rules, the Realms setting doesn't really interest me, ingenious though it may be. However, this forum is obviously not the place to discuss such a tender flower, being very firmly competitive person territory!
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: If your games are turning into middle of the field mosh pits, you are playing it wrong. Most of the time, you do want to stay in a formation, because the weapons have a rang value and being in a block maximises your damage potential due to reach and needing to move towards the nearest model (meaning if you are swinging around other models and reaching other enemy models, you are actually going against the rules.)
The balance come from your collection. Two players with e variety of units to put on the table are having a good game of it. Those who are trying to force house rules into the system and playing it exactly the same way as before with minimal terrain and a pre built army roster are the ones failing to get the picture.
Watching battlereports I am seeing a slow swing towards favorability by people deciding to play by (all) the rules instead of sitting around complaining about how the game changed. That is because they are letting go of the old, unnecessarily bloated warhammer rules and realising that the game has legitimacy in regards to tactics that aren't reliant on trying to get around shoddy game mechanics.
To the guy who couldn't stop the vampire counts spells, where were your cavalry, archers, deepstirking units, artillery and flyers? When he put down necromancers and sat a box of skeletons to the side, those should have been dropped into your deployment zone first chance you had. If those weren't available, then pile on more models when he gets done and hope to overwhelm him before his reinforcements become a major factor.
The game wants you to bring a collection, not an army. You will start to see more balanced games when you both agree to do that.
This comes across as exactly the sort of holier-than-thou attitude that annoys people. If you want others to listen to what you have to say and successfully argue a point, than insulting those who disagree with you (implied or directly) is the exact opposite of what to do. And as an aside, when playing strictly by the rules formations mean even less than if you add house rules, because you can literally stack your models on top of each other in a pile if you like. Further, any sort of tactical potential is meaningless if your opponent puts down a force ten times stronger than yours or pulls one of the numerous game-breaking combos which are completely legal by the rules given. Of course doing these things is ridiculous, but so is the argument that a large number of disgruntled players are simply "doing it wrong" or even the argument that such people trying to have fun their way could be 'wrong' at all.
As a rebuttal, your being able to stack bases (especially with square ones) means you will still get more models in range if you are in formation. The majority of what I am seeing in regards to complaints are people forcing restrictions and attempting to balance the game themselves are not enjoying themselves. Like the bretonian player above being forced to have the same number of wounds their opponent does, why? They will obviously have a huge number of these models, why are their opponents limiting them arbitrarily because they don't think the game is balanced? I wasn't trying to be condescending, but blaming the game for lack of enjoyment when you have houseruled it before ever putting down models (which people did, the moment the rules leaked. I was reading along on the rumor forum) is not the fault of the game or the company that made it. When you see the comment " we played with 50 wounds a piece, and the game was crap" you did that to yourself, that was you limiting the game in scope, not the game itself lacking depth.
Also, with the 100 times stronger force, every army in the game has access to summoning, board edge reinforcements, and/or artillery. If you want to stop their superior force, choose assassinate and slaughter a single character or monster. It isn't hard to do, they can't hide in a unit for protection anymore.
Ninth I have been reading most posts in thr SOS forums and can say lyth's post was far from a 'holier than thou' attitude. He actually made positive suggestions and said if you always end up in one large melee you are playing wrong (true, the game is based on scenarios from the books in which there are objectives... it is not a 'meat grinder' style game).
He also didn't insult or call names which you did in a way withvit 'holier than thou' comments.
I have seen a mix of positivity and negativity here, why do most of the negative ones try to cut down or slander those who like the game? Lets keep it civil folks and get back on topic on how the game is doing in your area among gamers (at home, gw stores, and your flgs).
Also, with the 100 times stronger force, every army in the game has access to summoning, board edge reinforcements, and/or artillery.
Tell me which dwarf army model can summon dwarfs or ouflank.
There aren't really armies in that sense. Dwarfs have the same access to Chaos Lords, Slann Mage Priests, Lords of Change, Branchwraiths, etc as everyone else does.
Also, with the 100 times stronger force, every army in the game has access to summoning, board edge reinforcements, and/or artillery.
Tell me which dwarf army model can summon dwarfs or ouflank.
There aren't really armies in that sense. Dwarfs have the same access to Chaos Lords, Slann Mage Priests, Lords of Change, Branchwraiths, etc as everyone else does.
And that's part of the problem for a supposedly "narrative" game. If I wanted to use my Dwarf army because I like the lore, well, feth me. I get punished because I don't want to destroy my favorite army and throw in Bloodthirsters and whatnot.
Or you could use bugman and his rangers who ambush in your move phase have better shotting when 20+ in the unit and are braver within range of old jo. Sure its not magic summoning but there dwarfs.
Also, your cannons will annihilate any summoner across the board from you! They can't hide in units to let peeons die instead, just kill them with giant piles of shooty doom and start winning.
One thing I noticed going through the books is melee centric armies seem to have more access to summoning and reserve style units than shooty armies. I think the intention is it lets them be shot to hell, and still bring enough units to bear to allow them to compete.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The other counter is to put more models on the table to start, that's why limiting things like wounds or datascrolls are a bad idea. It keeps you from using the game mechanics the way they were intended.
Narativly, daemons are starting to open a portal high in the mountains, the dwarvs find them and send a force they think is strong enough to stop them cold. Now the game is can the dwarves cripple the daemons before they lose their numerical advantage...
MWHistorian wrote: And that's part of the problem for a supposedly "narrative" game. If I wanted to use my Dwarf army because I like the lore, well, feth me. I get punished because I don't want to destroy my favorite army and throw in Bloodthirsters and whatnot.
The idea behind AoS, though, and a requisite to its successful play is that your opponent recognize that you're playing a less powerful army (or accept as such when you point it out), and adjust accordingly, to the point where both of you think the armies are going to have a fair fight.
Obviously, there will be some armies that can *never* be reconciled, because some people will want to play grimy, basic humans, and others will want to play demi-gods and demons.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: If your games are turning into middle of the field mosh pits, you are playing it wrong. Most of the time, you do want to stay in a formation, because the weapons have a rang value and being in a block maximises your damage potential due to reach and needing to move towards the nearest model (meaning if you are swinging around other models and reaching other enemy models, you are actually going against the rules.)
The balance come from your collection. Two players with e variety of units to put on the table are having a good game of it. Those who are trying to force house rules into the system and playing it exactly the same way as before with minimal terrain and a pre built army roster are the ones failing to get the picture.
Watching battlereports I am seeing a slow swing towards favorability by people deciding to play by (all) the rules instead of sitting around complaining about how the game changed. That is because they are letting go of the old, unnecessarily bloated warhammer rules and realising that the game has legitimacy in regards to tactics that aren't reliant on trying to get around shoddy game mechanics.
To the guy who couldn't stop the vampire counts spells, where were your cavalry, archers, deepstirking units, artillery and flyers? When he put down necromancers and sat a box of skeletons to the side, those should have been dropped into your deployment zone first chance you had. If those weren't available, then pile on more models when he gets done and hope to overwhelm him before his reinforcements become a major factor.
The game wants you to bring a collection, not an army. You will start to see more balanced games when you both agree to do that.
This comes across as exactly the sort of holier-than-thou attitude that annoys people. If you want others to listen to what you have to say and successfully argue a point, than insulting those who disagree with you (implied or directly) is the exact opposite of what to do. And as an aside, when playing strictly by the rules formations mean even less than if you add house rules, because you can literally stack your models on top of each other in a pile if you like. Further, any sort of tactical potential is meaningless if your opponent puts down a force ten times stronger than yours or pulls one of the numerous game-breaking combos which are completely legal by the rules given. Of course doing these things is ridiculous, but so is the argument that a large number of disgruntled players are simply "doing it wrong" or even the argument that such people trying to have fun their way could be 'wrong' at all.
As a rebuttal, your being able to stack bases (especially with square ones) means you will still get more models in range if you are in formation. The majority of what I am seeing in regards to complaints are people forcing restrictions and attempting to balance the game themselves are not enjoying themselves. Like the bretonian player above being forced to have the same number of wounds their opponent does, why? They will obviously have a huge number of these models, why are their opponents limiting them arbitrarily because they don't think the game is balanced? I wasn't trying to be condescending, but blaming the game for lack of enjoyment when you have houseruled it before ever putting down models (which people did, the moment the rules leaked. I was reading along on the rumor forum) is not the fault of the game or the company that made it. When you see the comment " we played with 50 wounds a piece, and the game was crap" you did that to yourself, that was you limiting the game in scope, not the game itself lacking depth.
Also, with the 100 times stronger force, every army in the game has access to summoning, board edge reinforcements, and/or artillery. If you want to stop their superior force, choose assassinate and slaughter a single character or monster. It isn't hard to do, they can't hide in a unit for protection anymore.
Though I respectfully disagree about the last point because many situations of strong vs weak will hardly be that simple (10 bloodthirsters vs 100 clanrats; its the stronger side that gets sudden death, summoning units doesn't help if they just summon more, etc) you do have a really good point about people causing their own problems. I read your original post as saying people who wanted a balancing mechanism were wrong, but if players are complaining about crappy balance in a system they put on themselves then I agree it is rather silly. Though to be fair, I believe many players saying the game is crap because of being unbalanced are simply shortening "this game isn't fun for me because there isn't a balancing mechanism included or easily applied" which is a legitimate complaint, since not everyone will want to work out the balance 'manually' before each game. Of course the points-less system can work well, and is certainly best for some people, but the general irritation on the matter seems to be stemming from the fact that GW cares so little they couldn't even be bothered to put in anything when there was no downside to doing so.
I played my first game of AOS on the weekend...
I rolled out my space lizards and absolutely roflstomped the The Stormcast Eternals from the box set.
I applied a balancing mechanism someone at my club had dug up that limited hero wounds and monster/war machines wounds. I had 50 wounds on the dot. Chameleon skinks were bonkers and pretty much everything just mashed through his The Stormcast Eternals.
I came away feeling a bit guilty about the whole thing. I don't see the game as being any fun without more stringent balancing.
mekugi wrote: I played my first game of AOS on the weekend...
I rolled out my space lizards and absolutely roflstomped the The Stormcast Eternals from the box set.
I applied a balancing mechanism someone at my club had dug up that limited hero wounds and monster/war machines wounds. I had 50 wounds on the dot. Chameleon skinks were bonkers and pretty much everything just mashed through his The Stormcast Eternals.
I came away feeling a bit guilty about the whole thing. I don't see the game as being any fun without more stringent balancing.
Same problem when I did my first game as well, though it was my nurgle vs his starter box khorne. Maybe try the comp from Project Points Cost on this very forum (http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/655717.page) I have yet to get into it myself unfortunately, but it looks pretty good at a glance.
When fighting the box set armies, your older armies will definitely have an advantage. You have a depth of units and weapon and options they can't bring to the table yet.
Imagine in 40k if you brought an entire space marine army to fight skitarii the first week of the release. They could have equal points, but they won't have the answers available to you much more extensive collection.
Next time don't cap things with wounds or any of that, just play with a smaller deployment zone. Either a 4x4 or a 3x3 and just place models like the core rules say to. You should find everything will have a better go of it at that point
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: If your games are turning into middle of the field mosh pits, you are playing it wrong. Most of the time, you do want to stay in a formation, because the weapons have a rang value and being in a block maximises your damage potential due to reach and needing to move towards the nearest model (meaning if you are swinging around other models and reaching other enemy models, you are actually going against the rules.)
The balance come from your collection. Two players with e variety of units to put on the table are having a good game of it. Those who are trying to force house rules into the system and playing it exactly the same way as before with minimal terrain and a pre built army roster are the ones failing to get the picture.
Watching battlereports I am seeing a slow swing towards favorability by people deciding to play by (all) the rules instead of sitting around complaining about how the game changed. That is because they are letting go of the old, unnecessarily bloated warhammer rules and realising that the game has legitimacy in regards to tactics that aren't reliant on trying to get around shoddy game mechanics.
To the guy who couldn't stop the vampire counts spells, where were your cavalry, archers, deepstirking units, artillery and flyers? When he put down necromancers and sat a box of skeletons to the side, those should have been dropped into your deployment zone first chance you had. If those weren't available, then pile on more models when he gets done and hope to overwhelm him before his reinforcements become a major factor.
The game wants you to bring a collection, not an army. You will start to see more balanced games when you both agree to do that.
This comes across as exactly the sort of holier-than-thou attitude that annoys people. If you want others to listen to what you have to say and successfully argue a point, than insulting those who disagree with you (implied or directly) is the exact opposite of what to do. And as an aside, when playing strictly by the rules formations mean even less than if you add house rules, because you can literally stack your models on top of each other in a pile if you like. Further, any sort of tactical potential is meaningless if your opponent puts down a force ten times stronger than yours or pulls one of the numerous game-breaking combos which are completely legal by the rules given. Of course doing these things is ridiculous, but so is the argument that a large number of disgruntled players are simply "doing it wrong" or even the argument that such people trying to have fun their way could be 'wrong' at all.
As a rebuttal, your being able to stack bases (especially with square ones) means you will still get more models in range if you are in formation. The majority of what I am seeing in regards to complaints are people forcing restrictions and attempting to balance the game themselves are not enjoying themselves. Like the bretonian player above being forced to have the same number of wounds their opponent does, why? They will obviously have a huge number of these models, why are their opponents limiting them arbitrarily because they don't think the game is balanced? I wasn't trying to be condescending, but blaming the game for lack of enjoyment when you have houseruled it before ever putting down models (which people did, the moment the rules leaked. I was reading along on the rumor forum) is not the fault of the game or the company that made it. When you see the comment " we played with 50 wounds a piece, and the game was crap" you did that to yourself, that was you limiting the game in scope, not the game itself lacking depth.
Also, with the 100 times stronger force, every army in the game has access to summoning, board edge reinforcements, and/or artillery. If you want to stop their superior force, choose assassinate and slaughter a single character or monster. It isn't hard to do, they can't hide in a unit for protection anymore.
Though I respectfully disagree about the last point because many situations of strong vs weak will hardly be that simple (10 bloodthirsters vs 100 clanrats; its the stronger side that gets sudden death, summoning units doesn't help if they just summon more, etc) you do have a really good point about people causing their own problems. I read your original post as saying people who wanted a balancing mechanism were wrong, but if players are complaining about crappy balance in a system they put on themselves then I agree it is rather silly. Though to be fair, I believe many players saying the game is crap because of being unbalanced are simply shortening "this game isn't fun for me because there isn't a balancing mechanism included or easily applied" which is a legitimate complaint, since not everyone will want to work out the balance 'manually' before each game. Of course the points-less system can work well, and is certainly best for some people, but the general irritation on the matter seems to be stemming from the fact that GW cares so little they couldn't even be bothered to put in anything when there was no downside to doing so.
With the bloodthirstier versus clanrats, I think the clanrats will win that one. A unit of clanrats that size will reroll a bunch of dice, have decent armor, and have so many models to puul from that aren't engaged that they will literally drown the thirsters. Also, limiting deployment zone size in correlation to the you place, I place mechanic will also help balance out most games
For those like me who only want the models for painting and display the GW painting studio had a booth at GenCon with a really cool display. I will try to upload some of my shoddy pictures in the next couple of days.
Out of interest, what attracts you to paint GW models rather than Napoleonic or Mediaeval, which offer a huge range of colourful options of uniforms and heraldry, flags, and so on?
Kilkrazy wrote: Out of interest, what attracts you to paint GW models rather than Napoleonic or Mediaeval, which offer a huge range of colourful options of uniforms and heraldry, flags, and so on?
for me, its the heroic models, monsters and epic level of everything and I love the steam tank
Besides beutiful models? I like the setting of 40K and play that game. I just happen to really like the chos models AoS has put out so far. As far as historic models, they just don't have the same apeal to me. I also buy and paint a lot of models for my RPG games, and some of these new models from GW would work well for that.
I like this Warhammer World Event.
It reminds me of the "Holy War over the Holy Chest of Yorba Linda" I once ran for my Medieval Recreation Group. Each Battle gave some special thing for the winner and we had to make up rules along the way to make some of the battles work.
'Like when during the Rescue the Hostage Battle One side untied the hostage they were holding and stated to run of with it. After me and Sir Patric [the other guy helping me run the war] looked at the rules we had set up had to rule that that was legal to do.' We also had a silly one where we filled the battlefield with Stuffed Animals and the winner was the one who had the most at the end. Sir Patric and me had only came up with the concept, but it was the the two Generals who came up with why, the Armies need food. So in the next Battle you could turn in one of the Stuffed Animals for an Extra Life.
At the end there was no one expect anything as a prize other than bragging rights. [We did give the winning side a Ice Chest filled with beer though.]
To me this is what AoS is and the WHW Event seems to capture the feel of that "Lets Just Go And Have Fun!" Spirit that has been missing for the longest time.
Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote: If your games are turning into middle of the field mosh pits, you are playing it wrong. Most of the time, you do want to stay in a formation, because the weapons have a rang value and being in a block maximises your damage potential due to reach and needing to move towards the nearest model (meaning if you are swinging around other models and reaching other enemy models, you are actually going against the rules.)
The balance come from your collection. Two players with e variety of units to put on the table are having a good game of it. Those who are trying to force house rules into the system and playing it exactly the same way as before with minimal terrain and a pre built army roster are the ones failing to get the picture.
Watching battlereports I am seeing a slow swing towards favorability by people deciding to play by (all) the rules instead of sitting around complaining about how the game changed. That is because they are letting go of the old, unnecessarily bloated warhammer rules and realising that the game has legitimacy in regards to tactics that aren't reliant on trying to get around shoddy game mechanics.
To the guy who couldn't stop the vampire counts spells, where were your cavalry, archers, deepstirking units, artillery and flyers? When he put down necromancers and sat a box of skeletons to the side, those should have been dropped into your deployment zone first chance you had. If those weren't available, then pile on more models when he gets done and hope to overwhelm him before his reinforcements become a major factor.
The game wants you to bring a collection, not an army. You will start to see more balanced games when you both agree to do that.
This comes across as exactly the sort of holier-than-thou attitude that annoys people. If you want others to listen to what you have to say and successfully argue a point, than insulting those who disagree with you (implied or directly) is the exact opposite of what to do. And as an aside, when playing strictly by the rules formations mean even less than if you add house rules, because you can literally stack your models on top of each other in a pile if you like. Further, any sort of tactical potential is meaningless if your opponent puts down a force ten times stronger than yours or pulls one of the numerous game-breaking combos which are completely legal by the rules given. Of course doing these things is ridiculous, but so is the argument that a large number of disgruntled players are simply "doing it wrong" or even the argument that such people trying to have fun their way could be 'wrong' at all.
As a rebuttal, your being able to stack bases (especially with square ones) means you will still get more models in range if you are in formation. The majority of what I am seeing in regards to complaints are people forcing restrictions and attempting to balance the game themselves are not enjoying themselves. Like the bretonian player above being forced to have the same number of wounds their opponent does, why? They will obviously have a huge number of these models, why are their opponents limiting them arbitrarily because they don't think the game is balanced? I wasn't trying to be condescending, but blaming the game for lack of enjoyment when you have houseruled it before ever putting down models (which people did, the moment the rules leaked. I was reading along on the rumor forum) is not the fault of the game or the company that made it. When you see the comment " we played with 50 wounds a piece, and the game was crap" you did that to yourself, that was you limiting the game in scope, not the game itself lacking depth.
Also, with the 100 times stronger force, every army in the game has access to summoning, board edge reinforcements, and/or artillery. If you want to stop their superior force, choose assassinate and slaughter a single character or monster. It isn't hard to do, they can't hide in a unit for protection anymore.
Though I respectfully disagree about the last point because many situations of strong vs weak will hardly be that simple (10 bloodthirsters vs 100 clanrats; its the stronger side that gets sudden death, summoning units doesn't help if they just summon more, etc) you do have a really good point about people causing their own problems. I read your original post as saying people who wanted a balancing mechanism were wrong, but if players are complaining about crappy balance in a system they put on themselves then I agree it is rather silly. Though to be fair, I believe many players saying the game is crap because of being unbalanced are simply shortening "this game isn't fun for me because there isn't a balancing mechanism included or easily applied" which is a legitimate complaint, since not everyone will want to work out the balance 'manually' before each game. Of course the points-less system can work well, and is certainly best for some people, but the general irritation on the matter seems to be stemming from the fact that GW cares so little they couldn't even be bothered to put in anything when there was no downside to doing so.
With the bloodthirstier versus clanrats, I think the clanrats will win that one. A unit of clanrats that size will reroll a bunch of dice, have decent armor, and have so many models to puul from that aren't engaged that they will literally drown the thirsters. Also, limiting deployment zone size in correlation to the you place, I place mechanic will also help balance out most games
10 bloodthirsters vs 15 clanrats then. The exact models used in the example are arbitrary; the ultimate point is that the two players must work out balanced forces before the game in order for balance to be present. What I'm trying to say here is that the bare-bones RAW do not make for a reasonable game on their own. They require extra investment by the players, the form of this investment varies from gamer to gamer (which is good, people have different preferences), but it is a requirement to play. While I'm coming around to the fluff of AoS as the shock factor of "oh my Sigmar the Old World is gone" wears off I still feel that the rules writing done by GW is lazy and shows that they simply don't care about the game. They really seem to have swallowed their own hype that they are a model company with games on the side, but that is not what made them successful in the first place. Model companies do not fill nearly as much shelf space at FLGS as companies to seriously invest into games with their models, and I think GW's third report in a row of falling sales shows the cost of their current philosophy.
If I put down 15 clanrats, and you put down 10 blood thirsters, I would split mine up into single man units and you could chase them all over the board. Yay cat and mouse!
Let's not be rediculous here. Nobody is going to bring most of a box of clanrats and expect a decent game. Same with someone who bought $1500 worth of bloodthirstier and only brings those to play with.
Kilkrazy wrote: Out of interest, what attracts you to paint GW models rather than Napoleonic or Mediaeval, which offer a huge range of colourful options of uniforms and heraldry, flags, and so on?
I'm probably even farther from normal gaming than he is, but I like to collect minis just to assemble them, sometimes convert or kit bash them, and to have them. Frankly, Napoleonic minis are terribly boring for me. I like to imagine fantasy events in imaginary worlds as opposed to wondering if the post siege massacre or the starvation will kill more people. I like GW's minis more than some random range's because BL and FFG have provided a lot of context for each mini that gives them a lot of value beyond just the aesthetic, the sculpting or the pose, even if those are also important. Space marines are iconic, and they capture the imagination in a way that random armored spacemen just don't yet. For example, Mantic's enforcers only appeal to me because the design is good and fits in with some of the SF I like to read.
Also, your cannons will annihilate any summoner across the board from you! They can't hide in units to let peeons die instead, just kill them with giant piles of shooty doom and start winning.
One thing I noticed going through the books is melee centric armies seem to have more access to summoning and reserve style units than shooty armies. I think the intention is it lets them be shot to hell, and still bring enough units to bear to allow them to compete.
Automatically Appended Next Post: The other counter is to put more models on the table to start, that's why limiting things like wounds or datascrolls are a bad idea. It keeps you from using the game mechanics the way they were intended.
Narativly, daemons are starting to open a portal high in the mountains, the dwarvs find them and send a force they think is strong enough to stop them cold. Now the game is can the dwarves cripple the daemons before they lose their numerical advantage...
have you actualy try to play against a skink summoning list? I mean sure I could technicly buy 1 cannon per every 3 skin models my opponent owns, but it is way out of my budget.
The idea behind AoS, though, and a requisite to its successful play is that your opponent recognize that you're playing a less powerful army (or accept as such when you point it out), and adjust accordingly, to the point where both of you think the armies are going to have a fair fight.
But to adjust he would have to own bad models in the first place. What if he is not crazy and did what everyone else does and bought only the good models. And best the player with the weaker army will be able to face different armies that beat him. Not very fun considering the models cost in money.
Your other counter is speed. They can't be deployed within 9" of your models. So kill one on turn one with your cannons, then gyrocopters swing forward. Even if you're charged retreat to get over and behind the summoned unit turn two and now he won't be able to summon anything within a 9" bubble. Kill another summoner with your cannons. Then push infantry forward like ironbreakers or dwarf warriors to tarpit. When his big models and summoner are dead, shoot the units you tied down with hard as nails infantry with your giant cannons and watch the casualties mount.
I played a game against slaanesh daemons yesterday, it was fun! She summoned a keeper of secrets and a unit of daemonettes during the game, but my high elf bolt thrower almost killed one of the big nasties in a single shooting phase, so it wasn't that intimidating really. Only had two hours to play, which in and of itself is a balancing mechanic, and my opponent had a minor victory. All in all it was a good afternoon spent learning the ins and outs of this game with the Mrs.
and if he gets turn 1, he summons skinks, more skinks, more skinks, even more skinks, fires with them all. wipes my army out by shoting. But the worse thing happens when he goes second and first in second phase, getting two back to back turns to summon. Then real magic happens.
Also I like how you seem to play on snow plain tables. Because if he puts his summoners behind buildings you can't kill them with cannons at all.
Completely true striker. So why not use this one for scenario building as well then?
Firstly it is Skriker, not Striker.
Because the scenario building is all it has. The actual rules are junk. When I use a good rules system to run scenario based games, those scenarios are backed up by the same decent rules. So the scenarios are fun and I don't need to house rule the heck out of the rules to make them useful before I play my scenario.
To the guy who couldn't stop the vampire counts spells, where were your cavalry, archers, deepstirking units, artillery and flyers? When he put down necromancers and sat a box of skeletons to the side, those should have been dropped into your deployment zone first chance you had. If those weren't available, then pile on more models when he gets done and hope to overwhelm him before his reinforcements become a major factor.
The game wants you to bring a collection, not an army. You will start to see more balanced games when you both agree to do that.
Ahhh so the answer is if someone puts something down you think is powerful, then put down more of your own stuff too. That solves everything, except when one player has a bunch of bigger and better stuff in their collection so that once both full collections are on the table the opponent is still unable to catch up in power level and still loses out of hand.
Completely true striker. So why not use this one for scenario building as well then?
Firstly it is Skriker, not Striker.
Because the scenario building is all it has. The actual rules are junk. When I use a good rules system to run scenario based games, those scenarios are backed up by the same decent rules. So the scenarios are fun and I don't need to house rule the heck out of the rules to make them useful before I play my scenario.
To the guy who couldn't stop the vampire counts spells, where were your cavalry, archers, deepstirking units, artillery and flyers? When he put down necromancers and sat a box of skeletons to the side, those should have been dropped into your deployment zone first chance you had. If those weren't available, then pile on more models when he gets done and hope to overwhelm him before his reinforcements become a major factor.
The game wants you to bring a collection, not an army. You will start to see more balanced games when you both agree to do that.
Ahhh so the answer is if someone puts something down you think is powerful, then put down more of your own stuff too. That solves everything, except when one player has a bunch of bigger and better stuff in their collection so that once both full collections are on the table the opponent is still unable to catch up in power level and still loses out of hand.
the rules are great and you are wrong, tell me what stops the player with the "weaker" toys from saying "nah this is unfair, can you remove, this and this, they are overpowered etc" : and continue from then on? what about both players agreeing on sudden death if they feel that one side is overpowered :/
and you would be surprised how "fair" most units are in AoS... I had my unit of 16 skellies kill off a unit of 15 witch elves in melee combat because I used hero powers to boost them...
Completely true striker. So why not use this one for scenario building as well then?
Firstly it is Skriker, not Striker.
Because the scenario building is all it has. The actual rules are junk. When I use a good rules system to run scenario based games, those scenarios are backed up by the same decent rules. So the scenarios are fun and I don't need to house rule the heck out of the rules to make them useful before I play my scenario. .
and on that, we are agreed.
personally, we use either infinity, flames of war, or various historicals to run cool scenarios. that said, we still home brew the hell out of some stuff.
bitethythumb wrote:
the rules are great and you are wrong, tell me what stops the player with the "weaker" toys from saying "nah this is unfair, can you remove, this and this, they are overpowered etc" : and continue from then on? ...
the rules are basic, bland and uninteresting.
what stops the player? me saying 'no'. because i think they're both fair, fluffy and most importantly, fun. having someone tell me how and what i 'should' be playing is downright insulting. its a step shy of attempting to bully, frankly.
'you cant play with cool stuff'. no, bugger off.
bitethythumb wrote:
what about both players agreeing on sudden death if they feel that one side is overpowered :/
..
bitethythumb wrote: tell me what stops the player with the "weaker" toys from saying "nah this is unfair, can you remove, this and this, they are overpowered etc" : and continue from then on?
The rules?
Conceptually, AoS is about letting players play with their toys. If Player A intends to play with their Giant, then the answer must be "Yes!!, you may play with your Giant." For Player B to say "No" defeats the entire point of the game.
The solution in AoS is for Player B to continue deploying a larger quantity to balance A's higher quality.
What Player B can do is ask Player A to deploy less stuff, taking the first turn, so that the overall game doesn't get too large.
bitethythumb wrote: tell me what stops the player with the "weaker" toys from saying "nah this is unfair, can you remove, this and this, they are overpowered etc" : and continue from then on?
The rules?
Conceptually, AoS is about letting players play with their toys. If Player A intends to play with their Giant, then the answer must be "Yes!!, you may play with your Giant." For Player B to say "No" defeats the entire point of the game.
The solution in AoS is for Player B to continue deploying a larger quantity to balance A's higher quality.
What Player B can do is ask Player A to deploy less stuff, taking the first turn, so that the overall game doesn't get too large.
the point of the game is to play and enjoy yourself, I played against someone using only giants, I lost, I still had fun... The games purpose was successful also the game has allowed to build better more thematic armies like 12 steamtanks (the vinci) it has allowed me to create more varied and fun army list that could not happen before like an all flying army, heck I might start a Dogs of war army once again...WHFB could not let me do that AoS can and therefore its succeeded in its purpose rather than failed... What I see a lot is people are seeing WARHAMMER as only a competitive pokemon style game where random players meet up and fight when in reality it is a paint, build and THEN fight game, people are ignoring the 2 other aspects of the game and focus on the gameplay and at the same time only focusing on the bad and ignoring the good, how many people have talked about how much better creating an army has become? I rarely hear anyone mention that you can build almost any type of army you imagine.. Sure some things may be bad but talking to someone fixes that... In short, AoS foes not defeat the purpose of the game, it changed it and for some its for the better.... By the way which rule forces you to play against people you do not want to play against?
What I see a lot is people are seeing WARHAMMER as only a competitive pokemon style game where random players meet up and fight when in reality it is a paint, build and THEN fight game, people are ignoring the 2 other aspects of the game and focus on the gameplay and at the same time only focusing on the bad and ignoring the good
No, what you are seeing is a large portion of players who prefer competitive games with points values and balance, and their disapproval of the current edition of Warhammer saying "nah, we aren't going to support your way of having fun" when previous editions of the game going back for decades have. They are focusing on what they liked about Warhammer, and are as justified in doing so as you. Not all players saw the game as an aside to the hobby aspect. Not all players felt that points costs were unneeded baggage. Some players are happy with the game as-is, that's fine. Some player's aren't happy, and their opinions are no less legitimate than the first party. The only 'wrong' opinions here are the ones accusing other players of somehow being wrong in what they like to play.
What I see a lot is people are seeing WARHAMMER as only a competitive pokemon style game where random players meet up and fight when in reality it is a paint, build and THEN fight game, people are ignoring the 2 other aspects of the game and focus on the gameplay and at the same time only focusing on the bad and ignoring the good
No, what you are seeing is a large portion of players who prefer competitive games with points values and balance, and their disapproval of the current edition of Warhammer saying "nah, we aren't going to support your way of having fun" when previous editions of the game going back for decades have. They are focusing on what they liked about Warhammer, and are as justified in doing so as you. Not all players saw the game as an aside to the hobby aspect. Not all players felt that points costs were unneeded baggage. Some players are happy with the game as-is, that's fine. Some player's aren't happy, and their opinions are no less legitimate than the first party. The only 'wrong' opinions here are the ones accusing other players of somehow being wrong in what they like to play.
and a lot of those players say things like "AoS is bad it has no points" or "player a can use only giants and abuse the game" or "AoS purposes is A and not B and by not doing A defeats its purpose" which are all subjective opinions and in no way make the game bad, they may disapprove but at a certain point it becomes a constant abuse, people have stated their opinions, time to move on, its like every week is the same thing, heck just recently someone posted about AoS tactics and it was hijacked by comments like "AoS has no tactics, lol" its getting rather stale not being able to discuss the game without having to read why someone thinks AoS sucks.... I want to talk tactics and lore and modelling but dakka does not seem like the place for that, just look at the news and rumours page on AoS, half the pages are off topic about how bad things are... I prefer dakka as a website but it seems like other sites are less biased.
MWHistorian wrote: And that's part of the problem for a supposedly "narrative" game. If I wanted to use my Dwarf army because I like the lore, well, feth me. I get punished because I don't want to destroy my favorite army and throw in Bloodthirsters and whatnot.
The idea behind AoS, though, and a requisite to its successful play is that your opponent recognize that you're playing a less powerful army (or accept as such when you point it out), and adjust accordingly, to the point where both of you think the armies are going to have a fair fight.
Obviously, there will be some armies that can *never* be reconciled, because some people will want to play grimy, basic humans, and others will want to play demi-gods and demons.
indeed, and it works fine for most part, i played a great game the other day my hi elves vs two chaos armies everyone was just excited to see how long i could last!
We decided that the hi elves where buying time for civilians to evac and set an a turn win condition if i died before turn 4 it was a total fail and if i made it to turn 6 is was a draw and turn 8 a win! i made it to turn 8 as my last models the crew for my bolt thrower managed to stab a blood warrior to death then got chomped only leaving and hand full of wounded chaos models, we see the board up as a port the civs being evaced by boat, we all decided that the last of the chaos where broad sided to death by the leaving convoy of boats lol
MWHistorian wrote: And that's part of the problem for a supposedly "narrative" game. If I wanted to use my Dwarf army because I like the lore, well, feth me. I get punished because I don't want to destroy my favorite army and throw in Bloodthirsters and whatnot.
The idea behind AoS, though, and a requisite to its successful play is that your opponent recognize that you're playing a less powerful army (or accept as such when you point it out), and adjust accordingly, to the point where both of you think the armies are going to have a fair fight.
Obviously, there will be some armies that can *never* be reconciled, because some people will want to play grimy, basic humans, and others will want to play demi-gods and demons.
indeed, and it works fine for most part, i played a great game the other day my hi elves vs two chaos armies everyone was just excited to see how long i could last!
We decided that the hi elves where buying time for civilians to evac and set an a turn win condition if i died before turn 4 it was a total fail and if i made it to turn 6 is was a draw and turn 8 a win! i made it to turn 8 as my last models the crew for my bolt thrower managed to stab a blood warrior to death then got chomped only leaving and hand full of wounded chaos models, we see the board up as a port the civs being evaced by boat, we all decided that the last of the chaos where broad sided to death by the leaving convoy of boats lol
I have a mish mash of units (I have not decided on a theme yet, but almost 60% done) and played a game where most of it was a dark elf on a dragon flying about killing my things until the end where my trolls killed him was fun... thank god for regeneration
bitethythumb wrote: [
the rules are great and you are wrong, tell me what stops the player with the "weaker" toys from saying "nah this is unfair, can you remove, this and this, they are overpowered etc" : and continue from then on? what about both players agreeing on sudden death if they feel that one side is overpowered :/
and you would be surprised how "fair" most units are in AoS... I had my unit of 16 skellies kill off a unit of 15 witch elves in melee combat because I used hero powers to boost them...
Our definition of great is clearly not the same.
Nothing stops the player with the weaker toys from saying anything, but equally nothing stops the stronger player from saying No they won't change their force, or the scenario or whatever. Such things go both ways. In my experience over the last 30 years as a war gamer I have found the obstinate response to be the most common when relying on the local store to provide your opponents sadly. Yep you have the power to walk away from the table in such cases, but then you've always had that power when playing any game. 40k is bad enough with its poor balance, why would I want a game that has even less balance than that? No thanks.
You are free to like it all you want, but I will not consider the AoS rules as they stand to be great. No I am not wrong, I just disagree with your position. Totally different things.
bitethythumb wrote: tell me what stops the player with the "weaker" toys from saying "nah this is unfair, can you remove, this and this, they are overpowered etc" : and continue from then on?
The rules?
Conceptually, AoS is about letting players play with their toys. If Player A intends to play with their Giant, then the answer must be "Yes!!, you may play with your Giant." For Player B to say "No" defeats the entire point of the game.
the point of the game is to play and enjoy yourself, I played against someone using only giants, I lost, I still had fun... The games purpose was successful
also the game has allowed to build better more thematic armies like 12 steamtanks (the vinci) it has allowed me to create more varied and fun army list that could not happen before like an all flying army,
heck I might start a Dogs of war army once again...WHFB could not let me do that AoS can and therefore its succeeded in its purpose rather than failed...
how many people have talked about how much better creating an army has become?
I rarely hear anyone mention that you can build almost any type of army you imagine.. Sure some things may be bad but talking to someone fixes that... In short, AoS foes not defeat the purpose of the game, it changed it and for some its for the better....
By the way which rule forces you to play against people you do not want to play against?
I specifically called out Giants, because I included Giants in the army when I played AoS, and it was fun to see them on the board.
If you go through the trouble of building a bunch of Steam Tanks (assume all of the "classic" variations), I will gladly play against you, because it would be cool to see a bunch of Steam Tanks on the board.
With AoS, I resumed my Dogs of War, which I stopped playing in 8E due to lack of GW support. To me, that's a huge success.
Creating an army isn't that difficult, it's the issue playing a homebrew list and having to worry about getting points "right". AoS lets me focus on what each unit does on the tabletop, versus how much it should cost for list building & balancing purposes. It's much easier and faster.
The ability to homebrew or mix & match in AoS should not be underestimated, although more unit templating would have been helpful.
I am thankful to have good opponents to play against.
bitethythumb wrote: tell me what stops the player with the "weaker" toys from saying "nah this is unfair, can you remove, this and this, they are overpowered etc" : and continue from then on?
The rules?
Conceptually, AoS is about letting players play with their toys. If Player A intends to play with their Giant, then the answer must be "Yes!!, you may play with your Giant." For Player B to say "No" defeats the entire point of the game.
the point of the game is to play and enjoy yourself, I played against someone using only giants, I lost, I still had fun... The games purpose was successful
also the game has allowed to build better more thematic armies like 12 steamtanks (the vinci) it has allowed me to create more varied and fun army list that could not happen before like an all flying army,
heck I might start a Dogs of war army once again...WHFB could not let me do that AoS can and therefore its succeeded in its purpose rather than failed...
how many people have talked about how much better creating an army has become?
I rarely hear anyone mention that you can build almost any type of army you imagine.. Sure some things may be bad but talking to someone fixes that... In short, AoS foes not defeat the purpose of the game, it changed it and for some its for the better....
By the way which rule forces you to play against people you do not want to play against?
I specifically called out Giants, because I included Giants in the army when I played AoS, and it was fun to see them on the board.
If you go through the trouble of building a bunch of Steam Tanks (assume all of the "classic" variations), I will gladly play against you, because it would be cool to see a bunch of Steam Tanks on the board.
With AoS, I resumed my Dogs of War, which I stopped playing in 8E due to lack of GW support. To me, that's a huge success.
Creating an army isn't that difficult, it's the issue playing a homebrew list and having to worry about getting points "right". AoS lets me focus on what each unit does on the tabletop, versus how much it should cost for list building & balancing purposes. It's much easier and faster.
The ability to homebrew or mix & match in AoS should not be underestimated, although more unit templating would have been helpful.
I am thankful to have good opponents to play against.
well I am torn between 2 themes for an actual force, one being 12 steamtanks (the only ever built) but each one is themed differently... and a couple of mechanised engineers with maybe some dwarf copters/bombers or a wagon train of epicness (think western, I love westerns) which uses horse drawn carriages and other moving things. I am thinking
1 steam tank
1 Celestial Hurricanum
1 Luminark of Hysh
1 War Alter
2 Black Coaches (or more, seems like a good choice)
a couple of death mages and a couple of engineers maybe a few maneaters bodybuards for funzies D: but I am hoping on using the black coaches as the attacking force, using steam tanks as ranged and defensive with the Hysh as champ killer and hurricanum as a defensive structrure... funnily, steam tank gets bonuses from Hurricanum and Hysh and dwarf enginners fix them they are war machines
so far I only have river trolls, hellpit abomination, mummy lord (blood bowl mummy) skellies, necrotect and 3 fanatics ( ) and I got a dwarf engineer, special character of some kind, finished him last night
since bases do not matter you can go wild with the themes, yes that is a bugmans barrel, no dwarf is complete without one... and yea its pretty bad (I know I suck at painting so please no comments on it), but I enjoyed making and painting it every step of the way... the journey is more fun for me then the destination sort of thing... I still need to do some touch ups but this is literally my third complete model in YEARS (you could say its my first ever paint job, well second to the skellies, I started when a kid but I only did base coats and never went further, stopped, AoS got me back into the game, I might start broms dark age as well because I love the minis) and I am just getting the hang of all the painting tricks and tips (I LOVE LIQUID GREEN STUFF)... I only have a few paints so I had to improvise, I guess in a few years I will get a hand of things and be better I still need to get a few more brushes as well, tried W&N but I prefer my pro arte prolene plus stuff (need a smaller brush for detail work)... I also pinned the whole model, arm, head, legs and its pinned to the base and not glues, so I can take him out and replace the base ... and yea that is smoke in his pipe, I got an old electrical wire (from headphone) twisted and painted them to look like smoke, not sure if it works but I like it...
What I see a lot is people are seeing WARHAMMER as only a competitive pokemon style game where random players meet up and fight when in reality it is a paint, build and THEN fight game, people are ignoring the 2 other aspects of the game and focus on the gameplay and at the same time only focusing on the bad and ignoring the good
No, what you are seeing is a large portion of players who prefer competitive games with points values and balance, and their disapproval of the current edition of Warhammer saying "nah, we aren't going to support your way of having fun" when previous editions of the game going back for decades have. They are focusing on what they liked about Warhammer, and are as justified in doing so as you. Not all players saw the game as an aside to the hobby aspect. Not all players felt that points costs were unneeded baggage. Some players are happy with the game as-is, that's fine. Some player's aren't happy, and their opinions are no less legitimate than the first party. The only 'wrong' opinions here are the ones accusing other players of somehow being wrong in what they like to play.
and a lot of those players say things like "AoS is bad it has no points" or "player a can use only giants and abuse the game" or "AoS purposes is A and not B and by not doing A defeats its purpose" which are all subjective opinions and in no way make the game bad, they may disapprove but at a certain point it becomes a constant abuse, people have stated their opinions, time to move on, its like every week is the same thing, heck just recently someone posted about AoS tactics and it was hijacked by comments like "AoS has no tactics, lol" its getting rather stale not being able to discuss the game without having to read why someone thinks AoS sucks.... I want to talk tactics and lore and modelling but dakka does not seem like the place for that, just look at the news and rumours page on AoS, half the pages are off topic about how bad things are... I prefer dakka as a website but it seems like other sites are less biased.
I approach communicating on the internet with the acknowledgement that when someone says "game A is bad because Z" what they mean is "game A is a bad game for me because Z". I doubt everyone who says they don't enjoy AoS is saying that no one enjoys AoS. Anyways, you probably have a point about moving on, but like when many others who have raised this point it's difficult to comply with the idea when the poster perpetuates that line of discussion in the same post they say it should stop. I'll try to stop feeding the beast from here on out, I suppose.
So out of sheer curiosity, what do people think is the best (non-hero, non-monster) unit on a per-wound basis? Ironguts seem to be rather potent in that regard.
I approach communicating on the internet with the acknowledgement that when someone says "game A is bad because Z" what they mean is "game A is a bad game for me because Z". I doubt everyone who says they don't enjoy AoS is saying that no one enjoys AoS. Anyways, you probably have a point about moving on, but like when many others who have raised this point it's difficult to comply with the idea when the poster perpetuates that line of discussion in the same post they say it should stop
well someone has to point it out because clearly people are ignoring that.,, if I just ignored it and moved on they would still contiune, look my comment made you stop feeding the beast
. I'll try to stop feeding the beast from here on out, I suppose.
you can never stop the great maw.
So out of sheer curiosity, what do people think is the best (non-hero, non-monster) unit on a per-wound basis? Ironguts seem to be rather potent in that regard.
Haven't seen any one play it yet in gw or other stores
(My timeing could just be bad to be fair)
One of the local stores bought 2 starter sets in and they are still sitting there one of the staff members I usual talk to telling me they can't get anyone interested in it not even to play a demo game. He said it was like he was a telemarketer just being told nope sorry don't have the time.
I honestly don't think the game is doing that well think only thing that is helping is new releases but that's due to stop for a bit for 40k so am not sure if that break might kill the game.
Wonder if gw is considering being a one game company if sales suck or they will bring out something new
ndeed, and it works fine for most part, i played a great game the other day my hi elves vs two chaos armies everyone was just excited to see how long i could last!
We decided that the hi elves where buying time for civilians to evac and set an a turn win condition if i died before turn 4 it was a total fail and if i made it to turn 6 is was a draw and turn 8 a win! i made it to turn 8 as my last models the crew for my bolt thrower managed to stab a blood warrior to death then got chomped only leaving and hand full of wounded chaos models, we see the board up as a port the civs being evaced by boat, we all decided that the last of the chaos where broad sided to death by the leaving convoy of boats lol
why didn't you just take flying units and be out of range for 8 turns?
Makumba wrote: why didn't you just take flying units and be out of range for 8 turns?
I'm not sure how to respond to this. Is this genuinely the level that you'd go to in order to 'win' a game playing with friends? Isn't the point to have fun? It's just embarrassing that you'd even consider this as something that you'd actually do.
I've been reading the forums for the last few weeks after being interested in getting back into wargaming after a couple of decades away, and this post is the one that made me sign up just to reply. It honestly left me gobsmacked.
ndeed, and it works fine for most part, i played a great game the other day my hi elves vs two chaos armies everyone was just excited to see how long i could last!
We decided that the hi elves where buying time for civilians to evac and set an a turn win condition if i died before turn 4 it was a total fail and if i made it to turn 6 is was a draw and turn 8 a win! i made it to turn 8 as my last models the crew for my bolt thrower managed to stab a blood warrior to death then got chomped only leaving and hand full of wounded chaos models, we see the board up as a port the civs being evaced by boat, we all decided that the last of the chaos where broad sided to death by the leaving convoy of boats lol
why didn't you just take flying units and be out of range for 8 turns?
because it would not be fun to play like that? but why am I telling you that... you are one of "those" type of players... even if he did take all flying units the other player could just take all shooting units and the game would suck for everyone...
Makumba wrote: why didn't you just take flying units and be out of range for 8 turns?
I'm not sure how to respond to this. Is this genuinely the level that you'd go to in order to 'win' a game playing with friends? Isn't the point to have fun? It's just embarrassing that you'd even consider this as something that you'd actually do.
I've been reading the forums for the last few weeks after being interested in getting back into wargaming after a couple of decades away, and this post is the one that made me sign up just to reply. It honestly left me gobsmacked.
there is a lot of anti AoS feelings on dakka.. kinda sad really, and I personally think "he" is the type of player GW is trying to move away from... you know, win at all costs and do not care about anything else sorta player...
because it would not be fun to play like that? but why am I telling you that... you are one of "those" type of players... even if he did take all flying units the other player could just take all shooting units and the game would suck for everyone...
Really? You're the one who said that AoS allows for fun lists that 8th didn't, like taking all flying units.
But, I guess you're one of "those" types of players, right?
because it would not be fun to play like that? but why am I telling you that... you are one of "those" type of players... even if he did take all flying units the other player could just take all shooting units and the game would suck for everyone...
Really? You're the one who said that AoS allows for fun lists that 8th didn't, like taking all flying units.
But, I guess you're one of "those" types of players, right?
Taking all flying units: A-okay.
Taking all flying units with the intent to only evade and thus guarantee victory: not okay.
One involves playing the system, the other involves gaming the system.
Be easy enough to change the victory conditions so that the "all fliers" approach required some actual engagement and play to be honest. Easier than list restrictions or being really judgemental people for pointing out flaws in the system.
JohnHwangDD wrote: If someone is taking all fliers, don't I just take more Magic and shooters as a counter response?
And if you don't have enough missile troops? BUY MORE!
Well, yeah. After giving out the rules and army lists for free, GW has to make money on the models. Luckily, they just released Sigmarines with ranged weapons.
because it would not be fun to play like that? but why am I telling you that... you are one of "those" type of players... even if he did take all flying units the other player could just take all shooting units and the game would suck for everyone...
Really? You're the one who said that AoS allows for fun lists that 8th didn't, like taking all flying units.
But, I guess you're one of "those" types of players, right?
take whatever army/unit you want just do not use them like a troll would :/, play so that both parties enjoy themselves not so that you "auto" win because you found a way to abuse a scenario of some kind
JohnHwangDD wrote: If someone is taking all fliers, don't I just take more Magic and shooters as a counter response?
And if you don't have enough missile troops? BUY MORE!
Well, yeah. After giving out the rules and army lists for free, GW has to make money on the models. Luckily, they just released Sigmarines with ranged weapons.
If you like the game and don't care about models or accurate models, just substitute any archer mini and be done with it. If you do care about the models... well... like you said, GW has to make money somewhere!
take whatever army/unit you want just do not use them like a troll would :/, play so that both parties enjoy themselves not so that you "auto" win because you found a way to abuse a scenario of some kind
Define how a 'troll' would do it? Or is thst just any smart play on my part that doesn't present my whole army on a plate?
And if I don't think letting all my flyers get hacked apart in fights they can't win just for your amusement is 'fun', when I'm forced to engage because of your arbitrary reasons and your high minded decisions on how it 'should' be played, then I'm the one not enjoying myself.
But apparently, that's ok, because it's seemingly all about 'you' having fun.
take whatever army/unit you want just do not use them like a troll would :/, play so that both parties enjoy themselves not so that you "auto" win because you found a way to abuse a scenario of some kind
Define how a 'troll' would do it? Or is thst just any smart play on my part that doesn't present my whole army on a plate?
And if I don't think letting all my flyers get hacked apart in fights they can't win just for your amusement is 'fun', when I'm forced to engage because of your arbitrary reasons and your high minded decisions on how it 'should' be played, then I'm the one not enjoying myself.
But apparently, that's ok, because it's seemingly all about 'you' having fun.
Are you honestly going to find it fun if you just pass every turn, waiting for turn 6 so that you automatically win without making any movements or attacks? Is your opponent?
As a note, Magic: The Gathering, a highly competitive tournament with ostensibly an unbroken ruleset also allows for turn 0 (effectively auto) wins.
Edit: to add some meat to this post, it is played in tournaments in a heavily comped (although officially, rather than fanmade) manner. Just like AoS would be, in theory.
Are you honestly going to find it fun if you just pass every turn, waiting for turn 6 so that you automatically win without making any movements or attacks? Is your opponent?
I can forge an amazing narrative of my flyer doods Biggles and co chomping down on their cigarettes and having s good old chortle at those idiots milling about below. To be fair I will move. I'll zip about in random and annoying patterns and have Biggles thumb his nose and shout 'tally ho chaps' the whole time while he's doing it. Great fun. And I'm sure my mate can forge an amazing narrative about it while his doods shake their fists and holler abuse at my guys.
And when the alternative choice is 'land and die for no gain', I fail to see what is in it for me to simply hand you the win either, when I can do absolutely bugger all about it, and just watch you roll dice while I remove models.
Why is it not fun for you to be a participant. But it's ok for me not to be a participant with the exact same scenario?
Are you honestly going to find it fun if you just pass every turn, waiting for turn 6 so that you automatically win without making any movements or attacks? Is your opponent?
I can forge an amazing narrative of my flyer doods Biggles and co chomping down on their cigarettes and having s good old chortle at those idiots milling about below. To be fair I will move. I'll zip about in random and annoying patterns and have Biggles thumb his nose and shout 'tally ho chaps' the whole time while he's doing it. Great fun. And I'm sure my mate can forge an amazing narrative about it while his doods shake their fists and holler abuse at my guys.
And when the alternative choice is 'land and die for no gain', I fail to see what is in it for me to simply hand you the win either, when I can do absolutely bugger all about it, and just watch you roll dice while I remove models.
Why is it not fun for you to be a participant. But it's ok for me not to be a participant with the exact same scenario?
There's absolutely no point in putting down models or playing the game at that point. You can forge that narrative entirely without playing the game.
I guess the problem here is our wildly differing opinions of what is fun. You find it fun to not participate and instead purely forge a narrative. I find it fun to participate AND forge a narrative. If we played, once you deployed your army and I deployed mine, I would say "well, your carrion flap around laughing at my men and my men are hopeless to do anything about it. The carrion win the battle, and my men march off to fight another battle. Good game!" and move on to play another match. That way, you'll get to have your fun and I'll get to have my (albeit slightly delayed) fun and we won't have wasted time *not* playing.
And if you tell me you'll only find it fun if you get to move your models around for 6 turns, I'll use my first turn's movement to march off the board. so you can fly around unimpeded. Wouldn't want my soldiers getting in the way of your movement fun!
Saw a couple of Age of Sigmar games this weekend. The second game, the Ogre played won before the other player got its first turn due to Sudden Death (Ogres had less models).
Both players still agreed the first match was fun, but that wouldn't want to use the Sudden Death rules anymore.
take whatever army/unit you want just do not use them like a troll would :/, play so that both parties enjoy themselves not so that you "auto" win because you found a way to abuse a scenario of some kind
Define how a 'troll' would do it? Or is thst just any smart play on my part that doesn't present my whole army on a plate?
And if I don't think letting all my flyers get hacked apart in fights they can't win just for your amusement is 'fun', when I'm forced to engage because of your arbitrary reasons and your high minded decisions on how it 'should' be played, then I'm the one not enjoying myself.
But apparently, that's ok, because it's seemingly all about 'you' having fun.
did you even read the original posters scenario? the point was that he was supposed to survive so that some people can escape, that was the "theme"... having all flying units not only breaks immersion its pointless to the scenario, heck I am not sure how an all flying army would fit into that :/.... smart play is all great if you are not playing themed scenarios and just playing for kicks, I am would gladly play against an all flying unit but if he claims "oh I have to survive by turn X because X happens" I will say "Ok but I am taking an all shooting army" and then the game becomes a pointless... I am not even sure why I am arguing this, people are so bullheaded, you play whatever you want :/
Yeah, in that scenario the elf player should also be stopping the chaos guys from getting to their board edge.
Hard to stop them if you never slow them down...
Automatically Appended Next Post: In response to the last quote about me, if there is a building in the way, that limits their space to summon. If I see they are keeping a pile of models to the side to summon, I can just put down models to counter, or place reserve type units.
In order for them to go first, they have to finish deploying first, in their first turn each guy can summon max 3-4 units of skinks that have to fit within 18" of the casters.
They are not going to be able to remove me from the table turn one because they will only be slightly closeer than they would have been after the movement phase.
Too long, didn't read: that situation has almost zero chance of actually happening, and should not be an issue.
Tell a story, play out heroic, tragic or dramatic events to create a narrative that carries on your own stories within the setting. In order for something to be heroic or captivating there needs to be a degree of risk.
he point of the game is to play and enjoy yourself,
all subjective opinions and in no way make the game bad, they may disapprove but at a certain point it becomes a constant abuse, people have stated their opinions, time to move on
you are one of "those" type of players...
I am not even sure why I am arguing this, people are so bullheaded, you play whatever you want :/
I'm not even sure what you are arguing, for that matter. From my perspective, yesterday I see you post that AoS has the strength of allowing players to forge a narrative and that its time to move on from players wailing on each other over how they want to play, then today I read your posts about how one player's method of forging a narrative is wrong.
How about we all take your advice and move on to a new topic?
Kilkrazy wrote: What story, over what time frame, featuring what characters for what objective?
You asked what it meant to those who played, I explained my experience. Currently in my stores league of legends campaign my Jötunn are beginning their rampage, sudden death objectives set to one side range from capturing X number of enemy models in their pouches to food, to decimating enemy siege engines to straight up fights. The story is progressing slowly but each player has ideas for their own faction and as a community we are growing those ideas.
Going back to the theme of "forging a narrative", I have played many tabletop battles with narratives like:
Argentinian task force consisting of X, Y and Z ships attempts to prevent British Task Force consisting of A, B and C ships from reaching the Falkland Islands (detailed combat resolution...) and fails.
Persian army attempts to prevent Spartan army from destroying it (detailed combat resolution...) and succeeds.
Federal ACW army defends a road running through hills against a superior Confederate ACW army that needs to break through...
Soviet Guards tank division attacks German panzer division at Kursk...
Primitive Shaztec indigenes supplied with modern grenades for their slingshopts rebel and attack Imperial power reactor defended by Space Marines...
1st Airborne platoon supported by helicopter gunships and jet fighter bombers attacks Vietnamese village harbouring Viet Cong forces...
Are these scenarios what you would recognise as narratives?
Yes, but if both players go into it knowing those narratives then its understandable. To use the 300 as an example if all the spartans stood on really high ledges so they couldnt be hurt by the persians the story would be brief and dull, a heroic stand to spare an empire becomes forgettable. If you and your opponent want to play "well I butcher you and demand you sit ther and take it" then thats between you. It makes a poor story but if its what you want then its cool.
Wargames give context. Tournament players might favour points balanced straight combat bash, and certainly there are players at my local that just want to play straight kill points. However campaigns, scenarios, objective led missions all give greater context.
I for one am super excited about AoS. I never managed to clock in enough games in either WHFB or WH40k so I could play without constantly referencing the rulebook. Battles ended up being long, drawn out affairs. Eventually I stopped playing altogether. Fast forward to summer 2015: AoS hits stores. 4 page rules? 1-2h play time? Hell yeah!! Finally a thirtysomething like myself, with a job and a bunch of commitments can actually consider getting back into the hobby. For people like me AoS is a blessing. And from what I hear games seem to be lots of fun. My starterbox should arrive soon and I am looking forward to my soon to be Stormcast Eternal army (awesome models by the way). Other friends who have not been part of the hobby for some years are seriously considering to give AoS a spin as well. Fun times!
Kilkrazy wrote: Surely the point of the game is to see what happens, otherwise you would just read a novel or a history book.
Isn't that true of any wargame?
I guess. Between 1988 and 2000, I think my idea of a wargame was, "I line up my Eldar, you line up your Imperial Guard, and let's move them around and shoot at each other til one side is dead." About the only "what happens" was who was wiped out, or what models were left when we had to pack it up and go home
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Going back to the theme of "forging a narrative", I have played many tabletop battles with narratives like:
Spoiler:
Argentinian task force consisting of X, Y and Z ships attempts to prevent British Task Force consisting of A, B and C ships from reaching the Falkland Islands (detailed combat resolution...) and fails.
Persian army attempts to prevent Spartan army from destroying it (detailed combat resolution...) and succeeds.
Federal ACW army defends a road running through hills against a superior Confederate ACW army that needs to break through...
Soviet Guards tank division attacks German panzer division at Kursk...
Primitive Shaztec indigenes supplied with modern grenades for their slingshopts rebel and attack Imperial power reactor defended by Space Marines...
1st Airborne platoon supported by helicopter gunships and jet fighter bombers attacks Vietnamese village harbouring Viet Cong forces...
Are these scenarios what you would recognise as narratives?
These are all great examples of narratives. If only they had futuristic glowy weapons, I'd be so in.
Kilkrazy wrote: Surely the point of the game is to see what happens
Yes an no. For some, "seeing what happens" is more a matter of outcome: did I or my opponent prove superior in skill? For others, "seeing what happens" is more a matter of enjoying how things unfold for their own sake. The difference between these POVs is dramatically revealed in their respective attitudes toward randomness in gaming.
Kilkrazy wrote: Surely the point of the game is to see what happens, otherwise you would just read a novel or a history book.
Isn't that true of any wargame?
I guess. Between 1988 and 2000, I think my idea of a wargame was, "I line up my Eldar, you line up your Imperial Guard, and let's move them around and shoot at each other til one side is dead." About the only "what happens" was who was wiped out, or what models were left when we had to pack it up and go home
I reckon people still play this way, regardless of what extra mechanic you throw in there. Pen and paper games are only as good as the minds present. If games were that repetitive and boring back then, they will still be in this age, that boring and repetitive. Adding more crap in the rule set will not fix it other than add more global complexity rather than supplemental (bad). Oversimplifying it in kind, will not do it either as it defeats the purpose of the genre - being inherently a game of details about war/battle.
The rules in both 40k and now especially AoS seem even more fake - even in an imagined setting.
Kilkrazy wrote: Surely the point of the game is to see what happens
Yes an no. For some, "seeing what happens" is more a matter of outcome: did I or my opponent prove superior in skill? For others, "seeing what happens" is more a matter of enjoying how things unfold for their own sake. The difference between these POVs is dramatically revealed in their respective attitudes toward randomness in gaming.
I use to think there was a delineation between types of gamers (as to why they play). Think about this though, what's the hard nose, logical point of playing a game? To win. It's the inexorable part of the definition of a game.
'Seeing what happens' in the context of enjoying it for the sake of it, is a personal objective to winning and thus, is actually less about the game you're playing with another person. So, from a purely logical standpoint, its a disservice to the opponent who's attempting to play the game than 'your game'. ;P
I've played plenty of games that were not about winning. I completely disagree with your definition and implore you to open your mind to the idea that a game can be a collaborative experience where both players can have fun and succeed, where 'winning' is not the point at all.
kveldulf wrote: Think about this though, what's the hard nose, logical point of playing a game?
To have fun.
This. I play all the time as simply "you set up there, I set up here, we kill each other" and for casual games it works great for me. The rulesets I play generally have enough strategy baked into them that I don't need anything else for the match to be engaging. For that matter, real life is tiring enough for me and a lot of days I find low/mid-level depth to be perfect.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I've played plenty of games that were not about winning. I completely disagree with your definition and implore you to open your mind to the idea that a game can be a collaborative experience where both players can have fun and succeed, where 'winning' is not the point at all.
I play to win ( RPGs as well as wargames) and have fun doing that People seem to enjoy my company too. If you're playing a game that doesn't have an objective(s) about succeeding, you're not playing a game.
As far as collaborative experience goes, yea, sure. People come to play a game, so that's sort of the inferred contract, and the 'collaborative effort'. I do think it is important to be civil, courteous and even jovial. I'm not advocating the sneering behavior sometimes common in a game.
You know, sometimes the opposite of cohesive collaborative agreement creates some interesting things. For example, when there's a party disagreement - in an RPG. That's amusing.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I've played plenty of games that were not about winning. I completely disagree with your definition and implore you to open your mind to the idea that a game can be a collaborative experience where both players can have fun and succeed, where 'winning' is not the point at all.
I play to win ( RPGs as well as wargames) and have fun doing that People seem to enjoy my company too. If you're playing a game that doesn't have an objective(s) about succeeding, you're not playing a game.
As far as collaborative experience goes, some interesting things tend to happen when there's a party disagreement - in an RPG.
No, that is how You play a game. How anyone plays a Game, To-Win or To-Have-Fun is the right way to play the game for Them.
There are quite a few games like Pandemic and Lord Of The Rings (the Knizia cooperative one) where the objective is for the players to combine skills to beat the game system. Death Angles Space Hulk card game is another example if you play multi-player.
Whether these are any more narrative than competitive games is a matter for debate.
Pandemic is still competitive, it's just that the people are competing against the design. The point is still to win. This is not true of, for example, Dungeons & Dragons.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I've played plenty of games that were not about winning. I completely disagree with your definition and implore you to open your mind to the idea that a game can be a collaborative experience where both players can have fun and succeed, where 'winning' is not the point at all.
I play to win ( RPGs as well as wargames) and have fun doing that People seem to enjoy my company too. If you're playing a game that doesn't have an objective(s) about succeeding, you're not playing a game.
As far as collaborative experience goes, some interesting things tend to happen when there's a party disagreement - in an RPG.
No, that is how You play a game. How anyone plays a Game, To-Win or To-Have-Fun is the right way to play the game for Them.
The right way to play a game. So your view of how to play a game is right?
Playing a game involves winning or losing. Having a good/bad time is a separate issue that is less related to gaming and more to do with your world view.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: Pandemic is still competitive, it's just that the people are competing against the design. The point is still to win. This is not true of, for example, Dungeons & Dragons.
Sure it is. I've been playing D&D for awhile and the more 'rewarding' times revolve around solving issues (winning) the GM or player puts in front of us. Hark, one may say that we were victorious (won) in some of our endeavors.
I know what you're saying though. I use to say it to people when they asked about how my gaming night went. Invariably they would ask who won, and I would reply 'no one, its not like that'. But in actuality, I was buying into a pretense that was, less than true.
Really, I was competing against something or someone. One could say that surviving is a big factor to victory in RPG - but that depends on what type of character you are attempting to play.
No, it honestly isn't. In D&D, all antagonistic forces are contained within the world of the story. This is because the DM's job is not to oppose the players. Nor is the player's job to oppose the DM. When the PCs overcome challenges, it is not because they are competing against another player or a system of rules, considering the rules are themselves simply guidelines for the DM after all. PCs fight monsters and avoid traps and solve riddles, etc. The reward for all of this is abstracted into "experience points" for the sake of mechanics but the actual reward is experiencing the unfolding story. It is the play, not the outcome of the play, that matters. This is dramatically (literally and figuratively speaking) different from the kind of games where the reward is winning. In Pandemic, players collaborate to win (i.e., not lose). In D&D, players collaborate to see what happens to their characters. Even when a PC dies seemingly (and indeed truthfully) at random, this can be exciting, interesting, fulfilling, etc.
Manchu wrote: Pandemic is still competitive, it's just that the people are competing against the design. The point is still to win. This is not true of, for example, Dungeons & Dragons.
That's true. I wasn't thinking about RPGs. Of course some people play them as party versus GM, which never made sense to me. Then again, if you play scenario modules in a sense you are trying to win against the scenario designer.
Sam Mustafa's Longstreet offers an example of a competitive wargame with a narrative campaign structure. By competitive I mean that two players play against each other.
Kilkrazy wrote: Then again, if you play scenario modules in a sense you are trying to win against the scenario designer.
Ah yes, tournament D&D. This also involves playing against the DM -- albeit in a sense radically different from an opponent in a different kind of game. The point here was ostensibly to demonstrate skill and resourcefulness, and to prove that you were the superior D&D player. Of course, such a concept (tongue in cheek as it was) only makes any sense at all in a context where such things are taken quite a bit less seriously in the way something like modern competitions involving (for example) Magic the Gathering are taken. It was certainly a different spirit for a different time and has fallen away completely.
It's true that some people (of course including pros) play games purely to hone and demonstrate their skill at those games. But one rather suspects they derive enjoyment from so doing.
Manchu wrote: It's true that some people (of course including pros) play games purely to hone and demonstrate their skill at those games. But one rather suspects they derive enjoyment from so doing.
I'm not thinking of demonstrating skill. More like, you know. Schindler's List or something. I don't know enough tabletop games to be able to think of one off the top of my head with that same purpose, but there are computer games like it. Games that are meant to provide a new perspective or grounds for introspection or learning.
Oh, I just sort of thought of one: Monopoly, which was designed by an anti-capitalist to be a miserable experience.
One thing that wargames could do, for example, is give us a greater appreciation of war and its cost. Make war a little less abstract. I don't think this is a thing that Age of Sigmar really does, but it's something a game can do other than be "fun."
No, it honestly isn't. In D&D, all antagonistic forces are contained within the world of the story. This is because the DM's job is not to oppose the players. Nor is the player's job to oppose the DM. When the PCs overcome challenges, it is not because they are competing against another player or a system of rules, considering the rules are themselves simply guidelines for the DM after all. PCs fight monsters and avoid traps and solve riddles, etc. The reward for all of this is abstracted into "experience points" for the sake of mechanics but the actual reward is experiencing the unfolding story. It is the play, not the outcome of the play, that matters. This is dramatically (literally and figuratively speaking) different from the kind of games where the reward is winning. In Pandemic, players collaborate to win (i.e., not lose). In D&D, players collaborate to see what happens to their characters. Even when a PC dies seemingly (and indeed truthfully) at random, this can be exciting, interesting, fulfilling, etc.
" it is not because they are competing against another player or a system of rules, considering the rules are themselves simply guidelines for the DM after all"
The characters can either succeed at what they are doing or they don't (victory conditions). Most characters are played with the idea of overcoming something (an objective) at different times, and degrees throughout their 'life'. The DM is tasked with making a believable story that is inviting and consistent with the world being portrayed and orchestrating difficulty (again difficulty implies a victory condition). The only difference between this and a wargame is that granted, you are usually not opposed against players, but rather at things more imagined (the quest, etc). Either way, its still a matter of winning.
"It is the play, not the outcome of the play, that matters."
And what outcome of the play matters most? What's the incentive of the play without future tense? Any story can unfold, its the interesting one we want to see - which usually implies victory/defeat in some essence.
Still no. PCs can try and fail. Tragic stories can be intensely interesting to play out.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Games that are meant to provide a new perspective or grounds for introspection or learning.
IME, when these games stop caring about fun (play) they generally stop being games in any meaningful sense. For example, Gone Home or Cis Gaze. I'd call them interactive stories instead (although I feel like "interactive" is a bit of an exaggeration). Monopoly is a neat example because whatever the intent of its designer, plenty of people find it fun because it is so intrinsically a matter of play.
In any case, to bring us a bit closer to the topic, my point is that outcome-focused games are not the only ones. Although I hasten to add that this does not necessarily amount to a defense of AoS!
Truth is, you can have fun with any game system, even the most basic one like just rolling dice to have the biggest result win (wait...that sounds familiar ).
It depends from the mindset of players - and having a fun time together is all that matters.
That doesn't mean rules are well written or work as intended, though. Saying people have fun with AoS as it stands shouldn't be used as an argument to say everything is fine as it is and rules shouldn't be any different.
One thing that wargames could do, for example, is give us a greater appreciation of war and its cost. Make war a little less abstract. I don't think this is a thing that Age of Sigmar really does, but it's something a game can do other than be "fun."
No game will ever give you an appreciation for war and its effects. Im not sure I want my free time that I give to my hobby to be filled with the reality of warfare.
Reading a few memoirs of those who have done it might open you to the true reality of war... Or go talk to some guys who have done it. Look into their eyes and then you will see the cost of war.
Playing with toy soldiers wont... and yes, I know some miltaries use tactical exercises (with and without models) but they are to suggest and experience tactical scenarios.
They do not give you a sense of the horror, boredom, mental strain and pyhsical endurance a military conflicts imparts.
If you want to experience most wars, then do as Blackadder suggested.
Dig a hole in your garden, fill it partly with water, and sit in it for a few days while someone intermittantly shoots at you.
Manchu wrote: Still no. PCs can try and fail. Tragic stories can be intensely interesting to play out.
That's fine; that's your opinion man. But I'm telling you, that a game includes RPGs and all games have victory conditions. Like I said earlier, if a game goes outside this definition, it's no longer a game.
If you are goofing around, that's your objective, that's your victory condition but its probably less about the external game and more about an internal, mental victory. If you want to have fun (be amused), then that's fine, but what's amusing to you is still a qualification - a condition set to bring you joy - a thing to achieve (to win).
I could elaborate but it may digress into materialism vs Christianity.
I agree. Of course someone can have fun playing AoS. It can be someones happies day of their life. They play AoS and suddenly they get news about winning Power Ball. But having actual fun not from spending time with people you would have fun anyway, is much harder to get.
kveldulf wrote: But I'm telling you, that a game includes RPGs and all games have victory conditions.
Yet you have failed to name one. It seems like you are using words like "win" and "victory" really imprecisely to encompass the phenomenon of having fun/enjoying oneself.
kveldulf wrote: But I'm telling you, that a game includes RPGs and all games have victory conditions.
Yet you have failed to name one. It seems like you are using words like "win" and "victory" really imprecisely to encompass the phenomenon of having fun/enjoying oneself.
In RPGs, there is a concept of "winning/losing" for the player characters. They can succeed or fail in their quest. It can mean their death or not. It can mean the story keeps on, with consequences happening because of their acts.
But, yes, you can have a feeling of "winning/losing" in a RPG. The GM/DM is just here to tell what happens with the PC/"Heroes" actions.
Of course, there are very different kinds of RPGs. In Dungeon and Dragons, it often begins with the classic story of adventurers going into a dungeon or something to kill monsters and gain treasure. That kind of story has obvious "victory conditions" for the player characters. The thing is, the story doesn't have to end if they "fail" in their expedition.
This is the same for wargames. Losing a battle doesn't mean losing the war. The campaign can go on, though it can have some consequences for the winning side and the losing side in the next battles...
I find it strange people talk about "fun" and "enjoying themselves" while saying they "play with each other" in what is, in design, a competitive game. In AoS, each player plays against the other with their respective armies. It is then very clear there is a winner and a loser in that game. Sure, you can play "with" the other players - that's what we call a cooperative game, when they are not in competition with each other and have to play together to achieve a common purpose.
That's not the kind of game AoS is - at least, not as the rules are presented. You have to make house rules to do that - and if you can do that for AoS, you can do that with any other game in the world.
After all, you can't tell people who can win or lose to decide by themselves which is fair and which is balanced - because they are directly concerned by this "win/lose" situation. In RPG, there is a DM/GM who can do that. Not in wargames...at least, not in the game presented by GW until now. They never talk about the possibility of using a GM, nowhere. And I'm really talking about AoS official publications (yes, I know, it's quite easy since they're not that many).
Of course you can have fun with AoS, be it if you win or if you lose! If not, there wouldn't be any battle reports/reviews saying the game is fun. But don't picture the game for what it isn't. That's really not helping you defending the game as it is, truly...and I'm saying this as someone who is interested to see where AoS will go.
Sarouan wrote: there is a concept of "winning/losing" for the player characters
But the PCs aren't playing a game. They are living and dying. The players are the ones who are playing the game at which they can neither win nor lose. This is a dramatic example of how a game can be play-oriented rather than outcome-oriented. AoS, which can be won and lost, still strikes me as more play-oriented than outcome-oriented because its design does not really test or reward mastery of the rules; there's too much randomness in there for the winner to say, clearly my skill by and large determined the outcome. So instead, the point must be to just enjoy how the battle unfolds.
The player characters are avatars for players behind them.
And even so, in their "story"...there IS a concept of "winning" and "losing". It's just not a game for these characters - it has harsh consequences. The winners live, the losers die...or wish they did.
Well, maybe not all the time. Even in reality, there are "winners" and "losers". That happens all the time, and some people thinking that way don't take that as a game but as the very core of their life. They "win" if they succeed. If they lose...well, they lose. Some would rather be dead instead. Others take that as a lesson and live with that...until they "win".
About the players, they can have a feeling of "winning" or "losing" the game. In my actual campaign where I play a halfling knight (not the half of a human knight, by the way ), the last play we had was having to take care of a troll nest that was plaguing the region we were protecting (and also ruling). We fought our way to their boss and managed to kill them. We had a feeling of winning, here...managing to defeat the trolls and removing a serious threat to our subjects. If we had to retreat because we attacked too brashly, then we will have the feeling to have lost here - even if it didn't mean the death of our characters and still could try another time, there was no guarantee the trolls would stay here and do nothing. There would have been consequences, one and none the less the rumors running around our realm that their rulers were defeated by the rampaging trolls and couldn't do anything.
I know it's kinda a view of the mind, but still, the concept is here - and the feeling is the same. We could still have fun in either situation, by the way - it has nothing to do with winning or losing. But the feelings would be not exactly the same (it's always nicer to win than to lose, after all ).
AoS could be seen as more play-oriented, but that's not how everyone has to see that. For myself, I'd rather say we are forced to be quite casual and easy-going with this game because it can't really be taken seriously - it has too many holes and can be easily exploited to a ridiculous point. I'm not sure it's really designed this way - I wouldn't dare to say the Design Studio are such great game designers as some people would think they are, especially Jervis Johnson - but what I'm sure of is that AoS is a support so that you can play your collection. The heart of the system is to be able to take anything you want with your collection and have fun with it on the table.
Sarouan wrote: The player characters are avatars for players behind them.
No more so than characters in a play are avatars for the actors, which is to say not at all really.
Sarouan wrote: The heart of the system is to be able to take anything you want with your collection and have fun with it on the table.
Yes, I think we agree on that point.
Regarding the play/actor comment; the script is not written completely in an RPG. The characters are not already finished/fleshed out, but are still being written. It is utterly different than in a play, unless the play had actors rolling dice vs each other or at the system. I'm confused as to what you're trying to say with that example.
And about a good system: I agree somewhat, but a good system won't so much enable anything in your collection, rather, allow for the most mutually tasteful/fitting things (in relation to the universe being portrayed).
When you said in an earlier post "The players are the ones who are playing the game at which they can neither win nor lose." that's a contradictory statement. A 'player' is a person participating in some system of rules which involves success/failure. You can argue that all you want, but words like 'player' has a definition/connotation in the English language; It logically infers victory/defeat, win/loss, success/failure. The act of playing is one of many objective actions.
* The new unit and model names are embarrassingly overblown, but Warhammer was already heading that way with its overblown terrain names (Skullvane Manse? Really?)
* The new models are weirdly scaled to deliberately kill off their old product line.
* The new models actually look fantastic.
* There are some silly rules which, if we lighten up for a moment, are actually quite fun, and definitely in keeping with the universe it's set it.
* There are far fewer restrictions.
* The rules are much easier to learn.
* The unit warscrolls are far more convenient than lugging army books around and flipping back to the rulebook.
* Army books are now free - Warhammer 40,000 codices are reaching 45 quid.
* The spirit of the game revolves around co-operation and human interaction instead of charts and rulebooks, so that is highly appealing to me.
* The game can be played using existing Warhammer armies, which is very good news.
* The startup cost for new players is minimal, relatively speaking.
* Complaints about the points system going AWOL assume that the points system ever worked in the first place, and there were lots of complaints about points values in the past.
* Complaints about people spamming the most powerful units assume people already own large numbers of such models or are going to go out and buy them purely to win games, which is highly unlikely due to prohibitive financial cost and also prohibitive points cost under the Warhammer rules - and it would also breach the ethics of AoS which seem to be its primary selling point.
All in all, if you disregard the loss of Warhammer, which I still believe is the fault of the gamers, AoS is not that bad a prospect for someone such as myself who wants to get back into the hobby, or who wants to start it.
I think the RPG thing is a bit of a red herring and I regret introducing it.
We all understand I am sure that the most common pattern of a wargame is two sides with a violent competitive/combative dynamic ending in either win/loss or more rarely a draw. This is not the most common pattern of an RPG.
Sometimes a team of players will run both sides of a wargame together in a simulation to explore what might have happened if Napoleon did not occupy Moscow in 1812 or other What Ifs of history. However it is more common for the players to run one side each against each other.
To the extent that any battle or game has a series of events that involve troops and can be recorded and related as a battle diary, it is a narrative.
When GW talk about forging a narrative, I think they mean that the players are supposed to get emotionally bound up in the developing action, as if watching a drama rather than a documentary about the same battle.
* The new unit and model names are embarrassingly overblown, but Warhammer was already heading that way with its overblown terrain names (Skullvane Manse? Really?)
* The new models are weirdly scaled to deliberately kill off their old product line.
* The new models actually look fantastic.
* There are some silly rules which, if we lighten up for a moment, are actually quite fun, and definitely in keeping with the universe it's set it.
* There are far fewer restrictions.
* The rules are much easier to learn.
* The unit warscrolls are far more convenient than lugging army books around and flipping back to the rulebook.
* Army books are now free - Warhammer 40,000 codices are reaching 45 quid.
* The spirit of the game revolves around co-operation and human interaction instead of charts and rulebooks, so that is highly appealing to me.
* The game can be played using existing Warhammer armies, which is very good news.
* The startup cost for new players is minimal, relatively speaking.
* Complaints about the points system going AWOL assume that the points system ever worked in the first place, and there were lots of complaints about points values in the past.
* Complaints about people spamming the most powerful units assume people already own large numbers of such models or are going to go out and buy them purely to win games, which is highly unlikely due to prohibitive financial cost and also prohibitive points cost under the Warhammer rules - and it would also breach the ethics of AoS which seem to be its primary selling point.
All in all, if you disregard the loss of Warhammer, which I still believe is the fault of the gamers, AoS is not that bad a prospect for someone such as myself who wants to get back into the hobby, or who wants to start it.
There are ongoing concerns about balance and also some mechanics - like being able to kill characters even when they are in combat - eg we had a cannon snip a Witch Elf Hag who was figthing a Daemon Slayer - seemed a bit off to all involved.
on the other hand - people like alot of aspects:
So we have (from various players)
Pros
melee combat,
pushing up, the fact that there is no devastating immediate end to combat on a single failed leadership roll after losing one model. Leadership abilities,
synergy.
Movement - 40k esque freedom of movement - love it.
Units seemed flavoursome and in keeping - we didn't use a single comedy rule - although they are great fun to read and very old skool Warhammer and tbh - you can ignore the comedy but and just use the specific ability without that element without causing any problems
Making new units up is easy and much fun
Games look great, as more like two warbands fighting, due to flexible formations. Warhammer never looked like a 'Battle' anyway.
Was quite easy to play. I actually like the alternate activating combat sequence, it adds an additional strategic thinking element, and allows both players to have a say as long as they have 2 combats going on.
Terrain actually matters
Cons
heroes can just be shot or magiced dead.
Some units are WAY WAY more powerful than others, Chameleon Skinks to Normal skinks, Temple guard to Normal Saurus. My Chameleons seemed to DELETE units, wheras my normal skinks seemed to struggle to achieve anything. Although their fleeing form combat rule is cool.
1st turn still played a massive role in our game,
kveldulf wrote: Regarding the play/actor comment; the script is not written completely in an RPG. The characters are not already finished/fleshed out, but are still being written. It is utterly different than in a play, unless the play had actors rolling dice vs each other or at the system. I'm confused as to what you're trying to say with that example.
I am trying to say that a PC in D&D is not necessarily an avatar for the player. Character are not avatars for actors in a play. It doesn't matter that the script is already written. Characters in the script are not avatars of the scriptwriter, either.
kveldulf wrote: When you said in an earlier post "The players are the ones who are playing the game at which they can neither win nor lose." that's a contradictory statement.
Not at all. All the word "player" implies is "play" which itself does not connote or imply winning and losing. Think back to when you were a kid -- playing did not always entail "victory conditions." Similarly, there are games that do not have victory conditions. D&D is just an example. AoS does have victory conditions, i.e., the circumstances under which play stops, the game is over, and one of the players is declared the winner. But even that does not prove that the point of AoS is winning.
Kilkrazy wrote: I think the RPG thing is a bit of a red herring and I regret introducing it.
If nothing else, it has certainly revealed that some people cannot conceive of a game that does not involve winning and losing. Roleplayers are used to encountering this attitude. I think miniatures gamers, especially those who have only or primarily been exposed to games like 40k or WM/H, seem more likely to hold this attitude.
It's only natural that some people who think winning is a fundamental element of gaming also believe that winning is the main purpose of playing any game. And if you think winning is the point, then fairness is going to be extremely important to you. Fairness in turn is almost always confused with balance in these discussions. And that brings us to the complaints about AoS not being balanced.
Cons heroes can just be shot or magiced dead. Some units are WAY WAY more powerful than others, Chameleon Skinks to Normal skinks, Temple guard to Normal Saurus. My Chameleons seemed to DELETE units, wheras my normal skinks seemed to struggle to achieve anything. Although their fleeing form combat rule is cool. 1st turn still played a massive role in our game,
Glad you're playing, and I generally agree with your assessment.
WRT the issues: - Heroes are more vulnerable, and I think that is by design. Heroes concentrate a lot of strong ability, but the downside is that it's a lot of eggs in one basket. - Unit power varies, and I think that is also by design, to give players a choice in what they choose to field. If all units were samey, that would be boring, no? - First Turn is determined by whomever stops deploying first. The other player can continue to deploy units if they feel that they need more stuff to mitigate going second.
I'm not sure those are problems, per se. I do think there's an adjustment period in getting comfortable over what we should be fielding.
* Complaints about the points system going AWOL assume that the points system ever worked in the first place, and there were lots of complaints about points values in the past.
* Complaints about people spamming the most powerful units assume people already own large numbers of such models or are going to go out and buy them purely to win games, which is highly unlikely due to prohibitive financial cost and also prohibitive points cost under the Warhammer rules - and it would also breach the ethics of AoS which seem to be its primary selling point.
All in all, if you disregard the loss of Warhammer, which I still believe is the fault of the gamers, AoS is not that bad a prospect for someone such as myself who wants to get back into the hobby, or who wants to start it.
In my group, our Dwarf player gets a lot more out of his points than I do with my Dogs of War (because he's simply a better player than I am), and our Tyranid / Lizardmen player gets less out of his points than either of us (because he's just not that interested in "winning" per se). With points, it's uncomfortable suggesting that we should apply handicaps of some sort, whereas AoS kind of does away with that issue.
I do not think GW would be particularly upset if "competitive" AoS players went out and bought lots of Lords of Change, Bloodthirsters, Dragons, etc. I think GW would welcome them doing so.
GW sucked at balancing points.
AOS players blame the concept of points and not the lazy/poor execution.
Points allow more freedom of army creation than formations or whatever. And with a company that actually cares, points work out really well.
Something awful can be fun. My list of favorite movies comprises a lot of really bad movies, but I still like them.
AOS is an awful game. But that doesn't mean people can't have fun with it.
It's totally not my idea of fun, but different strokes for different folks.
(But again, it is a crappy game.)
I quite like how killable everything is. Nothing seems insurmountable. That Khorne Lord with the reality-splitting axe just wipes out single models.
I think the fact that to hit/to wound is now static (or mostly so) on the models helps balance the game. 10 Bloodthirsters, as the hyperbole goes, is a lot more of a threat in old Warhammer than in AoS.
It still feels like Warhammer to me, but fresher. I agree with the comment above that battles actually look like battles now. I always liked the look of regiments on their own, but during play it made things look more like game pieces than a miniature battle, in my opinion.
burningstuff wrote: I quite like how killable everything is. Nothing seems insurmountable. That Khorne Lord with the reality-splitting axe just wipes out single models
He does a handful job on units also, each unsaved wound kills d3 wound worth of people
Played 3 model vs. model games in a dueling style and I like it so far. I used the starter kit Chaos Lord and my opponent used chaos guy on mount.
Not sure which exactly but it had some sort of fire breath.
The action is fast paced and combat is exciting. Now I need to get a n army built and see how it plays on that level. I have several chaos daemons already so that parts done.
It will be interesting to see how chaos units of different alignment work together as one.
Knowing that I only need to know one number each for hits and wounds is going to help me learn much quicker than 40k. The rules being so sort will be the biggest help.
It will be fun to read all the back story in WDs I've collected over the years and online. So much to catch up on.
jojo_monkey_boy wrote: Would someone who has bought the first big AoS book give me a sense of how its scenarios affect / improve the game beyond the 4 page rules.
Please and thank you!
they give you a clear goal orientated game where destroying the enemy is not the key goal (even though it is a winning condition) and where you alter your game style or tactics to suit the scenario given instead of altering tactics to the enemy you are playing.. one scenario is played in 3 waves and the goretide gets reinforced and "healed" whilst the sigmarines do not... by using scenery you alter your tactics even more (if you so wish), the scenarios give you a clear goal of the game and in all fairness are designed using the new models and are "fairer" (if you using the new models or armies that is, they are more balanced and are less likely to be abused )..
there is even a "solo" game scenario believe it or not, I am not sure who would play it but can easily be converted to 2 players... and its pretty good if you want to learn the rules
they are also ideas for you to make your own or alter them, its easier to alter a ready made scenario then to make your own like changing the units you use to be used with the legacy armies instead... or altering the size etc, its like being given a basic design and working on it, the solo game scenario reminds me of the story of Archaon (how he became who he is)
in all honesty you should not get the scenario book if your army is not included and you are ok in making your own games/scenarios for fun... wait for a scenario book to be released with your particular army included
just remember that the scenarios are designed for a particular race/faction/army... the idea is that over time GW will release more book with scenarios for each race to combat etc
Okay, I've been posting everywhere else but here, so now that I finally have arrived here, let me throw in my two cents
I think AoS has poentantial. I actually do find it quite fun to play, but there are still some big flaws with it that I had to houserules out of the way, especially the issue of balanced games. However there are most definitely good things about it. First the free online rules, much in the same vein as Infinity, is good. The simplified rule systems are good as well, although I do feel that maybe they are a little to simplified. The extermination of the million options per unit is a mixed bag. So there are a lot of good ideas in here, so what GW needs to do is slowly grind the others one away. Overall, I enjoy it, but the fact that I need to make quite a few houserules means I overall give it an average review.
jojo_monkey_boy wrote: Would someone who has bought the first big AoS book give me a sense of how its scenarios affect / improve the game beyond the 4 page rules.
Please and thank you!
they give you a clear goal orientated game where destroying the enemy is not the key goal (even though it is a winning condition) and where you alter your game style or tactics to suit the scenario given instead of altering tactics to the enemy you are playing.. one scenario is played in 3 waves and the goretide gets reinforced and "healed" whilst the sigmarines do not... by using scenery you alter your tactics even more (if you so wish), the scenarios give you a clear goal of the game and in all fairness are designed using the new models and are "fairer" (if you using the new models or armies that is, they are more balanced and are less likely to be abused )..
there is even a "solo" game scenario believe it or not, I am not sure who would play it but can easily be converted to 2 players... and its pretty good if you want to learn the rules
they are also ideas for you to make your own or alter them, its easier to alter a ready made scenario then to make your own like changing the units you use to be used with the legacy armies instead... or altering the size etc, its like being given a basic design and working on it, the solo game scenario reminds me of the story of Archaon (how he became who he is)
in all honesty you should not get the scenario book if your army is not included and you are ok in making your own games/scenarios for fun... wait for a scenario book to be released with your particular army included
just remember that the scenarios are designed for a particular race/faction/army... the idea is that over time GW will release more book with scenarios for each race to combat etc
You're talking about the starter set book right? Not the big AoS book, as the scenarios in that are for any force to use. Personally I haven't had the chance to play one of the big book scenarios, I'm not going to buy the book as I have looked through it and it is incredibly overpriced for what it is, but if my opponent wants to play a scenario from it I'm game. :-)
jojo_monkey_boy wrote: Would someone who has bought the first big AoS book give me a sense of how its scenarios affect / improve the game beyond the 4 page rules.
Please and thank you!
they give you a clear goal orientated game where destroying the enemy is not the key goal (even though it is a winning condition) and where you alter your game style or tactics to suit the scenario given instead of altering tactics to the enemy you are playing.. one scenario is played in 3 waves and the goretide gets reinforced and "healed" whilst the sigmarines do not... by using scenery you alter your tactics even more (if you so wish), the scenarios give you a clear goal of the game and in all fairness are designed using the new models and are "fairer" (if you using the new models or armies that is, they are more balanced and are less likely to be abused )..
there is even a "solo" game scenario believe it or not, I am not sure who would play it but can easily be converted to 2 players... and its pretty good if you want to learn the rules
they are also ideas for you to make your own or alter them, its easier to alter a ready made scenario then to make your own like changing the units you use to be used with the legacy armies instead... or altering the size etc, its like being given a basic design and working on it, the solo game scenario reminds me of the story of Archaon (how he became who he is)
in all honesty you should not get the scenario book if your army is not included and you are ok in making your own games/scenarios for fun... wait for a scenario book to be released with your particular army included
just remember that the scenarios are designed for a particular race/faction/army... the idea is that over time GW will release more book with scenarios for each race to combat etc
You're talking about the starter set book right? Not the big AoS book, as the scenarios in that are for any force to use. Personally I haven't had the chance to play one of the big book scenarios, I'm not going to buy the book as I have looked through it and it is incredibly overpriced for what it is, but if my opponent wants to play a scenario from it I'm game. :-)
I have said this before, I got into this hobby for the painting and building aspect (its like meditation for me ) even though I suck at it, I enjoy it... the playing is just an added bonus and I am really game for anything.. scenarios, points, weird combos, heck I used to play warhammer chess just replaced the chess pieces with warhammer ones and combat is still the same (king queen are lords/champs. rooks are large monsters. bishops are wizards and priests. knights are cavalry type and pawns are troops... enjoy)
It has already been established that many GW customers aren't really interested in playing the games. It used to be that many customers were players first and collectors/painters second.
Perhaps the continuous decline in revenue of the past few years reflects the pissed off ness of the gamer segment of the GW customer base.
Oh okay, lol. The second part of my post was directed at Jojo really, as he was asking about scenarios and experience with them. I quoted you to highlight that the scenarios in the big book are not army specific like those in the starter box book.
Bottle wrote: Oh okay, lol. The second part of my post was directed at Jojo really, as he was asking about scenarios and experience with them. I quoted you to highlight that the scenarios in the big book are not army specific like those in the starter box book.
but jojo asked a specific question which you never answered... You just told him something he never asked for ... Just play my chess game already
bitethythumb wrote: in all honesty you should not get the scenario book if your army is not included and you are ok in making your own games/scenarios for fun... wait for a scenario book to be released with your particular army included
Thanks for the response.
It's kind of disappointing. It was good of GW to create the warscrolls for old armies (and thus prevent all out rioting...), but it's too bad they're not providing more open ended support. Hopefully the community will come up with scenarios.
bitethythumb wrote: in all honesty you should not get the scenario book if your army is not included and you are ok in making your own games/scenarios for fun... wait for a scenario book to be released with your particular army included
Thanks for the response.
It's kind of disappointing. It was good of GW to create the warscrolls for old armies (and thus prevent all out rioting...), but it's too bad they're not providing more open ended support. Hopefully the community will come up with scenarios.
well apparently the big expensive book IS open ended and can focus on any army (but I have my doubts, seems to me each book is themed for particular conflicts, I am sure they CAN be adapted to any army but not designed for such) but in all honesty I would wait, the way I see it is that AoS is a NEW GAME... so I do not expect EVERYTHING to be given to us on a platter, yes GW is experienced ETC but you have to see AoS as a fresh born baby that will be molded over time.
I also feel as though the legacy armies are really there as to not piss off ye olde players and will simply be phased out, seems to me like the newer models are being kept (or maybe even designed) for AoS like the sylvaneth and clan pestilens (not the bell, but the bell is pretty awesome and unlikely to change) but most will no longer be supported, I would not be buying anything unless you REALLY like the models or can reuse them later on in general, I myself have only been buying random models with the goal of learning to play the game now but in the long run change them...
The scenarios in the book make no mention of which forces or suggested forces to use, they're intended for all - but the story has a "historical example" of each scenario because fluff.
I am interested in how these AoS book scenarios work. I haven't seen the book. In my experience and expectation, a wargame scenario consists of a map, orders of battle, starting deployment and objectives for both sides, perhaps with intelligence summaries if there is any hidden aspect to the scenario, time limits, weather and so on as needed.
I suspect that the legacy armies will eventually be left behind in favor of catch-all groupings. Rumors suggested this before Age of Sigmar was announced, and it seems to be somewhat accurate in at least the way the miniatures are being marketed on the website.
It seems to me that there's a transition period going on where units or armies are slowly being split up and redistributed to their new identities and factions. Sylvaneth and Pestilens being separate from Wood Elves and Skaven as current examples.
I'm thinking it would be something akin to Chaos -> Nurgle -> Pestilens
Where Chaos is the overall faction, Nurgle the specific army type and Pestilens being a set of options for the Nurgle army.
Kilkrazy wrote: I am interested in how these AoS book scenarios work. I haven't seen the book. In my experience and expectation, a wargame scenario consists of a map, orders of battle, starting deployment and objectives for both sides, perhaps with intelligence summaries if there is any hidden aspect to the scenario, time limits, weather and so on as needed.
It has all of that except for the order of battle. It's still bring whatever you want.
So you've got a map and an objective, but no suggested forces?
It seems a bit strange not to suggest suitable forces fo each side. The game is aimed at newcomers who could not be expected to know what sort of size of force is needed for instance to capture a bridge.
Kilkrazy wrote: So you've got a map and an objective, but no suggested forces?
Yep.
It seems a bit strange not to suggest suitable forces fo each side. The game is aimed at newcomers who could not be expected to know what sort of size of force is needed for instance to capture a bridge.
I don't think being a realistic simulation was ever a goal of GW. The castle scenario for example does suggest you talk with your opponent about what size army you are going to bring....but only because bigger armies require bigger castles
No advice about the force multiplier that fortifications grant to the defender? Nothing about the fact that engineers are much more valuable than cavalry in attacking a castle?
Without taking through the scenarios 1 by 1, difficult to explain.
Some of the scenarios specify that relative army size determines role, some have an extremely limited deployment area, some specify ratio of on-table to reserves, etc.
The main factor is the objective. These aren't as easy as you'd think, and simply having 'more stuff' on the table is pointless.
Some units bring little or nothing to the scenario depending on your objective, while others are potentially so suited to the task you can be looking at a legit turn 1 victory if your opponent doesn't see it coming.
Well, being somewhat of a lurker here I and not actually having played warhammer fantasy battle for a long time (did do WFRP last month though), I am still a bit shocked by the absolutely radical change GW has made to the whole WFB concept.
My first thought after reading through the bits of info available was: "well, that's 30 years of history down the drain"...
For the rest I'm not really THAT interested in AoS or 8th edition, but the wholy damned MYTHOS GW created for it's fantasy world since the 90's is now history.
oh well, At least we'll have the upcoming Total War Game as final tribute to WFB as it once was.
They could have had both dammit... they could've had both!
After a night's sleep I came up with two analogies what this baffling move by GW is like:
1. Metallica ditching their guitars in favour of synths and turn-tables (and a KAOS-pad), dressing up in monkey-costumes and only playing dub-step versions of Bob Dylan songs for the rest of their career, with an occassional remix-parody of Nothing else matters and mr. Sandman.
2. The Imagination Land plot-line from South Park, especially the end in the way that Sigmar=Butters... The world (imagination land- and let's face it, WFB is so a part of that) is destroyed and only "the Key" is left in a blank void and wills it all back into existence (slightly different).
Though GW made it a little more extreme by not doing a "we do a reset everything goes back to 2502"
Sure I've heard people say that the fluff is now closer to what warhammer seemed to become with the Realms of Chaos books of the late 80's and in a way I can see that... but no. It's too clean and tidy in the fluff and too bare-bones in the rules to be like that.
Rules wise it may now be a lot easier for me to get my WFRP buddies playing warhammer battles now the rules are just 4 pages... and those guys don't use the GW Old World anyway so that's no problem.
The rules do remind me of the way me and my friends played warhammer (FB) when we just started as 13 year olds and before we owned any rulebooks or codices: From the quick-start booklets we could get for free at the LGS despite having totally different models than the 4th edition starter set. We did some improvising, some memorization of things read in the books in the lgs and basically played AoS now I think about it. Static to hit and to wound rolls and all (based on race/faction), only with kind-of the 4th ed. psychology rules.
Note that we played this while owning 1 or 2 4th ed. plastics sets (6-10 mini's each) each of either High Elves, Dwarfs, Orcs/Goblins and Chaos (beastmen) and we had some fun with it but the High Elves always won.
Yesterday, I battled Eric with his Skaven against my Khorne army, 75 wounds, using the Toronto supplementary rules, scenario 3 with three flags, 6'x4' battle ground.
We really enjoyed it. At the end it was a draw and we had a great laugh. I think AoS is very playable and more relaxed than WMH and much more playable than 40k.
My army was: Might Lord of Khorne, Bloodsecrator, Bloodstoker, 5 Bloodwarriors, 12 Bloodreavers, 2x5 Chaosknights.
I must admit, the main thing that hooked me was how much the starter box art looked like an 80s' metal album.
From what I've seen, it seems like a very enjoyable game; it just seems a lot more a) enjoyable and b) "epic"; whereas before you just had masses of rank and file, now each soldier just seems to be a powerhouse unto themselves.
I don't know, maybe I'm just easily entralled, but it seems like a good game. The one problem I have is the fact they released all of the End Times expansions right before dropping the format.
Im surprised they didn't take Bloodclotter, Blooddonator or Bloodtransplanter. Some of the most common bloods out there.
I'm really biding my time until someone comes up with a powerful anti-Khorne list because I anticipate the nicknames for the list will be quite...classy.
Im surprised they didn't take Bloodclotter, Blooddonator or Bloodtransplanter. Some of the most common bloods out there.
I'm really biding my time until someone comes up with a powerful anti-Khorne list because I anticipate the nicknames for the list will be quite...classy.
Our store owner sold more AoS stuff than 40k stuff during the last four weeks.
Most of the players here got interested. Some wait for the Aelf releases. There is just one who refuses to play it. He still stickers with Fantasy 8th ed.
If it was not for the "I have a better mustache then you rule" I would take this game seriously. If it was not for the "space marines" in a mother fething FANTASY setting, I would like this game, If it was not for the death of all that lovely Lizardmen fluff....I would give this game a chance.
.....I bought the starter box just to paint the models and nothing else.
Then there is the "I hide scarabs in the sand and never make them come up- Therefor I instantly win the game regardless of what you do or what army you have" rule.
The pretend to ride a horse rule
The, bring your army and I bring mine army and no points costs rule meaning the "richer" kid wins regardless of how good of a player or how Overpowered every single last unit you have is period will ever be period.
There are so many things wrong with it I have heard about that I will never actually play it....just paint the one kit for it I got.
Vasarto wrote: If it was not for the "space marines" in a mother fething FANTASY setting, I would like this game,
They have a Greek god motif going on, looking like the god of war, Ares. The gold coloring mixed with spiked halo is a bit reminiscent of Helios, the sun god. The masks they all wear are not unlike the dramatic masks the Greeks used to wear when representing the gods in their plays. The lightning symbols draws comparisons to Zeus. Although the warhammers and idea of warrior Gods fighting off an apocalypse seem more Norse to me. So it is a mix of influences.
So your mother fething FANTASY setting remains unperturbed by the inclusion of distinctly thematic, fantasy elements.
There are so many things wrong with it I have heard about that I will never actually play it....just paint the one kit for it I got.
Hey man. that's entirely your choice to make. I think you are wrong about some things, or at the very least, by taking an overly pessimistic view on the game, aren't allowing yourself a fair chance to enjoy the game. But you don't have to enjoy something if you don't want to. I think it is pretty nifty though. Even the mustache rule.
Vasarto wrote: If it was not for the "space marines" in a mother fething FANTASY setting, I would like this game,
They have a Greek god motif going on, looking like the god of war, Ares. The gold coloring mixed with spiked halo is a bit reminiscent of Helios, the sun god. The masks they all wear are not unlike the dramatic masks the Greeks used to wear when representing the gods in their plays. The lightning symbols draws comparisons to Zeus. Although the warhammers and idea of warrior Gods fighting off an apocalypse seem more Norse to me. So it is a mix of influences.
I agree. IMO, the super-human entities aren't out of place in AoS' setting, which is kind of mythological. In many real world myths there are stories about super-humans, god-like races etc. The stormcast eternals could just be viewed as their equivalent in the new setting. Their appearance wouldn't even be that irritating if one could let go of the pre-buit image that pauldrons = space marines. They're just heavily armoured dudes.
Kilkrazy wrote: Space Mariens are merely superhumans in pauldrons. So are Sigmarines.
That's a bit reductionist, don't you think?
Spock is just an elf. Gandalf is just Merlin. Warcraft is just Warhammer. Aliens is just Starship Troopers (Space Hulk is just Aliens). The Fast and the Furious is just Point Break. Cars is just Doc Hollywood. X-Wing Miniatures is just Wings of War. Game of Thrones is just the War of Roses. A Fistful of Dollars is just Yojimbo.
These examples all started as direct copies, but over time were able to create their own identities and move away from their inspirations. Even if Sigmarines are similar to Space Marines now, they'll eventually become their own thing. Personally, I don't think shoulder pads are enough of a similarity, or else every secretary in the 80s would be a Space Marine.
We've lived with that SM imagery for over 25 years, so it's going to be a bit difficult to let go.
tydrace wrote: Saw a couple of Age of Sigmar games this weekend. The second game, the Ogre played won before the other player got its first turn due to Sudden Death (Ogres had less models).
Both players still agreed the first match was fun, but that wouldn't want to use the Sudden Death rules anymore.
What, how? Two of the conditions require playing until at least turn 4 and if you picked something close to the Ogre battleline as your 'kill this' option, that's hardly the rules' problem!
If you don't like Sudden Death but don't want to houserule too much, most of the scenarios in the books ignore it as a victory condition.
Vasarto wrote: If it was not for the "space marines" in a mother fething FANTASY setting, I would like this game,
They have a Greek god motif going on, looking like the god of war, Ares. The gold coloring mixed with spiked halo is a bit reminiscent of Helios, the sun god. The masks they all wear are not unlike the dramatic masks the Greeks used to wear when representing the gods in their plays. The lightning symbols draws comparisons to Zeus. Although the warhammers and idea of warrior Gods fighting off an apocalypse seem more Norse to me. So it is a mix of influences.
So your mother fething FANTASY setting remains unperturbed by the inclusion of distinctly thematic, fantasy elements.
There are so many things wrong with it I have heard about that I will never actually play it....just paint the one kit for it I got.
Hey man. that's entirely your choice to make. I think you are wrong about some things, or at the very least, by taking an overly pessimistic view on the game, aren't allowing yourself a fair chance to enjoy the game. But you don't have to enjoy something if you don't want to. I think it is pretty nifty though. Even the mustache rule.
Dude, they're space marines. Time to admit it. Visually. Thematically. Rules wise.
Them having chapters, assault marines, god-emperor, great crusade, super human, heavy armor(that looks like blood angel armor) should kind of be a clue as well.
Vasarto wrote: If it was not for the "space marines" in a mother fething FANTASY setting, I would like this game,
They have a Greek god motif going on, looking like the god of war, Ares. The gold coloring mixed with spiked halo is a bit reminiscent of Helios, the sun god. The masks they all wear are not unlike the dramatic masks the Greeks used to wear when representing the gods in their plays. The lightning symbols draws comparisons to Zeus. Although the warhammers and idea of warrior Gods fighting off an apocalypse seem more Norse to me. So it is a mix of influences.
So your mother fething FANTASY setting remains unperturbed by the inclusion of distinctly thematic, fantasy elements.
There are so many things wrong with it I have heard about that I will never actually play it....just paint the one kit for it I got.
Hey man. that's entirely your choice to make. I think you are wrong about some things, or at the very least, by taking an overly pessimistic view on the game, aren't allowing yourself a fair chance to enjoy the game. But you don't have to enjoy something if you don't want to. I think it is pretty nifty though. Even the mustache rule.
Dude, they're space marines. Time to admit it. Visually. Thematically. Rules wise.
Them having chapters, assault marines, god-emperor, great crusade, super human, heavy armor(that looks like blood angel armor) should kind of be a clue as well.
Or, they are both the warriors of Valhalla in a fantasy/scifi universe inundated with thematic elements from multiple sources of the genra to appeal to a broad audience. How many "blessed by the gods to fight evil" groups are there in history/ mythology?
Why can't they just have the same inspiration, instead of automatically assuming GW was just trying to cram space marines into fantasy? Also, the universes obviously cross over, and there has always been speculation that sigmar is a missing primarch. If that is the case then the organization of legions and the need to conquer in the name of humanity is literally written in his DNA.
MWHistorian wrote: Dude, they're space marines. Time to admit it. Visually. Thematically. Rules wise.
Visually, I disagree. First time I saw them, I thought of that scene in Spartacus: Blood and Sand where they painted a naked Spartacus gold and gave him a god's mask and then... well, some bad naked stuff happened, but you get my point. Even then, they have a distinctly Trojan style of armor.
I do admit, I may not have immediately leaped to the "By jove, those are space marines!" conclusion because I'm not a 40k player. There may be fluff comparisons I'm not familiar with, but visually at least, they are Greek gods to me.
Them having chapters, assault marines, god-emperor, great crusade, super human, heavy armor(that looks like blood angel armor) should kind of be a clue as well.
I'm not sure I agree with all of it (some of those are common tropes, some from common influence), but even if they were intentionally similar, I'm not sure that is even a bad thing. The 40k and fantasy worlds are not entirely unconnected, thematically, if not in other ways (they share chaos gods too, don't they?). I always thought it was weird that science fiction still had orks and elves, so I guess I'm less perturbed by fantasy having space marines. One could even argue that the thematic merging of the two Warhammer worlds invites the deeper search for patterns and recurring events, which is kind of fun for those who like that sort of thing.
MWHistorian wrote: Dude, they're space marines. Time to admit it. Visually. Thematically. Rules wise.
Visually, I disagree. First time I saw them, I thought of that scene in Spartacus: Blood and Sand where they painted a naked Spartacus gold and gave him a god's mask and then... well, some bad naked stuff happened, but you get my point. Even then, they have a distinctly Trojan style of armor.
I do admit, I may not have immediately leaped to the "By jove, those are space marines!" conclusion because I'm not a 40k player. There may be fluff comparisons I'm not familiar with, but visually at least, they are Greek gods to me.
Them having chapters, assault marines, god-emperor, great crusade, super human, heavy armor(that looks like blood angel armor) should kind of be a clue as well.
I'm not sure I agree with all of it (some of those are common tropes, some from common influence), but even if they were intentionally similar, I'm not sure that is even a bad thing. The 40k and fantasy worlds are not entirely unconnected, thematically, if not in other ways (they share chaos gods too, don't they?). I always thought it was weird that science fiction still had orks and elves, so I guess I'm less perturbed by fantasy having space marines. One could even argue that the thematic merging of the two Warhammer worlds invites the deeper search for patterns and recurring events, which is kind of fun for those who like that sort of thing.
yea, they are pretty much space marines but IMO 100x better... They are far more interesting and "human"
I've just introduced AoS to a friend of mine as I was very interested in the reaction of a person that has never played a miniatures game before. So, what's his background:
1. Has played some boardgames - 3 to be precise: Star Realms, Death Angel and Twilight Struggle. Of the three, he prefers Star Realms 99% of the time.
2. Mostly plays PC games in his spare time. A couple of years ago he was heavily invested in DoW2 so I suppose that he has some vision for himself how a warhammer 40k battle should look or feel.
His feedback on AoS was that the game seems to be quick and dynamic. He didn't have problems learning the rules and he didn't have any questions about them. Overall he likes them, but right off the bat he suggested that we should tweak them a little as to make them more reasonable (for him). He thought that each player could only choose one type of attack with any single unit (ranged or melee), that the battle phases should not be locked in order and that players should alternate in activating units. All units should still be allowed only one phase of a type per round (so a unit can't move twice for example). For example:
1. Jim moves his unit A
2. Bob shoots with his unit B
3 Jim assaults with his unit A
4. Bob moves his unit C
etc.
What was interesting for me is that:
1. The player had ZERO problems with tweaking the rules to his liking. I suspect that have they been longer he wouldn't have wanted to. Right now he sees that units can shoot, run, move and assault and is thinking how could these 4 simple actions be arranged so that the game feel right to him.
2. Other players that I have played with, in times past, will not try the game under any circumstances or will try it only to prove their point that it is a "bad" game (what would be a "good" game is another topic). No one was willing to tweak the rules and all were adamant that should the game be played it must be played as is. They see neither possibility for growth nor anything interesting to them in AoS. The players I'm talking about played 40k at some point in the past and then moved to Warmahordes, Infinity and Malifaux.
This is nothing new for any of you, I suppose, but I thought that another comparison between "new" and "old" players' reactions is in tone with the topic. Take it as you want.
Vasarto wrote: If it was not for the "space marines" in a mother fething FANTASY setting, I would like this game,
They have a Greek god motif going on, looking like the god of war, Ares. The gold coloring mixed with spiked halo is a bit reminiscent of Helios, the sun god. The masks they all wear are not unlike the dramatic masks the Greeks used to wear when representing the gods in their plays. The lightning symbols draws comparisons to Zeus. Although the warhammers and idea of warrior Gods fighting off an apocalypse seem more Norse to me. So it is a mix of influences.
So your mother fething FANTASY setting remains unperturbed by the inclusion of distinctly thematic, fantasy elements.
There are so many things wrong with it I have heard about that I will never actually play it....just paint the one kit for it I got.
Hey man. that's entirely your choice to make. I think you are wrong about some things, or at the very least, by taking an overly pessimistic view on the game, aren't allowing yourself a fair chance to enjoy the game. But you don't have to enjoy something if you don't want to. I think it is pretty nifty though. Even the mustache rule.
Is the mustache rule still cool if a girl happens to have that army?
Is the mustache rule still cool if a girl happens to have that army?
I'm sorry, but I find having one's knickers in a twist over those rules really, really stupid and I often ask those people to re-think their lives as they obviously seem to not have bigger problems in their lives. It's obvious that those few odd rules were made "for the lulz" as a funny, silly send-off for the legacy armies (Sigmarines, Sylvaneth or Khornites don't have such rules and I believe Pestilens skaven don't have them either) and if you don't like it just act like that's a fixed bonus for your units or ignore it altogether if that's yours and your opponent's conclusion. If a girl gets worked up over the beard rule for dwarfs or moustache rule for Empire then, I'm sorry, but she's being stupid. It is obvious that they aren't supposed to be treated seriously, so reactions like that only make that person look unreasonable.
So, yeah, those rules are nifty and fun. They go along well with the casual beer and pretzels fun that AoS aspires to be. If you don't like it, house rule it. Noone with a brain is going to treat those rules seriously so you can always come to some conclusion with your opponent.
tydrace wrote: Saw a couple of Age of Sigmar games this weekend. The second game, the Ogre played won before the other player got its first turn due to Sudden Death (Ogres had less models).
Both players still agreed the first match was fun, but that wouldn't want to use the Sudden Death rules anymore.
What, how? Two of the conditions require playing until at least turn 4 and if you picked something close to the Ogre battleline as your 'kill this' option, that's hardly the rules' problem!
If you don't like Sudden Death but don't want to houserule too much, most of the scenarios in the books ignore it as a victory condition.
I remember there's also a way to break the game by taking Nagash. If you take him and only him and get first turn, you can summon some 160 skeletons minimum instantly. Not sure whether it's actually allowed, but there ya go.
Vasarto wrote: Is the mustache rule still cool if a girl happens to have that army?
Does it say that it has to be a real mustache? Wear a fake mustache or draw one on your finger and hold it up to your nose. Grab some greasepaint and pull a Groucho. Heck, just hold a pencil between your upper lips and your nose. Glue a caterpillar to your face. Go nuts.
The way I see it, you can have fun and enjoy a game with rules like that or you can be a whiny little bitch about it, sucking all the joy from the room with your swirling vortex of cheerless, woebegone melancholy. Personally, I find games more entertaining when people don't actively avoid playing with me.
CoreCommander wrote: I've just introduced AoS to a friend of mine as I was very interested in the reaction of a person that has never played a miniatures game before. So, what's his background:
1. Has played some boardgames - 3 to be precise: Star Realms, Death Angel and Twilight Struggle. Of the three, he prefers Star Realms 99% of the time.
2. Mostly plays PC games in his spare time. A couple of years ago he was heavily invested in DoW2 so I suppose that he has some vision for himself how a warhammer 40k battle should look or feel.
His feedback on AoS was that the game seems to be quick and dynamic. He didn't have problems learning the rules and he didn't have any questions about them. Overall he likes them, but right off the bat he suggested that we should tweak them a little as to make them more reasonable (for him). He thought that each player could only choose one type of attack with any single unit (ranged or melee), that the battle phases should not be locked in order and that players should alternate in activating units. All units should still be allowed only one phase of a type per round (so a unit can't move twice for example). For example:
1. Jim moves his unit A
2. Bob shoots with his unit B
3 Jim assaults with his unit A
4. Bob moves his unit C
etc.
What was interesting for me is that:
1. The player had ZERO problems with tweaking the rules to his liking. I suspect that have they been longer he wouldn't have wanted to. Right now he sees that units can shoot, run, move and assault and is thinking how could these 4 simple actions be arranged so that the game feel right to him.
2. Other players that I have played with, in times past, will not try the game under any circumstances or will try it only to prove their point that it is a "bad" game (what would be a "good" game is another topic). No one was willing to tweak the rules and all were adamant that should the game be played it must be played as is. They see neither possibility for growth nor anything interesting to them in AoS. The players I'm talking about played 40k at some point in the past and then moved to Warmahordes, Infinity and Malifaux.
This is nothing new for any of you, I suppose, but I thought that another comparison between "new" and "old" players' reactions is in tone with the topic. Take it as you want.
That's nice, but pickup games and house rules don't generally go well together. I used to play pickup games of chess at lunch time. If I had to learn new rules for every person I played, I would never have bothered. I don't have time for such nonsense, and I don't find such behavior enjoyable. If you do, well that's great for you. But if a game requires house rules to be fun, then that implies to me that the rules are poorly designed from the outset.
Sqorgar wrote: think it is pretty nifty though. Even the mustache rule.
Is the mustache rule still cool if a girl happens to have that army?
Absolutely.
And that doesn't even get into the beards and mustaches one can buy on Amazon (by RAW, the mustache only need be present, not necessarily naturally-grown).
Kilkrazy wrote: Space Mariens are merely superhumans in pauldrons. So are Sigmarines. That's the way GW wrote them.
We've lived with that SM imagery for over 25 years, so it's going to be a bit difficult to let go.
I dunno man the writers are writing them differently compared to space marines in my opinion.
They are superhumans that get killed by blunted weapons, make camps because they actually tire like warriors, superhumans who also feel horror, despair and literally cry about their lost memories and loved ones and mind you some of them went running after the illusions of their old loved ones charging right into the line of khorne axes dying in the process. Oh and a stormcast vomiting through his helmet upon seeing a GUO. Even the stormhost obessed with vengeance against chaos their leader showed sympathy to a chaos warrior he killed upon seeing his face.
Book spoilers marking
Spoiler:
He moved over to the corpse and took off his helmet wanting to see the "monster" he killed Instead of seeing a mutated monstrosity under the tzeentch warrior Armour he just saw a young man who looked normal. The leader of the chamber looked at the man he killed and he pitied and felt sympathy because he realized he was born into a world where chaos ruled and having no choice in the matter of joining the hordes of chaos. His brother in arms wondered what he was doing and upon explaining he simply said "it does not matter he is a follower of chaos he had a choice like we did".
Then the leader of the warchamber for the celestial vindicators noted no he did not since those were different times when many settlements/cities were still fighting against chaos(the time before when they were taken away by sigmar to be reforged which was a LONG time ago) while in the current world chaos controlled all and most likely they had his family at sword point to either join or die no one there to help or save him so he joined. (This is the stormhost obsessed with vengeance and fighting against chaos by the way) They moved on after putting down the helmet, now if that was a space marine? He would just blasted his face not giving a flying funk why he did what he did or pitying on his situation or showing sympathy on why someone chose to sell their soul to chaos.
The Hallowed knights/Celestial Vindicators stormhosts are my favorites considering the events of the book in the warstorm. The reason why I find stormcast more interesting is because even though the reforging process messed up their memories somewhat their memories are "still" there and dealing with all those old memories resurfacing these warriors are not children/teenagers grown and made into weapons like space marines.
But men, women and of all races not aligned to chaos who have lost families, homes and loved ones and want to push back the tide of chaos hell the leader of the Hallow knights stormhost
Spoiler:
Was pretty much a simple priest in charge of a hospice that pretty much got infected by the plagues of nurgle keeping his faith true while all his patients were begging him to kill them because of the pain of nurgles plagues. (Since killing someone infected by a nurgle plague would be bad if you know your lore.) Not some super warrior who survived some hellish training regime then made into a super soldier, While vandus was a blacksmith and leader of a tribe that got wrecked by the Khorne chaos Lord Khul and to this day the memories of his family his wife, children and clan still haunt him.
Hence why many of them prefer not the die even though they get reforged is because they end up losing the most valuable thing they have left, the memories of their past. Let's not also forget the process slightly murdering their emotions slowly turning them into a robot the more times they die. Plus the stronger the stormcast the longer it takes for the forging to complete.
Yeah design wise people can talk to the cows come home about how similar they look to space marines but personality wise? How they act? In my opinion the are pretty much nothing like space marines they act pretty human in opinion. In eyes after reading the books they are just the good/order version of chaos warriors. Hell one stormhost just view sigmar as a man who rose to power hence why they try to keep themselves from bowing in his presence. (sigmar does not mind this either)
Well this is my opinion on the subject and as with all opinions you are free to disagree with me.
That's nice, but pickup games and house rules don't generally go well together. I used to play pickup games of chess at lunch time. If I had to learn new rules for every person I played, I would never have bothered. I don't have time for such nonsense, and I don't find such behavior enjoyable. If you do, well that's great for you. But if a game requires house rules to be fun, then that implies to me that the rules are poorly designed from the outset.
To be more exact, the game didn't require any additional rules to be fun to the new player. It was O.K. for him as it was. He just thought it would be better if we tweaked it. I can say the same for 40k or other games that I play that have much more detailed rules than AoS. The fun part for the new player comes from the cool factor in the warscrolls. The core rules themselves are malleable.
To clarify (as I didn't say if I like the game or not in my previous post) - I don't find the game to be an unequaled masterpiece. In fact I used to think very poorly of it, but I've grown kind of fond of it. Now I think it is just an O.K. introductory game to mini-wargaming and GW's lore/miniatures. It certainly lacks detail compared to other games, but on the other hand I managed to sell it to a person who's a fan of 40k lore. I tried to get him into 40k, but the learning curve kind of put him off.
Klerych wrote: If a girl gets worked up over the beard rule for dwarfs or moustache rule for Empire then, I'm sorry, but she's being stupid. It is obvious that they aren't supposed to be treated seriously, so reactions like that only make that person look unreasonable.
The beard rule is not a good look for the game. The subtext to it is that they either didn't consider that a woman might be playing or they didn't care enough to take it into consideration. After reading the rule I came to the same justification as other players, above - it doesn't say the beard has to be real. Heck, it doesn't say you have to be wearing it, either. Start collecting the beards of your enemies and forge them into a super-beard. But all that's after the fact justification for a rule from a developer that has historically gone out of their way to exclude women with all sorts of "girls are icky" fluff (see: orcs, space marines, dwarves. I played a dwarf engineer in Warhammer Online. She was great and I had a great time. Later I found out there were players who thought my being able to play her was the worst thing to ever happen to Warhammer.)
I guess what I'm saying is please don't get overemotional about it. It's only a rule. It's okay if people think it's dumb and say so.
~
I've played all of the six scenarios in the starter book now. In the sixth one we added Skarr Bloodwrath and the Judicators to the armies from the starter. I think it is becoming very apparent that Age of Sigmar is best played with a ton of terrain and that the terrain has to actually restrict movement in some way. The "Warmachine Table" terrain style does not work here. I think you probably also really need to use the terrain setup rules to give the terrain more character - they don't say you have to roll on the table, just pick rules for them. There are also lots of special rules - the scenery battlescrolls have rules for things like "Walls", for instance. I think it's essential to use the rules provided for terrain to avoid the dreaded scrum in the middle of the table phenomenon.
The sixth scenario in the book is a showdown where the goal is to kill the enemy general with your general. In our game, this caused the game to begin with a redshirt massacre and then a clash between the two generals, supported by the (pretty fearsome) characters in their army. At the end of the combat phase, one was left with two wounds remaining and the other with one! The next combat phase saw a victory for Vandus Hammerhand, Stormcast Lord-Celestant, who struck down Korghos Khul with one wound remaining (by causing one unsaved wound in the combat phase). Just like in the book!!! It was really dramatic! Good job, Age of Sigmar!
So far my main complaint is dice rolling content. Too much time is spent rolling dice and rerolling dice! I think we are going to attempt a technological solution to this problem.
There is also too much flipping between warscrolls, especially ones in different places. I definitely think some kind of improved reference format is required here. Cards would have been nice - the warscrolls are pretty, and they're fine for book entries, but there should be a more concise format for tabletop play.
Cards would have been nice - the warscrolls are pretty, and they're fine for book entries, but there should be a more concise format for tabletop play.
Agreed they seem to have missed several tricks here - printed colour card packs of "armies" would have been a good seller - at least to everyone I know playing the game.
Works well for WM/H, Malifuax and others..........
I guess what I'm saying is please don't get overemotional about it. It's only a rule. It's okay if people think it's dumb and say so.
Let me guess your not female? I would have no problem with the stupid rules, if there were also rules that work for female players too.
Bad guess.
ETA: I think perhaps you have misread me. It's not female players who I think should "not get overemotional." It's people who get extremely upset whenever anyone says something (like that rule) is kinda messed up. Hope that helps clarify!
Automatically Appended Next Post: I wonder if it would be possible to legally make cards? It seems like stats would probably be okay but maybe not reprinting the rules text verbatim. Summary ones should be alright, at least for the warscrolls that are freely available?
Cards would be massive. I'd buy cards for pretty much every single unit that ever came out, whether I owned them or not. They would help so much on the battlefield. Too much page flipping with scrolls, hard to remember everything.
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: I wonder if it would be possible to legally make cards? It seems like stats would probably be okay but maybe not reprinting the rules text verbatim. Summary ones should be alright, at least for the warscrolls that are freely available?
I think most (all?) of the warscrolls fit on a single page in a PDF file, so you could just print them out at 50% scale, four to a page. The text would be a bit small, though I doubt there'd be any problems of legality.
+1 for cards, but from a business stand point they'd be tricky.
1st, due to the limited space you'd have to produce native language versions. Not a massive issue, but a consideration.
Doing them as singles in the boxes wouldn't necessarily work for this reason.
2nd, because of the first reason, you'd have to do them as 'packs' - but this causes problems because (using Stormcasts as an example) while you could do it for existing units, we already know that there is another Prosecutor variant in the pipeline, the Ghal Maraz book makes mention of two units (Command Temple and Hunter-Assassins) that we haven't seen pics of yet, and there's indications of a possible big gribbly in the pipeline, meaning the packs would have to be constantly updated.
The only other option is web-only individual orders, which would have all kind of logistic nightmares attached to them.
RoperPG wrote: 1st, due to the limited space you'd have to produce native language versions. Not a massive issue, but a consideration.
Actually, that's probably a pretty massive issue. I don't know how they do it in the unit packs, but the scenery I've purchased had the rules in five different languages (as did the assembly instructions for the the AoS box set). My guess is that GW does a lot of business in European non-English speaking countries, and it would be problematic to package each product in fully localized versions. This means they'd have to include 5 cards with each unit (potentially much more - don't the Prosecutors come in three varieties in a single box, so 15 cards?), of which the extras would just be additional cost as played throw them out. And we all know how GW feels about additional costs.
It's possible that once the armies are more complete, they could release faction decks, but it depends on the release style for the armies. Are they going to just release armies as one big chunk, infrequently, or will they continue to add to old armies at a constant rate? From what I've seen, they intend to do a lot of story-based, limited time models, so faction decks may not be possible either.
Frankly, the app is the best solution, and it would be great if it worked on older iOS equipment, or I could get it from the Amazon store for my Kindle, but I'm SOL.
The only other option is web-only individual orders, which would have all kind of logistic nightmares attached to them.
That's how Privateer Press currently does upgrade cards for Warmachine MKII. I recently had to order about 40 cards for my various MKI units at a cost of 50 cents a piece. Not bad, except when you consider the $5 shipping fee. I'd be pissed if I had to pay $5.50 for a single missing card.
1. The player had ZERO problems with tweaking the rules to his liking. I suspect that have they been longer he wouldn't have wanted to. Right now he sees that units can shoot, run, move and assault and is thinking how could these 4 simple actions be arranged so that the game feel right to him.
2. Other players that I have played with, in times past, will not try the game under any circumstances or will try it only to prove their point that it is a "bad" game (what would be a "good" game is another topic). No one was willing to tweak the rules and all were adamant that should the game be played it must be played as is. They see neither possibility for growth nor anything interesting to them in AoS. The players I'm talking about played 40k at some point in the past and then moved to Warmahordes, Infinity and Malifaux.
This is nothing new for any of you, I suppose, but I thought that another comparison between "new" and "old" players' reactions is in tone with the topic. Take it as you want.
I have no problems with tweaking rules that I don't like to the betterment of my group's experience. What I have a problem with is HAVING to tweak many of the rules just from the get go to get the game to what I would like it to be. As such I will just play something else. This isn't specific to AoS either. I havetried tons of different mini games in my day that I just didn't like the rules for so moved on to something else and no one cared. It is only within the bounds of GW players that people get offended when someone says that one of their games or the company itself has even the slightest negative issues about it. I play games I like and when AoS was announced hoped that maybe it would rekindle my interest in fantasy. After the release that was a No. Such is life and I won't lose any sleep over it and will keep playing the other stuff I enjoy.
I am really intrigued that coming in completely cold even this total mini-gaming newb saw how annoying the I GO-YOU GO turn process is. He had some good insights and ideas right from the start. All he needs is a bit of a discussion with other gamers to find a game that actually already fits the bill of what he would like to see and he would likely move on from AoS too.
We have never had issues with house rules for pick up games. Though with my 40k House rules they take up one side of a sheet of paper and that is with art.
I just printed a few copies and laminated them to hand out to see if my opponent wants to use them. If there are any they don't want to use we cross them off with a dry erase marker and don't use them.
One guy commented that he was not realy into 'House Rules', but because they were easy to read and I had made an effort to make them easily available he did not have any issues with them.
I am really intrigued that coming in completely cold even this total mini-gaming newb saw how annoying the I GO-YOU GO turn process is. He had some good insights and ideas right from the start. All he needs is a bit of a discussion with other gamers to find a game that actually already fits the bill of what he would like to see and he would likely move on from AoS too.
I was also surprised by his feedback to tell you. I'm guilty of belonging to the latter group of gamers and years of playing games by the rules with no tweaking whatsoever has left me a bit dry on ideas. My changes would've been based on games that I know to work well - it seems I've become lazy and will just try to borrow the rule that most closely does what I want from somewhere else (I'd even search for such a rule in systems I don't play). My post was more about how a completely new player, unburdened by any frameworks imposed to him by other games, would react to a mostly "empty" (compared to other games) system, than trying to show that AoS is a good system. I still think it is a good introductory experience, but as you said I've been preparing him for other games (DZC for example).
I am really intrigued that coming in completely cold even this total mini-gaming newb saw how annoying the I GO-YOU GO turn process is.
AoS is a hybrid. The movement/shooting/charge phases are I-Go-U-Go, but the combat phase is alternating (with some maneuvering through pile in) and both players perform battle shock every turn. I like that, as it gives you the ability to coordinate some grander strategy with your units, while still having combat be more immediate and reactive.
I was enjoying a few games of AoS, until my local group all decided to adopt a specific comp which kills summoning. That's half the reason I played again.
krodarklorr wrote: I was enjoying a few games of AoS, until my local group all decided to adopt a specific comp which kills summoning. That's half the reason I played again.
Yeah, I suppose that would tint it somewhat. No game is fun when you're against TFG.
Kilkrazy wrote: A lot of people would argue it is TFG who likes unlimited summoning.
I don't summon unlimited. I enjoy moderate amounts of summoning, like extra Warriors or extra archers here and there, nothing crazy. I don't even own that many warriors. I just dislike the fact that simply because I also own Arkhan and Nagash, they want to nerf summoning, even though I don't want to use them in particular. A normal Liche priest summoning is not that scary.
I guess what I'm saying is please don't get overemotional about it. It's only a rule. It's okay if people think it's dumb and say so.
Let me guess your not female? I would have no problem with the stupid rules, if there were also rules that work for female players too.
You know, it's easier to come up with a rule about moustache for renaissance knights or beards for dwarfs, but what would you cast as a feminine rule? Who has bigger breasts? Curvier body? That's sexualizing. Has more make-up on? Sound slaaneshy, tbh. Be able to name at least seven different shades of some colour? See, it's not that easy - beards and moustaches are just tropes for those things based on history and precursors of the genre. What'd be the feminine trope that fits the era? Who cooks better? Who does better laundry? That's awfully sexist. Maybe wearing a dress? But that's still dodgy, what if she wears a skirt or shorts/pants? It's hard to find a feminine trait that can be used as an idea for a funny rule without being offensive and you can't blame GW for including one in their game. Maybe they even tried and failed, we'll never know.
You know, it's easier to come up with a rule about moustache for renaissance knights or beards for dwarfs, but what would you cast as a feminine rule? Who has bigger breasts? Curvier body? That's sexualizing.
First, in Tolkien's universe, even the female Dwarves had beards. It's a Dwarf thing.
Second, I cannot grow a beard. I do not complain.
Third, I would totally wear a padded bra if it allowed me to reroll 1's. That's just how I (re-)roll.
Fourth, people looking to be offended will always find something. Going through life, terrified of -isms is no way to live.
krodarklorr wrote: I was enjoying a few games of AoS, until my local group all decided to adopt a specific comp which kills summoning. That's half the reason I played again.
It's not a specific comp just to kill summoning and straight up banning Nagash and Arkhan just because you have them, it's because they're quite powerful in whats supposed to be a slow growth escalation, with the first week being 500 points per PPC comp. Also, summoning was house ruled to be not as strict as PPC.
I guess what I'm saying is please don't get overemotional about it. It's only a rule. It's okay if people think it's dumb and say so.
Let me guess your not female? I would have no problem with the stupid rules, if there were also rules that work for female players too.
You know, it's easier to come up with a rule about moustache for renaissance knights or beards for dwarfs, but what would you cast as a feminine rule? Who has bigger breasts? Curvier body? That's sexualizing. Has more make-up on? Sound slaaneshy, tbh. Be able to name at least seven different shades of some colour? See, it's not that easy - beards and moustaches are just tropes for those things based on history and precursors of the genre. What'd be the feminine trope that fits the era? Who cooks better? Who does better laundry? That's awfully sexist. Maybe wearing a dress? But that's still dodgy, what if she wears a skirt or shorts/pants? It's hard to find a feminine trait that can be used as an idea for a funny rule without being offensive and you can't blame GW for including one in their game. Maybe they even tried and failed, we'll never know.
That's not even hard - bonus for whoever has longer hair.
Just ignore the joke rules and assume their effects work automatically. The game is still playable.
I agree GW misjudged the audience reaction to their efforts at humour but we've had six weeks to get over it.
To get back to the summoning thing, If you have Lizard Men their wizards can summon a wide variety of units at the rate of three or four units per game turn, subject to counter-spells.
I can see how it might become excessive. OTOH each summons is a lost opportunity for a different spell, so perhaps it balances.
Sqorgar wrote:Third, I would totally wear a padded bra if it allowed me to reroll 1's. That's just how I (re-)roll.
If one of my guy friends wore a padded bra to 40k, they could reroll anything they wanted, as many times as they wanted, as long as they let me snap a picture.
Kilkrazy wrote:To get back to the summoning thing, If you have Lizard Men their wizards can summon a wide variety of units at the rate of three or four units per game turn, subject to counter-spells.
I can see how it might become excessive. OTOH each summons is a lost opportunity for a different spell, so perhaps it balances.
I'm sure this has been brought up before, but all summoned models do NOT count towards the total number of models in the army but must be counted as casualties when determining victory whether or not they're alive at the end of the game. So if you have a 30 model army and summon 30 more models, you've automatically lost unless you can table your opponent -- at the end of the game, you'll have lost 30 models out of 30 total, even if nothing died.
Even if someone's not that extreme -- each summoned model needs to kill 1 opponent's model just to pay for itself. It needs to remove TWO opponent models to be worthwhile. So if you want summon 5 critters, unless you kill more than 5 enemies, you're in the hole for counting up minor victory.
However as a Lizard Man army, what you would do is to have some wizards protected by large blocks of cheap troops, and summon expensive models like Stegadons and Temple Guards that can do a lot of damage.
Obviously your objective will be to gain a major victory. As your summoned troops don't become casualties twice if killed, you don't mind expending them to protect your original army.
This reduces the problem of summoning.
But we are getting off the point, which is that there are already controls built into the game, and there is no need to introduce house rules regarding summoning.
Sqorgar wrote:Third, I would totally wear a padded bra if it allowed me to reroll 1's. That's just how I (re-)roll.
If one of my guy friends wore a padded bra to 40k, they could reroll anything they wanted, as many times as they wanted, as long as they let me snap a picture.
Kilkrazy wrote:To get back to the summoning thing, If you have Lizard Men their wizards can summon a wide variety of units at the rate of three or four units per game turn, subject to counter-spells.
I can see how it might become excessive. OTOH each summons is a lost opportunity for a different spell, so perhaps it balances.
I'm sure this has been brought up before, but all summoned models do NOT count towards the total number of models in the army but must be counted as casualties when determining victory whether or not they're alive at the end of the game. So if you have a 30 model army and summon 30 more models, you've automatically lost unless you can table your opponent -- at the end of the game, you'll have lost 30 models out of 30 total, even if nothing died.
Even if someone's not that extreme -- each summoned model needs to kill 1 opponent's model just to pay for itself. It needs to remove TWO opponent models to be worthwhile. So if you want summon 5 critters, unless you kill more than 5 enemies, you're in the hole for counting up minor victory.
But that is not how summoning works. Your dead summoned models count to your casualties, but your living summoned models do not. The rules states that you do not increase your original army size. Meaning, if you have an army of 30 models, you summon 30 models, and you enemy kills 30 models of you, you lost 100% of your original army size. If the enemy kills 20 models, you lost 66%, and if your enemy kills 40 models, you've lost 133%.
IE: The enemy still needs to kill the same amount of models for the same amount of percentage, regardless of how many models you have summoned.
krodarklorr wrote: I was enjoying a few games of AoS, until my local group all decided to adopt a specific comp which kills summoning. That's half the reason I played again.
It's not a specific comp just to kill summoning and straight up banning Nagash and Arkhan just because you have them, it's because they're quite powerful in whats supposed to be a slow growth escalation, with the first week being 500 points per PPC comp. Also, summoning was house ruled to be not as strict as PPC.
Well, yeah, I'm aware. But as I said before, I standard Liche Priest using summoning isn't game breaking, especially if we play that you need the Warscrolls on the table in the first place to even summon them. But the comp makes summoning more or less useless, and then house rules such as "May only successfully summon a unit once per game" is just icing on the cake.
I'm not trying to whine here, as I was totally on board for AoS (at least for fun, ever so often), but my whole store is on board with whichever comp system it is, and it's just.....eeeehhhhhhh. I'm not a fan of non-official rules.
Kilkrazy wrote: As your summoned troops don't become casualties twice if killed, you don't mind expending them to protect your original army.
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. When a model is defeated, it is removed from play (and can not be summoned again). How could summoned casualties ever be counted twice?
Kilkrazy wrote: As your summoned troops don't become casualties twice if killed, you don't mind expending them to protect your original army.
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. When a model is defeated, it is removed from play (and can not be summoned again). How could summoned casualties ever be counted twice?
That's because the initial size of your army doesn't change with summoning. And since it's the % of models killed in comparison with the initial number of models you started the game that decide the victory, that's why it's a double penalty.
- Your summoned models count in the number needed to kill to win
- They don't augment your initial number of models so that to see if you managed to kill a % enough to win
Well, we played our games first with simple wound count.
It doesn't really work. For instance, take 10 Executioners and compare them to 10 Bloodreavers. Same number of wounds but the Executioners are absolutely mean.
Now we play according the Azyr comp system. Seems to be a much better approximation.
Here 10 Executioners cost 6 pts, while 10 Bloodreavers cost 2 pts.
It appears that Warmachines are slightly undercosted.
Kilkrazy wrote: As your summoned troops don't become casualties twice if killed, you don't mind expending them to protect your original army.
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. When a model is defeated, it is removed from play (and can not be summoned again). How could summoned casualties ever be counted twice?
What I mean is that if you accept the meaning of the rule about summoning to be that summoned models count as casualties, then it doesn't matter if they get killed and become casualties, because there is no such thing as a double casualty. This leads to some interesting possible tactics using summoned units, based on the points that the summoning player doesn't mind if they are killed, and the opposing player would rather avoid killing them in favour of attacking units that will count towards the score.
BTW where is the rule that says that a summoned model that gets removed from the table cannot be summoned again?
Kilkrazy wrote: What I mean is that if you accept the meaning of the rule about summoning to be that summoned models count as casualties, then it doesn't matter if they get killed and become casualties, because there is no such thing as a double casualty. This leads to some interesting possible tactics using summoned units, based on the points that the summoning player doesn't mind if they are killed, and the opposing player would rather avoid killing them in favour of attacking units that will count towards the score.
My reading of the rule is that they only counted towards the casualties if they, themselves, became casualties, but upon rereading the rule, it does appear that summoned units are added to casualties, full stop. So if you have a 50 model army and summon 50 models, you get 100% casualties regardless of whether any of them are actually killed?
BTW where is the rule that says that a summoned model that gets removed from the table cannot be summoned again?
It says that units you do not deploy are kept in reserve (page 2, set-up), so they have a designation which indicates that they are in play. However, on page 4 under inflicting wounds, when a model receives enough wounds, it is slain. Slain models are placed off to the side, "it is removed from play". (It may not be completely obvious, but I've always seen "removed from play" in board games used as "put that sucker back in the box, you won't be needing that anymore" - which this rule reads like)
I'm pretty sure the spirit of the rules is that you have your collection, which the opponent knows about, that you can summon from. You can't just go, "ah ha! I'm summoning these 37 demons that I never told you about" and then go "oh, you murdered my 37 demons... I summon them again! Bazinga!"
I think both those rules would greatly benefit from official clarification, since they reasonably can be interpreted different ways as they stand.
It seems to me that if your collection includes models that can be summoned, the other guy knows that, (I would tell him) and the point of summoning is that the troops don't have to be on the table, not that you have a limited number of them. Some units have the power of reincarnation, and clearly do come back on to the table from off it after being killed.
Certainly in 40K when running my Tervigon, whose power is giving birth to new Termagants, no-one ever thought it was a problem to bring the gribblies on to the table again if they had been shot.
Models added to your army during the game (for example, through summoning, reinforcements, reincarnation and so on) do not count towards the number of models in the army, but must be counted among the casualties an army suffers.
Taking out the center phrase about not counting towards total number of models in the army, that reads: "Models added to your army during the game (for example through summoning) must be counted among the casualties an army suffers."
That means if you summon 10 models, they "must be counted among the casualties an army suffers." It doesn't say anywhere that they must be counted among casualties if they are removed.
I see no possibility of ambiguity at all. You could argue that that the latter phrase is Rules as Intended, but certainly as written it is clear.
By the way, I also read this as: if you summon a model, your opponent kills it, you summon it again, and your opponent kills it again, and you summon it a third time -- that counts as 3 casualties. Because it is 3 models added to your army during the game.
Kilkrazy wrote: It seems to me that if your collection includes models that can be summoned, the other guy knows that, (I would tell him) and the point of summoning is that the troops don't have to be on the table, not that you have a limited number of them. Some units have the power of reincarnation, and clearly do come back on to the table from off it after being killed.
I don't have a lot of familiarity with the legacy troops, but going by the Tomb Kings PDF, reincarnation seems to add a model to an existing unit, while raising skeletons summons a new unit of skeletons. Reincarnation would be clearer if they said "return" a model to an existing unit, since as written, it seems you can just keep adding new models, even more than you originally started with. Near as I can tell, there is no functional difference between "raise" and "summon". It could be that for reincarnation, you are not actually bringing back a model you have lost, but instead replenishing ranks with new skeletons. Reincarnation is mentioned in the casualty minor victory section in the same breath as summoning as "adding models to your army".
I understand what you are saying, but I think the rules are pretty clear. Models you don't add to your army go into your reserve, "playing no part unless fate lends a hand" - meaning they are in play, but not part of your army. Slain models are "placed to one side - they are removed from play". If the models were to be moved back into the reserve, it would say as much. Removed from play is a much stronger phrase than removed from the table, or removed from one's army.
A clarification would be nice though. For all we know, it's a typo and they should be "removed from pray".
Sqorgar wrote: it does appear that summoned units are added to casualties, full stop. So if you have a 50 model army and summon 50 models, you get 100% casualties regardless of whether any of them are actually killed?
Yup. That is why the other player should prefer to kill the initial 50 models, because 10 of those + 50 summoned = 60 casualties / 50 original models > 100% casualties!
I actually think the summoning rules are really balanced RAW. It prevents people from summoning stuff just because, but the skills are still valuable.
If you summon/resurrect a model and it can kill off at least one enemy model, you're ok; if your summoned creatures can give you some tactical advantage that's good too. But you can't summon your way to victory unless you're sure you can table the other guy, because at some point all those summoned work against your victory conditions.
Not wanting to turn this into a YMDC thread, but the phrasing around "casualties", "play" and so on is ill-defined, ambiguous and subject to different possible interpretations. Every time I go back and read the rules again, I change my mind again about what they might mean.
E.g. "removed from play" can be interpreted as models that are not on the table and able to do stuff. What does being "in play" mean? Most people would say it was being on the table. Who would argue that models that aren't on the table can move and attack? If they can't, perhaps being removed from play simply means that models cannot "do stuff".
These areas where a greater degree of clarity by GW would be very welcome.
Anyway, we are digressing. Let's get back to the main topic.
JohnHwangDD wrote: If one summons and re-summons enough stuff (and it could be an awful lot of stuff), tabling should be a foregone conclusion.
If the game lasts forever, sure. But if the games don't, summoners die, some units don't die so easy, and all that kind of thing. You also may trigger sudden death at a point when your opponent still has enough models to matter, too.
E.g. "removed from play" can be interpreted as models that are not on the table and able to do stuff. What does being "in play" mean? Most people would say it was being on the table. Who would argue that models that aren't on the table can move and attack? If they can't, perhaps being removed from play simply means that models cannot "do stuff".
"Once the number of wounds suffered by a model during the battle equals its Wounds characteristic, the model is slain. Place the slain model to one side - it is removed from play."
If a model dies, you no longer use it. I think any other interpretation is overcomplicating what is a very simple statement. Remember that the rules are written for newcomers, they're just trying to stress that you can't play with a slain unit.
I don't think summoned models count towards Sudden Death because they are not part of your army. This morning I am leaning towards the interpretation that summoned units count as casualties, partly because it seems to balance against the previous point.
There are more constraints on summoning than are obvious, though. As noted above, you need a summoner. He can't summon unless there is space to do so, which is usually something like an 18 inch bubble centred on the summoner and at least three inches from an enemy model.
JohnHwangDD wrote: If one summons and re-summons enough stuff (and it could be an awful lot of stuff), tabling should be a foregone conclusion.
If the game lasts forever, sure. But if the games don't, summoners die, some units don't die so easy, and all that kind of thing. You also may trigger sudden death at a point when your opponent still has enough models to matter, too.
Sudden Death is determined before the game begins, and is not "triggered" in any way mid game.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think summoned models count towards Sudden Death because they are not part of your army. This morning I am leaning towards the interpretation that summoned units count as casualties, partly because it seems to balance against the previous point.
There are more constraints on summoning than are obvious, though. As noted above, you need a summoner. He can't summon unless there is space to do so, which is usually something like an 18 inch bubble centred on the summoner and at least three inches from an enemy model.
'Models added to your army during the game (or example, through summoning, reinforcements, reincarnation and so on) do not count towards the number of models in the army, but must be counted among the casualties an army suffers.'
So yes, summoned units don't count as sudden death, but do count as casualties towards minor victory objectives. Also summoning does seem to have limits as stated on the summoned units' warscroll or the summoner's. It's also a spell that can fail or be unbound by other wizards.
Nagash is still horrifically OP and I'd suggest creating a scenario around him or imposing heavy limits on his summoning.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't think summoned models count towards Sudden Death because they are not part of your army. This morning I am leaning towards the interpretation that summoned units count as casualties, partly because it seems to balance against the previous point.
There are more constraints on summoning than are obvious, though. As noted above, you need a summoner. He can't summon unless there is space to do so, which is usually something like an 18 inch bubble centred on the summoner and at least three inches from an enemy model.
Yeah, I think you're right, and I misunderstood the sudden death rules (which we never came across).
It always seems pretty farcical to talk about balance in a game like AoS.
Balance is quite obviously not the goal, and it's supposed to be up to players to do anything like that they feel is needed. If players want to have summoning, then they can. If not, then they get rid of it. Isn't that the philosophy of AoS? Balance is for other games.
JohnHwangDD wrote: If one summons and re-summons enough stuff (and it could be an awful lot of stuff), tabling should be a foregone conclusion.
Yep. And not hard to do if you put a little effort into summoning. Some darn fine troops are summoned on low rolls. I wouldn't waste time trying for a stegadon when 3 kroxigors does the job.
We are doing an escalation league, where summoning would screw up the games something fierce. We've gone to using Azyr points system, but with a mechanic we are just calling "reservers". Currently at 20 point armies and 10 points of reservers. Reserve units come on the table either by being summoned (no need for the same unit on the table) or by moving on from a board edge similar to 40k. This gives armies that like to summon the ability to do so, and armies that can't an equal amount of troops.
Da Boss wrote: It always seems pretty farcical to talk about balance in a game like AoS.
Balance is quite obviously not the goal, and it's supposed to be up to players to do anything like that they feel is needed. If players want to have summoning, then they can. If not, then they get rid of it. Isn't that the philosophy of AoS? Balance is for other games.
I've said it before. If you want a balanced game, AOS isn't it.
funny how that works right..
Any game can be used for scenario driven entertainment.
), the last play we had was having to take care of a troll nest that was plaguing the region we were protecting (and also ruling). We fought our way to their boss and managed to kill them. We had a feeling of winning, here...managing to defeat the trolls and removing a serious threat to our subjects. If we had to retreat because we attacked too brashly, then we will have the feeling to have lost here - even if it didn't mean the death of our characters and still could try another time, there was no guarantee the trolls would stay here and do nothing. There would have been consequences, one and none the less the rumors running around our realm that their rulers were defeated by the rampaging trolls and couldn't do anything.
I used the starter kit Chaos Lord and my opponent used chaos guy on mount.
