For me it depends on the rules for existing miniatures. I'll take a look tomorrow and then decide on whether or not the starter set is something to pick up... Might not need 2 more armies, regardless of size.
I'm buying in for the minis, so I might as well try the rules!
Beyond that, I do believe they have potential. Not potential to be the best game ever, but potential to be a good way to kill an evening, and for getting new players and pressganged family/friends into it. To a newcomer, I think a 4-page booklet is a lot less daunting than a 200-page tome!
They just need an approximation of balance, and up in the Proposed Rules forum a bunch of us are already throwing around ideas for that.
I have seen the proposed rules thread, and the work that you guys are already doing is greatly appreciated. The fact that you should not have to be doing it is an entirely different matter.
I'm certainly going to give it a try. I have been, and will be, passing judgement on it, so it would be remiss if I didn't at least give it a go. I won't be spending any money on it though (no starter set for me) unless it's something I enjoy and, even then, unless GW release some awesome models for Elves/Undead, I'll likely just be using the models I already have, if I can.
Thraxas Of Turai wrote: I have seen the proposed rules thread, and the work that you guys are already doing is greatly appreciated. The fact that you should not have to be doing it is an entirely different matter.
Thanks! Do feel free to chip in if you have any thoughts of your own, on balancing or just general fixing of the rules.
Personally, I don't mind having to house-rule stuff, but that's largely as I find game design fascinating in and of itself; if I can indulge that hobby and help others get something workable here then I've no problem!
Although I must admit I can certainly sympathise with those who (rightly) say that some semblance of balance is something GW should provide, however rough. If I were a newcomer to the hobby I'd certainly be a little put off by the lack of balancing.
I will give the rules a try, but truth be told, egads, the quickstart rules are garbage. I haven't played a game of them yet, but i've done professional mini game design in my life, and the quickstart rules are really, really rough around the edges.
And i love WHFB ; i have 3 huge armies (4 if you count dark elves and high elves separate instead of Host of the Eternity King as i play them).
I'm really hoping the rumors of "this is it for rules" in terms of core rules is wrong, and the 4 pages are like the quick start rules from other sets.
Yeah, I'm going to give it a go. Its free and I already have the army, so it isn't like I'm going to losing out
But from what I've seen of the rules. Having read the white dwarf..... I'm really not convinced that this game is very good, it seems really really dumbed down, like a game for children under the age of ten.
I voted no because I have 2 armies for fantasy battle, plus everything I need to play. Even if the rules are free I fully intend to devote my time elsewhere.
GW is trying to emulate PP, and lock down their IP. That's great and I'm sure people will enjoy the new take on it. I didn't get into FB because I wanted a different game. I bought IoB because I wanted to play FB. That being said I will be filling that skirmish niche with Warmachine.
Yeah, seeing that the game has become a "throw models down, throw dice and see how wins" without any attempt at balancing...
Look, it's fine for a board game, or something else that you don't spend much money on. As far as a game where you're buying a rather large army with nothing codified, it seems pointless. So I suppose I might get a couple of kits I've always liked for WHFB, but I can't see myself investing any further. I'll just go to W/MH for a tactical fantasy experience.
With rules like, if your younger then your opponent get this rule or when your holding beer get that rule. I don't think am going to play fantasy anywhere in the near future.
Okay... I've spent 3 hours reading the pdf and I they've removed nearly everything I disliked or flat out hated about WFB. I'm an ogr.. Ogors (Damnit!) player and I love how it looks for my guys. I like the speed of the game and the character they've managed to retain within each race. I even love the cheesy humour.
The detachments/formation style forces are compelling and small enough that you could get them for around £80-£120. I might consider picking up Orruks, Empire and Duardin over the next year.
I'm not worried about the points cost debate as I think it's a red herring. This is not WFB, it's not massed combat (yet) and I think if people give it a go then they’ll be pleasantly surprised, or not... live your own lives :-P
Since the rules are free, I'll be giving the game a go. Though I won't be buying the boxset, don't like Khorne that much and don't want fantasy spess mawines either.
I suspect that if it does become a regular game amongst my gaming group it will end up being heavily house ruled as from what I'm reading some things (summoning, sudden death, no army composition rules) make absolutely no sense, are very silly or completely unbalanced.
As a simple warband based skirmish game (ie less than 50 models a side) the basic rules look good, not sure I'd want to play a mass battle game with these same rules though. Than again I went in for the KoW 2nd ed rulebook kickstarter so that will do the old mass battle game side quite nicely.
darkcloak wrote: Its amazing how willing we are to be duped again.
I voted no because I have 2 armies for fantasy battle, plus everything I need to play. Even if the rules are free I fully intend to devote my time elsewhere.
GW is trying to emulate PP, and lock down their IP. That's great and I'm sure people will enjoy the new take on it. I didn't get into FB because I wanted a different game. I bought IoB because I wanted to play FB. That being said I will be filling that skirmish niche with Warmachine.
This and the feel of the fluff/mechanics gone that I liked. I wont play warmachine however, not interested in that game.
Lord Corellia wrote: Can't imagine they'd release a game with NO internal balance whatsoever. Really for me it will depend on how I can use the stuff I've got already.
GW has stated time and again they don't care about competitive play and are a models not a game company. Their mantra is "Forge the narrative" and from everything I have heard from my LGS owner, his GW rep has said the game is designed to be "very open" and "player driven" which to me sounds like code for, if you want balance do it your fething self.
I don't care as much about the rules I was always about collecting, playing with good looking fantasy armies, ranks of soldiers, shields real fantasy battle kind of thing. This game looks more like someone stole Diablo 3 concept arts and made it into a generic tabletop game.
No thanks from me, the 'fantasy' aspect died long ago GW forgot their roots.
Just run a test game, and it's actually really fun! The Command abilities and unit abilities and the synergy between them adds a lot to the gameplay, and it plays fast and smoothly.
One thing I will add for anyone giving this a go is to forget everything you know about how units used to play. I don't know about you, but before today I wouldn't have put money on a Skaven Warlord killing a mounted Elf Prince in a duel!
H.B.M.C. wrote: Why would I play a game designed for children?
Because its fun?
So board game nights with friends - on occasion small children attend with parent so the game selection is adapted to them - so no "Spartacus" and yes to "Duck Duck Go"!
Oddly enough we have fun with either type of game..........
Also if this new game brings in children and young adults - That a big and good thing as lets face it is a dying hobby without new blood - I'll be more than happy to play them - well in touch with my inner child and over 40 myself.
Lord Corellia wrote: Can't imagine they'd release a game with NO internal balance whatsoever. Really for me it will depend on how I can use the stuff I've got already.
Da Boss wrote: Absent a balancing mechanic, I have zero interest.
Thanks! Do feel free to chip in if you have any thoughts of your own, on balancing or just general fixing of the rules.
Although I must admit I can certainly sympathise with those who (rightly) say that some semblance of balance is something GW should provide, however rough. If I were a newcomer to the hobby I'd certainly be a little put off by the lack of balancing.
Accolade wrote: Yeah, seeing that the game has become a "throw models down, throw dice and see how wins" without any attempt at balancing...
Sigvatr wrote: It's not even a game. It's unplayable vanilla as there's no innate balance mechanism. It's utter and unusuable trash.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Why would I play a game designed for children?
Because its fun?
So board game nights with friends - on occasion small children attend with parent so the game selection is adapted to them - so no "Spartacus" and yes to "Duck Duck Go"!
Oddly enough we have fun with either type of game..........
Also if this new game brings in children and young adults - That a big and good thing as lets face it is a dying hobby without new blood - I'll be more than happy to play them - well in touch with my inner child and over 40 myself.
Thanks! Do feel free to chip in if you have any thoughts of your own, on balancing or just general fixing of the rules.
Although I must admit I can certainly sympathise with those who (rightly) say that some semblance of balance is something GW should provide, however rough. If I were a newcomer to the hobby I'd certainly be a little put off by the lack of balancing.
Sudden Death.
But whatever, good riddance if you quit!
If you actually look at the rest of my post, and my more recent one, you'd notice I am actually very positive about this game. I've started playing GW Fantasy again for the first time in years, and am actively working on fixing the aspects that I don't like. I'm not quitting, I'm actually starting.
But Sudden Death isn't really a balancing mechanic on its own, either as it's very easily countered (kill this unit.. The one behind my other 150 models) or actively counterproductive (this conclave of Bloodthirsters are outnumbered 3:1 by those Night Goblins! Better level the playing field!). No matter how much you like AoS as a ruleset, you can't deny that even a very rough system to allow even forces to fight would benefit everyone.
darkcloak wrote: Its amazing how willing we are to be duped again.
I voted no because I have 2 armies for fantasy battle, plus everything I need to play. Even if the rules are free I fully intend to devote my time elsewhere.
GW is trying to emulate PP, and lock down their IP. That's great and I'm sure people will enjoy the new take on it. I didn't get into FB because I wanted a different game. I bought IoB because I wanted to play FB. That being said I will be filling that skirmish niche with Warmachine.
This and the feel of the fluff/mechanics gone that I liked. I wont play warmachine however, not interested in that game.
You know, something drives me away from that game too, I just can't put my finger on it though...
Thanks! Do feel free to chip in if you have any thoughts of your own, on balancing or just general fixing of the rules.
Although I must admit I can certainly sympathise with those who (rightly) say that some semblance of balance is something GW should provide, however rough. If I were a newcomer to the hobby I'd certainly be a little put off by the lack of balancing.
Sudden Death.
But whatever, good riddance if you quit!
If you actually look at the rest of my post, and my more recent one, you'd notice I am actually very positive about this game. I've started playing GW Fantasy again for the first time in years, and am actively working on fixing the aspects that I don't like. I'm not quitting, I'm actually starting.
But Sudden Death isn't really a balancing mechanic on its own, either as it's very easily countered (kill this unit.. The one behind my other 150 models) or actively counterproductive (this conclave of Bloodthirsters are outnumbered 3:1 by those Night Goblins! Better level the playing field!). No matter how much you like AoS as a ruleset, you can't deny that even a very rough system to allow even forces to fight would benefit everyone.
Well, I didn't quote only you. I quoted a handful of people, some suggesting they were leaving. That's why I said if you quit! As I knew not everyone was saying that (and why I edited yours down to only include the comp-rules complaining).
As I've said in other threads, it leaves it up to the players to decide what they think is fair and balanced. We now have that freedom. Rough? Yeah. Potential loads of fun? Yeah.
What little I've played, my friend and I loved. The game isn't meant to be taken serious. It's kind of like an introductory game now for newcomers. It's very basic. It's essentially GW's intro system for once gamers graduate to 40klol.
And I'm okay w/ that. I can understand if some gamers aren't, but it seems a lot of gamers just can't grasp or understand what AoS is. They're still trying to force balance or comp as if they're gonna be playing in tournaments. That is not what AoS is meant for.
I have been a long time warhammer player and fan (40k, fantasy, inquisitor) since 1996, I stopped a few many years ago due to "stuff" but I have returned to a fresh game with AoS simply because it appeals to me more than the previous games.
A lot of people complain that it is rough and "simple" but they need to realize that it is a "new" game so it will be "rough" at first but the freedom comes from the people you play with, get a group of like minded gamers, figure out the balance you want and enjoy, that is the whole point of the game, ENJOYING yourself, I for one love the fact that now you are no longer limited to armies/unit/creatures, you could literally take any unit from any army and create a dogs of war themed force filled with lizzies, elfs, ogres, skaven etc and it would all be legal and fun... heck I am going to start a Hellpit army (throatina the dirty and her hellpit dancers) and NOTHING CAN STOP ME :O.... the person at my local GW is starting an all giant army (sky titans anyone?) the possibilities are endless.
with time more "campaigns" will come out with more rules and more environments and more ideas but at the core YOU MAKE THE RULES WORK FOR YOU... It surprises me that people are complaining about having MORE power in their gaming I was sure this would appeal to more people... and simplicity is great, now you do not have to lodge around multiple pages of rules and faqs to prove to your opponent what and how things are done... chess is simple, backgammon is simple, go is simple, simple is good.
Thanks! Do feel free to chip in if you have any thoughts of your own, on balancing or just general fixing of the rules.
Although I must admit I can certainly sympathise with those who (rightly) say that some semblance of balance is something GW should provide, however rough. If I were a newcomer to the hobby I'd certainly be a little put off by the lack of balancing.
Sudden Death.
But whatever, good riddance if you quit!
If you actually look at the rest of my post, and my more recent one, you'd notice I am actually very positive about this game. I've started playing GW Fantasy again for the first time in years, and am actively working on fixing the aspects that I don't like. I'm not quitting, I'm actually starting.
But Sudden Death isn't really a balancing mechanic on its own, either as it's very easily countered (kill this unit.. The one behind my other 150 models) or actively counterproductive (this conclave of Bloodthirsters are outnumbered 3:1 by those Night Goblins! Better level the playing field!). No matter how much you like AoS as a ruleset, you can't deny that even a very rough system to allow even forces to fight would benefit everyone.
Well, I didn't quote only you. I quoted a handful of people, some suggesting they were leaving. That's why I said if you quit! As I knew not everyone was saying that (and why I edited yours down to only include the comp-rules complaining).
As I've said in other threads, it leaves it up to the players to decide what they think is fair and balanced. We now have that freedom. Rough? Yeah. Potential loads of fun? Yeah.
What little I've played, my friend and I loved. The game isn't meant to be taken serious. It's kind of like an introductory game now for newcomers. It's very basic. It's essentially GW's intro system for once gamers graduate to 40klol.
And I'm okay w/ that. I can understand if some gamers aren't, but it seems a lot of gamers just can't grasp or understand what AoS is. They're still trying to force balance or comp as if they're gonna be playing in tournaments. That is not what AoS is meant for.
this is what I do not get, you are given more freedom on how YOU want to play and people complain... did people like being restricted all those years of playing? I actually quit because of how restrictive the games were, now I can go wild and play how I want... and tournies are not an issue if you ask me, every tournement will get its own FAQ rules page that will outline the specific rules for the tournie, there you go, its balanced, its fair and its unique to every tournie and in the long run might make more people play.
Just today I was at the preorder phase and somebody took out his beastmen units, he played with only his minotaurs, now beastmen are a viable strong force thanks to this game, before he would not even touch them (as he said) because of how badly they got destroyed... at least now he can run a full minotaur beastmen army with a chaos lord leading them (why not?) and a couple of hired skaven eshin to support... how frickin great is that.
I just saw a batrep from Ash Barker, who used to be from Miniwargaming.com, trying out AoS. He did a video on his channel on youtube against another (former?) miniwargaming guy named Owen.
It was... Something. It seems overly simplistic to me (which seems to be a common complaint). There seems to be no balance and no strategy. Just charge and roll dice. I'm hoping that either A. GW implements some sort of point system (if not just bringing back the old one) or B. Ash and Owen played incorrectly. If they played it as intended, AoS is something I likely won't play and will probably try to pawn off my Tomb Kings.
I'm willing to try the rules since they're free, but if I end up not liking it, that's fine, I'll still play 8th ed, and have fun with that. Maybe play more Warmachine, maybe get more into bolt action, who knows
Between choosing your units attack order every turn and the synergies between spells and command abilities, there's actually SOME depth. Sure, it might not be a lot of it, but if you're just pushing minis into the middle and rolling dice you're not quite taking advantage of the system.
Even in 8th I could take 3 units of Dwarf Warriors and a Thane and push them into the middle & roll dice until someone won.
FakeBritishPerson wrote: I'm willing to try the rules since they're free, but if I end up not liking it, that's fine, I'll still play 8th ed, and have fun with that. Maybe play more Warmachine, maybe get more into bolt action, who knows
Congrats, that's one of the most sensible reactions to AoS I've seen on here so far lol.
Also, I saw this battle rep in the N&R thread for AoS, looks a lot of fun!
Rihgu wrote: Between choosing your units attack order every turn and the synergies between spells and command abilities, there's actually SOME depth. Sure, it might not be a lot of it, but if you're just pushing minis into the middle and rolling dice you're not quite taking advantage of the system.
Even in 8th I could take 3 units of Dwarf Warriors and a Thane and push them into the middle & roll dice until someone won.
the beauty of this game is you make the complexity and strategy... at my local GW I saw a simple game and the 2 players decided on a cool rule, they had a bridge made of wood, the rule was than no more than 1 monstrous creature can cross without damaging the bridge, if they stay on the bridge for more than 2 turns it collapses and they fall into the river, it broke, the 2 giants fell into the river and they also decided that people trying to cross it could be swept away (none monstrous creatures that is)... not going into detail but it was fun watching 2 giants break the only means of crossing the river and then having both armies try to cross the river, luckily there was a portal at the back of each board and some decided it would be best to attack through that
Trondheim wrote: Its a dead game publishied by a dying company that will soon(hopefully) be dead and gone
the hopefully part makes you sound like a raging child... you should never hope a "company" dies...
Definitely agree. I may not be a fan of AoS (so far) but that doesn't mean I don't want it to succeed. If changes can be made or simply playing rather than watching is more enjoyable, I imagine they'll do well.
Trondheim wrote: Its a dead game publishied by a dying company that will soon(hopefully) be dead and gone
the hopefully part makes you sound like a raging child... you should never hope a "company" dies...
Definitely agree. I may not be a fan of AoS (so far) but that doesn't mean I don't want it to fail. If changes can be made or simply playing rather than watching is more enjoyable, I imagine they'll do well.
for me its because the people who made the game but a lot of hard work into it (lore, minis, artwork) all of that going to waste because people do not like "change" is silly... I mean I may not have the permission to state my opinion as I have no been so heavily invested into games workshop since I stopped some time ago but I still believe its a collective hobby first and a competitive game second, I love warhammer because of its minis, its art, its conversion... the gaming is just a bonus, at least now we can really express our army themes... and the gaming aspect is not so free and fluid you are really only restricted by your circle of friends...
Trondheim wrote: Its a dead game publishied by a dying company that will soon(hopefully) be dead and gone
the hopefully part makes you sound like a raging child... you should never hope a "company" dies...
Definitely agree. I may not be a fan of AoS (so far) but that doesn't mean I don't want it to ----------> SUCCEED <-------------. If changes can be made or simply playing rather than watching is more enjoyable, I imagine they'll do well.
for me its because the people who made the game but a lot of hard work into it (lore, minis, artwork) all of that going to waste because people do not like "change" is silly... I mean I may not have the permission to state my opinion as I have no been so heavily invested into games workshop since I stopped some time ago but I still believe its a collective hobby first and a competitive game second, I love warhammer because of its minis, its art, its conversion... the gaming is just a bonus, at least now we can really express our army themes... and the gaming aspect is not so free and fluid you are really only restricted by your circle of friends...
Fixed my little error right there. That was a bad error XD
MWHistorian wrote: I like tactical and strategic depth to my games. So, no. I won't be getting this.
what is stopping you from adding tactics and depth into the game with your own rules agreed with your like minded players at your local gaming location that would most likely be more balanced then previous rules released by GW?
MWHistorian wrote: I like tactical and strategic depth to my games. So, no. I won't be getting this.
what is stopping you from adding tactics and depth into the game with your own rules agreed with your like minded players at your local gaming location that would most likely be more balanced then previous rules released by GW?
Because there's already games that do that very well. They get my money because they at least try.
And making up rules for pick up games doesn't exactly work very well.
MWHistorian wrote: I like tactical and strategic depth to my games. So, no. I won't be getting this.
what is stopping you from adding tactics and depth into the game with your own rules agreed with your like minded players at your local gaming location that would most likely be more balanced then previous rules released by GW?
I can't help but think that there will be constant disagreements and disputes as to what's considered fair or not. I think that's where guidelines are very important. If our GW overlords told us what is and isn't allowed, there wouldn't be as many disputes between players.
MWHistorian wrote: I like tactical and strategic depth to my games. So, no. I won't be getting this.
what is stopping you from adding tactics and depth into the game with your own rules agreed with your like minded players at your local gaming location that would most likely be more balanced then previous rules released by GW?
I can't help but think that there will be constant disagreements and disputes as to what's considered fair or not. I think that's where guidelines are very important. If our GW overlords told us what is and isn't allowed, there wouldn't be as many disputes between players.
In its current iteration, AoS cannot be fair. It's objectively impossible to be fair as it purposefully lacks a balancing mechanism. You can house-rule a lot and bend it into a rough shape, but you ain't playing AoS then, you're playing your version of the game. It's the same with WHFB - WHFB and WHFB comped are two different games. AoS is a close-to-minimum effort to have some rules floating around miniatures to pretend it being a game. You're free to enjoy it, after all, if you do...you do. Objectively, however, from a rule writing points of view, it's a pee-poor low effort.
On the bright side, though, this will push even more players towards Kings of War as it's the only large scale fantasy tabletop game (excluding WHFB).
Up until this afternoon I would have said no, I was interested but couldn't have been bothered with learning a new game...... But I called into GW today and got my mits on some of the models. They are truely fine, lovely stuff. Defo gonna give it a go!
MWHistorian wrote: I like tactical and strategic depth to my games. So, no. I won't be getting this.
what is stopping you from adding tactics and depth into the game with your own rules agreed with your like minded players at your local gaming location that would most likely be more balanced then previous rules released by GW?
I can't help but think that there will be constant disagreements and disputes as to what's considered fair or not. I think that's where guidelines are very important. If our GW overlords told us what is and isn't allowed, there wouldn't be as many disputes between players.
as I recall GW had FAQs released because people still disagreed... I am still not seeing it thought, lets say you wanted to include ranked combat and flanking, add them... they are very hard to disagree with as they are not that complex.
I mean which rules exactly are people missing that could not be added with very a basic agreement.
MWHistorian wrote: I like tactical and strategic depth to my games. So, no. I won't be getting this.
what is stopping you from adding tactics and depth into the game with your own rules agreed with your like minded players at your local gaming location that would most likely be more balanced then previous rules released by GW?
I can't help but think that there will be constant disagreements and disputes as to what's considered fair or not. I think that's where guidelines are very important. If our GW overlords told us what is and isn't allowed, there wouldn't be as many disputes between players.
as I recall GW had FAQs released because people still disagreed... I am still not seeing it thought, lets say you wanted to include ranked combat and flanking, add them... they are very hard to disagree with as they are not that complex.
I mean which rules exactly are people missing that could not be added with very a basic agreement.
Clearly you don't play in a pick up game enviroment.
For home or clubs, I'm sure it's great to toy with. But I need a game that comes with complete rules so strangers can play.
MWHistorian wrote: I like tactical and strategic depth to my games. So, no. I won't be getting this.
what is stopping you from adding tactics and depth into the game with your own rules agreed with your like minded players at your local gaming location that would most likely be more balanced then previous rules released by GW?
Because there's already games that do that very well. They get my money because they at least try.
And making up rules for pick up games doesn't exactly work very well.
those games started off rough like any other game, like AoS does... and why does making up rules not work well.. firstly you have 8 whole edition of rules to use and several campaigns... nothing stops you from adding anything from those games into this one to make it more fun... for you and others.
seriously though what rules are you actually missing? ranked combat? flanking? rear charge? none of those rules are so complex that they could not be added without a simple word change... what is actually missing for you that is impossible to add on your own initiative..
I for one do not want to be told by GW how to have fun in my games, I will decide that with the people I play with, maybe you need to find better people to play with.
MWHistorian wrote: I like tactical and strategic depth to my games. So, no. I won't be getting this.
what is stopping you from adding tactics and depth into the game with your own rules agreed with your like minded players at your local gaming location that would most likely be more balanced then previous rules released by GW?
Because there's already games that do that very well. They get my money because they at least try.
And making up rules for pick up games doesn't exactly work very well.
those games started off rough like any other game, like AoS does... and why does making up rules not work well.. firstly you have 8 whole edition of rules to use and several campaigns... nothing stops you from adding anything from those games into this one to make it more fun... for you and others.
seriously though what rules are you actually missing? ranked combat? flanking? rear charge? none of those rules are so complex that they could not be added without a simple word change... what is actually missing for you that is impossible to add on your own initiative..
I for one do not want to be told by GW how to have fun in my games, I will decide that with the people I play with, maybe you need to find better people to play with.
Nope. The people I play with are awesome. Never had a problem from them playing games that worked out of the box.
MWHistorian wrote: I like tactical and strategic depth to my games. So, no. I won't be getting this.
what is stopping you from adding tactics and depth into the game with your own rules agreed with your like minded players at your local gaming location that would most likely be more balanced then previous rules released by GW?
I can't help but think that there will be constant disagreements and disputes as to what's considered fair or not. I think that's where guidelines are very important. If our GW overlords told us what is and isn't allowed, there wouldn't be as many disputes between players.
as I recall GW had FAQs released because people still disagreed... I am still not seeing it thought, lets say you wanted to include ranked combat and flanking, add them... they are very hard to disagree with as they are not that complex.
I mean which rules exactly are people missing that could not be added with very a basic agreement.
Clearly you don't play in a pick up game enviroment.
For home or clubs, I'm sure it's great to toy with. But I need a game that comes with complete rules so strangers can play.
I have not played warhammer in years only got back into it because of AoS...
and by complete strangers you mean? people who go to your club once and never come back? because if they usually come to your club they usually will do more than once, give them a Club faq page with the extra rules? or do you invite complete strangers to your house to play :/
MWHistorian wrote: I like tactical and strategic depth to my games. So, no. I won't be getting this.
what is stopping you from adding tactics and depth into the game with your own rules agreed with your like minded players at your local gaming location that would most likely be more balanced then previous rules released by GW?
I can't help but think that there will be constant disagreements and disputes as to what's considered fair or not. I think that's where guidelines are very important. If our GW overlords told us what is and isn't allowed, there wouldn't be as many disputes between players.
as I recall GW had FAQs released because people still disagreed... I am still not seeing it thought, lets say you wanted to include ranked combat and flanking, add them... they are very hard to disagree with as they are not that complex.
I mean which rules exactly are people missing that could not be added with very a basic agreement.
Clearly you don't play in a pick up game enviroment.
For home or clubs, I'm sure it's great to toy with. But I need a game that comes with complete rules so strangers can play.
I have not played warhammer in years only got back into it because of AoS...
and by complete strangers you mean? people who go to your club once and never come back? because if they usually come to your club they usually will do more than once, give them a Club faq page with the extra rules? or do you invite complete strangers to your house to play :/
I've never seen a club here in the US. (though I'm sure there are a few) It's kind of more of a store-based culture. Not nearly as close as a club and far more random on who you get.
whats stopping you playing with them now with just a little tweaking? or was playing with a stranger more fun than playing with regular mates... or was it more common to play with strangers for you than with regulars, from my old time gaming days strangers are rare, the regulars were the fun good times.
bitethythumb wrote: whats stopping you playing with them now with just a little tweaking? or was playing with a stranger more fun than playing with regular mates... or was it more common to play with strangers for you than with regulars, from my old time gaming days strangers are rare, the regulars were the fun good times.
I also don't like wasting time fixing crappy rules and would rather spend that time playing?
I don't know. Lots of people come and go in my store. I move around a lot and don't stay in one place long enough to get a tight knit group. That's why I like games that don't need fixing. I know what to expect wherever I go.
You got a close group? Awesome. I'm jealous. But not everyone has that luxury.
MWHistorian wrote: I like tactical and strategic depth to my games. So, no. I won't be getting this.
what is stopping you from adding tactics and depth into the game with your own rules agreed with your like minded players at your local gaming location that would most likely be more balanced then previous rules released by GW?
I can't help but think that there will be constant disagreements and disputes as to what's considered fair or not. I think that's where guidelines are very important. If our GW overlords told us what is and isn't allowed, there wouldn't be as many disputes between players.
as I recall GW had FAQs released because people still disagreed... I am still not seeing it thought, lets say you wanted to include ranked combat and flanking, add them... they are very hard to disagree with as they are not that complex.
I mean which rules exactly are people missing that could not be added with very a basic agreement.
Clearly you don't play in a pick up game enviroment.
For home or clubs, I'm sure it's great to toy with. But I need a game that comes with complete rules so strangers can play.
I have not played warhammer in years only got back into it because of AoS...
and by complete strangers you mean? people who go to your club once and never come back? because if they usually come to your club they usually will do more than once, give them a Club faq page with the extra rules? or do you invite complete strangers to your house to play :/
I've never seen a club here in the US. (though I'm sure there are a few) It's kind of more of a store-based culture. Not nearly as close as a club and far more random on who you get.
store or club, they always have regulars, my local GW is like a club as well, we get regulars and those than come in once in a while, the GW manager at our store is already working with some other players to create alternative faqs for anyone who wants larger games... with more rules, either way the chances of some random bloke coming into to the club and saying "I CHALLENGE YOU" is very rare.
chances are you play mostly with your friends... so I am not seeing how you could not work out a perfect system between yourselves.
MWHistorian wrote: I like tactical and strategic depth to my games. So, no. I won't be getting this.
what is stopping you from adding tactics and depth into the game with your own rules agreed with your like minded players at your local gaming location that would most likely be more balanced then previous rules released by GW?
I can't help but think that there will be constant disagreements and disputes as to what's considered fair or not. I think that's where guidelines are very important. If our GW overlords told us what is and isn't allowed, there wouldn't be as many disputes between players.
as I recall GW had FAQs released because people still disagreed... I am still not seeing it thought, lets say you wanted to include ranked combat and flanking, add them... they are very hard to disagree with as they are not that complex.
I mean which rules exactly are people missing that could not be added with very a basic agreement.
Clearly you don't play in a pick up game enviroment.
For home or clubs, I'm sure it's great to toy with. But I need a game that comes with complete rules so strangers can play.
I have not played warhammer in years only got back into it because of AoS...
and by complete strangers you mean? people who go to your club once and never come back? because if they usually come to your club they usually will do more than once, give them a Club faq page with the extra rules? or do you invite complete strangers to your house to play :/
I've never seen a club here in the US. (though I'm sure there are a few) It's kind of more of a store-based culture. Not nearly as close as a club and far more random on who you get.
store or club, they always have regulars, my local GW is like a club as well, we get regulars and those than come in once in a while, the GW manager at our store is already working with some other players to create alternative faqs for anyone who wants larger games... with more rules, either way the chances of some random bloke coming into to the club and saying "I CHALLENGE YOU" is very rare.
chances are you play mostly with your friends... so I am not seeing how you could not work out a perfect system between yourselves.
Like I said, because there's already games that don't need fixing and I'd rather play than write rules with a group of strangers. There are a few regulars, but they're more interested in playing than rules writing. As I am.
bitethythumb wrote: whats stopping you playing with them now with just a little tweaking? or was playing with a stranger more fun than playing with regular mates... or was it more common to play with strangers for you than with regulars, from my old time gaming days strangers are rare, the regulars were the fun good times.
I also don't like wasting time fixing crappy rules and would rather spend that time playing?
I don't know. Lots of people come and go in my store. I move around a lot and don't stay in one place long enough to get a tight knit group. That's why I like games that don't need fixing. I know what to expect wherever I go.
You got a close group? Awesome. I'm jealous. But not everyone has that luxury.
I do not anymore, I stopped playing years ago, I just got back into it with AoS... the local GW seems friendly enough and has plenty of regulars... you sound like a pokemon trainer going from town to town challenging people ... either way I guess its just different opinions of what the game should be, I myself loved warhammer for its collective aspects rather than the gaming, gaming was always a bonus for me, I am sure in the long run GW will release plenty of "extra" bonus house rules people can buy and use themselves (like rules specifically for larger games) but that will come in time and I am sure people will moan that it will cost money etc... I am pretty happy to start off with a skirmish style game first and slowly move up into larger one.
MWHistorian wrote: I like tactical and strategic depth to my games. So, no. I won't be getting this.
what is stopping you from adding tactics and depth into the game with your own rules agreed with your like minded players at your local gaming location that would most likely be more balanced then previous rules released by GW?
I can't help but think that there will be constant disagreements and disputes as to what's considered fair or not. I think that's where guidelines are very important. If our GW overlords told us what is and isn't allowed, there wouldn't be as many disputes between players.
as I recall GW had FAQs released because people still disagreed... I am still not seeing it thought, lets say you wanted to include ranked combat and flanking, add them... they are very hard to disagree with as they are not that complex.
I mean which rules exactly are people missing that could not be added with very a basic agreement.
Clearly you don't play in a pick up game enviroment.
For home or clubs, I'm sure it's great to toy with. But I need a game that comes with complete rules so strangers can play.
I have not played warhammer in years only got back into it because of AoS...
and by complete strangers you mean? people who go to your club once and never come back? because if they usually come to your club they usually will do more than once, give them a Club faq page with the extra rules? or do you invite complete strangers to your house to play :/
I've never seen a club here in the US. (though I'm sure there are a few) It's kind of more of a store-based culture. Not nearly as close as a club and far more random on who you get.
store or club, they always have regulars, my local GW is like a club as well, we get regulars and those than come in once in a while, the GW manager at our store is already working with some other players to create alternative faqs for anyone who wants larger games... with more rules, either way the chances of some random bloke coming into to the club and saying "I CHALLENGE YOU" is very rare.
chances are you play mostly with your friends... so I am not seeing how you could not work out a perfect system between yourselves.
Like I said, because there's already games that don't need fixing and I'd rather play than write rules with a group of strangers. There are a few regulars, but they're more interested in playing than rules writing. As I am.
each to his own, in time AoS will get plenty of rules and when it does I do hope you come back into the fold, all the best to you and your gaming experience because in the end all that matters if you enjoy it, I guess we just view things differently... nothing wrong with that (the world would be boring if we all agreed)
Tabletop gamers (particularly those invested in GW) tend to live-and-die by the rules codified by the game designers. It's a significant part of the ubiquity people enjoy from the big-time games. Competitive games, by the definition of the world, will not work unless we're able to get something on the scale of the old 40k 5th edition INAT, and that came about in an age where the likelihood of the game changing every year or so was much lower.
I see this game working okay in a basement group/club environment, but not being sustainably entertaining due to having a lack of value in winning games (since there is little way to tell if games are even remotely fair), I think it'll begin to feel like an exerise in futility.
With competitive games...well, I think we won't see much FLGS gaming, and I think the cons will stick with 8th to at least maintain some structure.
I am genuinely excited about this. I had watched the death of WHFB locally, and had followed a couple of games at my local club but TBH, as I play Orks in 40k I didn't fancy having to pay out for another huge horde army to get involved.
I also quite liked Skaven, Beastmen and Ogres, and couldn't make up my mind which to play.
Now because of AoS, I can play all 3 simultaneously, and am actually quite likely to get my arse down to GW tomorrow to pick up a few units of my favourite models.
Plus, if I'm honest, whilst I enjoy 40k, the mechanic is quite clunky and I dreaded having to rules lawyer my way through WHFB too.
I'd tried Warmahordes, and although it was quite enjoyable, TBH I wanted something simple and straightforward that I can play with my kids, and this fits the bill. Now they too can get a collection of their favourite models and we can just have a quick game without having to mess about for hours.
Trondheim wrote: Its a dead game publishied by a dying company that will soon(hopefully) be dead and gone
the hopefully part makes you sound like a raging child... you should never hope a "company" dies...
GW lost any rigth to be defended after the abomination that the end time was, on top of their abhorrent treatment of their customers and the community at large. And why in the case of GW it would be the best for all parties involved
Whew, this has been quite an interesting change. Allow me to toss in my 2 cents.
Lore wise, I really am intrigued by the direction. They dropped the Fantasy bit because it certainly has come away from it's stable roots, but, at least so far, it feels fresh and new.
As for the rules, well.... I agree with both sides, each to a degree. Not having a solidified, absolute set of rules means that you can't walk into a shop and just play without consulting your opponent or having the store take a time to lay out some extras. NOW, that assumes that Age of Sigmar is really meant to all out replace WHFB as is. Which I am pretty sure it is not, at least in this form. Balance has long been a problem for both Fantasy AND 40k, honestly since the games began. Which means, for me at least, the sweet spot for both games was winging it and making up stories to go with the crazed rules. You want to bring an unbound list of all monsters/titans? Sure, let's fiddle a special scenario to make it work. It's not perfect, but IF YOU HAVE THE TIME, it's great!
So there is the problem. For a "who cares" kind of game, where you just want to fiddle with your nice, painted models, the game as is works just fine. If you have the time and energy and like to create big elaborate campaigns and tweak and add rules ANYWAYS, it also works great, as AoS gives you enough basics to work from.
The problem then is the middle people, those who want a solid, balanced game but don't want to (or more likely just can't) work out the details. Those people, who just want to learn the rules and be done, knowing that everything is already settled and only have to worry about tactics and list building, are going to suffer. Can it be fixed to prevent that? Sure. If a place has the time and effort to lay down house rules, or just uses/adds in aspects of older editions, then it works. But I think a good chunk of these people in this middle ground may be stuck without such answers. For them, I hope GW does release some more solid rules. If not, then who the players are may change drastically, and that may be a death sentence if the numbers don't support the game...
So, long story short, AoS is a game of extreme simplicity, requiring effort (or lack of care) to make it enjoyable. For some, it works (I think it will be fine for me). Either way, I will try it (yay, free rules!) and see where it goes. Worst comes to worse, the hobby is still fun and the lore is still neat, so not a total loss at all.
I have already tried AoS for a few games and it isn't something I'm interested in trying again. I don't plan on playing Age of Sigmar. I got started playing Warhammer fantasy about a year ago. Before that I was a new player learning Warmachine. I liked playing a full on army game on an epic scale vs playing with smaller skirmishing groups. I didn't mind spending an entire afternoon playing a game with rules that were somewhat complicated. I loved all the lores of magic (well, not the nuke spells though). It wasn't a perfect game, there were some things I didn't like, but it was an epic scale fantasy army game for those of us that liked that sort of thing. For those who liked skirmishing games there was warmachine - which was pretty successful and was gaining a wide following, and there were other games. Anyhow, I can only hope that 9th edition will be more like the warhammer fantasy we all know and most of us love. That'd be great in my opinion, people who wanted a skirmish "beer and pretzels" game that doesn't involve too much of a commitment of time or brain power can have AoS, and the rest of us can have Warhammer Fantasy. Otherwise, I'll be shelving my armies and looking for another fantasy army game.
Weyuhn wrote: I have already tried AoS for a few games and it isn't something I'm interested in trying again. I don't plan on playing Age of Sigmar. I got started playing Warhammer fantasy about a year ago. Before that I was a new player learning Warmachine. I liked playing a full on army game on an epic scale vs playing with smaller skirmishing groups. I didn't mind spending an entire afternoon playing a game with rules that were somewhat complicated. I loved all the lores of magic (well, not the nuke spells though). It wasn't a perfect game, there were some things I didn't like, but it was an epic scale fantasy army game for those of us that liked that sort of thing. For those who liked skirmishing games there was warmachine - which was pretty successful and was gaining a wide following, and there were other games. Anyhow, I can only hope that 9th edition will be more like the warhammer fantasy we all know and most of us love. That'd be great in my opinion, people who wanted a skirmish "beer and pretzels" game that doesn't involve too much of a commitment of time or brain power can have AoS, and the rest of us can have Warhammer Fantasy. Otherwise, I'll be shelving my armies and looking for another fantasy army game.
there will be no 9th edition, this is it... also why not include the lores of magic but get rid of the nuke spells?... also anyone who claims this game does not need "brain" power is surely drunk on his own ego, most wargames are pretty simple in nature... they are literally dice games, chance, luck... you can have the best most balanced army list yet still lose pretty hard if lady luck leaves you.
Its like saying backgammon is a brainless game :/ and I love backgammon :(
AoS barely strikes me as a game. I'm not interested in it. I want somethign where my choices matter, with tactical thought and depth. And the fact that they're replacing WFB with this drivel just pisses me off.
I'll give it a shot. It looks like it should be easy enough to house rule some points values. I like that it looks like a simple dive-in-and-get-it game. I haven't played since 5th edition, and sold the Tomb Kings army that I had years ago.
I've been wanting to collect some Lizardmen for a while. Simple rules make jumping in pretty easy. I like 40k for it's relative complexity. AOS can be a simple beer and pretzels [somebody needs to take a shot!] game that's a different type of fun.
I have no deep interest in the fluff, or the way the game played before. It looks like it could be fun to try out, at the very least.
argonak wrote: AoS barely strikes me as a game. I'm not interested in it. I want somethign where my choices matter, with tactical thought and depth. And the fact that they're replacing WFB with this drivel just pisses me off.
Sorry that you haven't even looked at the rules, then. Have fun with whatever you do!
I'm gonna give them a try! I already own the models, and the rules are free, so I really have nothing to lose. Plus, so far the positive batreps seem to outweigh the negatives. Actually, now that the rules are out, it seems like most of the detractors are people who haven't even played a game yet.
But like I said, I'm going in with an open mind. Who knows, it could actually be great. And it could also suck. But I'll never know if I don't try it!
bitethythumb wrote: I have been a long time warhammer player and fan (40k, fantasy, inquisitor) since 1996, I stopped a few many years ago due to "stuff" but I have returned to a fresh game with AoS simply because it appeals to me more than the previous games.
A lot of people complain that it is rough and "simple" but they need to realize that it is a "new" game so it will be "rough" at first but the freedom comes from the people you play with, get a group of like minded gamers, figure out the balance you want and enjoy, that is the whole point of the game, ENJOYING yourself, I for one love the fact that now you are no longer limited to armies/unit/creatures, you could literally take any unit from any army and create a dogs of war themed force filled with lizzies, elfs, ogres, skaven etc and it would all be legal and fun... heck I am going to start a Hellpit army (throatina the dirty and her hellpit dancers) and NOTHING CAN STOP ME :O.... the person at my local GW is starting an all giant army (sky titans anyone?) the possibilities are endless.
with time more "campaigns" will come out with more rules and more environments and more ideas but at the core YOU MAKE THE RULES WORK FOR YOU... It surprises me that people are complaining about having MORE power in their gaming I was sure this would appeal to more people... and simplicity is great, now you do not have to lodge around multiple pages of rules and faqs to prove to your opponent what and how things are done... chess is simple, backgammon is simple, go is simple, simple is good.
Thanks! Do feel free to chip in if you have any thoughts of your own, on balancing or just general fixing of the rules.
Although I must admit I can certainly sympathise with those who (rightly) say that some semblance of balance is something GW should provide, however rough. If I were a newcomer to the hobby I'd certainly be a little put off by the lack of balancing.
Sudden Death.
But whatever, good riddance if you quit!
If you actually look at the rest of my post, and my more recent one, you'd notice I am actually very positive about this game. I've started playing GW Fantasy again for the first time in years, and am actively working on fixing the aspects that I don't like. I'm not quitting, I'm actually starting.
But Sudden Death isn't really a balancing mechanic on its own, either as it's very easily countered (kill this unit.. The one behind my other 150 models) or actively counterproductive (this conclave of Bloodthirsters are outnumbered 3:1 by those Night Goblins! Better level the playing field!). No matter how much you like AoS as a ruleset, you can't deny that even a very rough system to allow even forces to fight would benefit everyone.
Well, I didn't quote only you. I quoted a handful of people, some suggesting they were leaving. That's why I said if you quit! As I knew not everyone was saying that (and why I edited yours down to only include the comp-rules complaining).
As I've said in other threads, it leaves it up to the players to decide what they think is fair and balanced. We now have that freedom. Rough? Yeah. Potential loads of fun? Yeah.
What little I've played, my friend and I loved. The game isn't meant to be taken serious. It's kind of like an introductory game now for newcomers. It's very basic. It's essentially GW's intro system for once gamers graduate to 40klol.
And I'm okay w/ that. I can understand if some gamers aren't, but it seems a lot of gamers just can't grasp or understand what AoS is. They're still trying to force balance or comp as if they're gonna be playing in tournaments. That is not what AoS is meant for.
this is what I do not get, you are given more freedom on how YOU want to play and people complain... did people like being restricted all those years of playing? I actually quit because of how restrictive the games were, now I can go wild and play how I want... and tournies are not an issue if you ask me, every tournement will get its own FAQ rules page that will outline the specific rules for the tournie, there you go, its balanced, its fair and its unique to every tournie and in the long run might make more people play.
Just today I was at the preorder phase and somebody took out his beastmen units, he played with only his minotaurs, now beastmen are a viable strong force thanks to this game, before he would not even touch them (as he said) because of how badly they got destroyed... at least now he can run a full minotaur beastmen army with a chaos lord leading them (why not?) and a couple of hired skaven eshin to support... how frickin great is that.
thank you. you get it. The game is all about freedom now. And every unit is pretty much usable. Yet gamers complain b/c they aren't told how to comp their own list.
Again, if you want to play by W's comp or Warscrolls comp or just the eye test or just keep putting out units until the board is full or whatever, that's fine. But that's also the point - play how YOU want! Cmon gamers, why is this a bad thing??
Hence the quotation marks. Possibly the main reason that AOS is such a drastic change is that WHFB was a dying system, so GW went ahead and changed it.
I am interested in how many of the old players move onto the new game, how many abandon it and how many completely new players take up AOS.
darkcloak wrote: Its amazing how willing we are to be duped again.
I voted no because I have 2 armies for fantasy battle, plus everything I need to play. Even if the rules are free I fully intend to devote my time elsewhere.
GW is trying to emulate PP, and lock down their IP. That's great and I'm sure people will enjoy the new take on it. I didn't get into FB because I wanted a different game. I bought IoB because I wanted to play FB. That being said I will be filling that skirmish niche with Warmachine.
It's not being duped: i'll give the new rules a whirl and put them through their paces, but if we don't like them, ultimately, we'll revert to 8th.
It's just a better situation if the rules ARE good because a game you play that is supported is better than a game you play that is not supported, assuming rules being roughly of equivalent value.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dr. Cheesesteak wrote: But that's also the point - play how YOU want! Cmon gamers, why is this a bad thing??
I'll sum up dozens of posts that you seem to be unwilling to at least lend ANY credence: arbitrariness does not equate to balance. Freedom doesn't equate to fairness.
3 skaven slaves are not equal to Archaon when we look at sudden death. Archaon says i win that because i choose eradicate.
Or i take 5 Dark Elf assassins, i pick a hero, and GG, i win.
Freedom is great, but freedom requires some moderate framework to avoid being arbitrary.
Or how about Karl Franz and Archaon, who are superb, list composition wise, have the same composition weight as a Vampire Cou- ... scuse me "Deathrattlers" Zombie. Explain to me in what gaming world that makes sense. Each is considered one model for the only composition metric in the rules: sudden death.
Let's look at another: Explain to me how Dwarf Warriors with sword and board attack a Phoenix. (Hint: THEY CAN'T).
Here's another. I buy a new shiny bloodthirster kit. I model his foot / flame / rock base connection point alllllll the way to the back of the base. Enemy models move onto his base, but not within 3" of him. For whatever reason, next turn, mr. bloodthirster decides he wants to move somewhere else and / or to charge the models on his base. How the hell do you accurately keep the position of the models on Mr. Blood thirsters base when he has the gall to decide to move and / or charge?
Seriously, there's at least a dozen ways, 48 hours into rule drop, to face hit this game if you want to. Give it 3 months and people will have come up with combos that are going to make it nigh unplayable without prior gentleman's agreements to avoid asshattery. I was okay with the loose framework of 8th, but AoS is nutty.
Dr. Cheesesteak wrote: But that's also the point - play how YOU want! Cmon gamers, why is this a bad thing??
I'll sum up dozens of posts that you seem to be unwilling to at least lend ANY credence: arbitrariness does not equate to balance. Freedom doesn't equate to fairness.
3 skaven slaves are not equal to Archaon when we look at sudden death. Archaon says i win that because i choose eradicate.
Or i take 5 Dark Elf assassins, i pick a hero, and GG, i win.
Freedom is great, but freedom requires some moderate framework to avoid being arbitrary.
No I get that. Do you lend any credence to my posts? I've said numerous times TALK TO YOUR OPPONENT. Do you guys not know how to do that? Who the hell is going to play 3 Slaves vs Archaon? Who is going to agree to play against 20 Karl Franzes? Unless of course, these are actual friendly agreements for sh*tsngiggles. Jesus, can you guys stop being so extreme and dramatic.
I had said this with the most recent edition of 40k and I think it applies equally here:
The issues with the game will come not from extreme situations as Archaon vs. Skaven slaves, but instead from the shades of grey constant imbalances as people attempt to get games balanced and/or have skewed views on "what's fair" compared to an opponents army. I think people will be able to have fun experiences, but there will be little value in victories. Again, this will be fun for a time, but I think people enjoy the ability to win a game with a sense of balance. As it stands, AOS is less balanced than Yahtzee, but with a higher cost.
As compared to WHFB, it feels like a sad outcome, especially since AOS is only missing a couple of key components to make it something sustainable.
My justification is simple. I like the models and I love playing scenarios. Mass battles no longer interest me, point values are irrelevant when the scenario dictates what to bring, as long as scenario's are balanced I will enjoy AoS.
I also want to add that I think I am loving the role-playing aspect they bring in, I used to love d&d and WW now war-hammer has similar "flair" added to it... I shall grow a mustache just in case.
Do you know guys if gw will do balance tweaks and update the warscrolls? At the moment dark elf dark shards are better than wood elf glade guard and wood elfs supposed to be superior at archery.
devestator 7777777 wrote: Do you know guys if gw will do balance tweaks and update the warscrolls? At the moment dark elf dark shards are better than wood elf glade guard and wood elfs supposed to be superior at archery.
probably not. Those Warscrolls for old models/units will be creeped out in a year probably.
I already own the rules for Pulp Alley, Songs of Blades and Heroes, and Havoc if I want to play skirmish with my fantasy stuff. I also have kickstartered Kings of War 2e, and own every edition of WHFB from 5 to 8 and ebayed a copy of 3e a few years back. I'm also thinking of picking up Frostgrave later this month.
My point being, I've already shaken lose the mindset I need to try the latest GW game just because GW made another attempt at a game. I already have great rules to use with my fantasy minis - why should I bother trying obviously crappy rules or put effort making them less crappy? The short answer is that I shouldn't, and I'm not going to.
I gave GW the benefit of the doubt and the chance to pull me back with a quality ruleset, even though their track record has been bad lately. Ive read the new rules and several warscroll compendiums, and I feel its obvious that compared to other rulesets I have or soon will have available, AoS is an embarassment of a failure on GW's part.
So no, Im not trying AoS, I'll be playing other games instead.
I'm so excited I just dropped easy $500, Tomb king battalion, Necrosphinx each of the new paints, hardcover AoS book and the game itself. But feth me, the new spray is $48
honestly, as w/ all games I play, the #1 determining factor for me if I continue to play AoS is the local meta and accessibility.
Here is what I know so far:
- my 2 close gaming friends who I essentially game w/ first usually will probably not play
- 1 local meta is maybe a handful or 2 of mostly easy-going guys relatively young, a few of whom so far seem to really like it, a bunch of others have yet to play (see: easy-going, they aren't in a rush I don't think)
- another local meta is full of a handful or 2 of really competitive powergamers, most of whom seem to hate it and are finding new games, possibly sticking to 8E
I have my Dwarfs and Empires. If enough people look for games here and there - say 1 or 2 a month - then I'm down to play. The key for me will be once the new waves come out and the old models/units become power creeped out or just phased out as models (i.e. I want an Ork army, but rather than buy the now OOP models, I'll await for the AoS models), will they be enough for me to want to invest in AoS, both financially and time-wise? Or just stick to my Dwarfs and Empire and play 1 or 2 games a month? Will the new waves cause the local meta to play more regularly instead of casually? etc etc.
So essentially, I can't say where AoS will be on my gaming hierarchy in 2, 6, or 10 months. Or even 2 years. But it'll be there somewhere.
Automatically Appended Next Post: oh, but that's just the game. It's a new, rebooted fluff, so I intend to definitely "stick around" to at least read the fluff progression!
a) GW completing the ruleset for AoS: the rules currently lack force composition rules that are direly needed. I really hope that GW somehow comes up with a solution. AoS has a good chance to be an entry-level tabletop, shallow, but fun for a short while, getting people interested in the hobby.
b) Continuation of WHFB: WHFB 8th had a very solid set of rules (PRE-End Times!) that only needed a few adjustments to be, dare I say it, good. Worse, if GW truly abandoned GW, what would people do that got hooked via AoS? Further maintaining WHFB despite there being AoS would be a splendid idea as you hook people with AoS and, oh look!, you can use your miniatures from AoS to play WHFB too! Customer flow etc.
GW has a good chance to do really well at this point.
Yet seeing their recent track record, I fear for the worst...
I look forward to the fluff progression. If it's true they're sending reps everywhere at least they are putting effort in, while people may not like the rules that's still more effort then they put into promoting even 40k
No I get that. Do you lend any credence to my posts? I've said numerous times TALK TO YOUR OPPONENT. Do you guys not know how to do that? Who the hell is going to play 3 Slaves vs Archaon? Who is going to agree to play against 20 Karl Franzes? Unless of course, these are actual friendly agreements for sh*tsngiggles. Jesus, can you guys stop being so extreme and dramatic.
No I do not believe most people out there are capable of such an act.
Now, I was unsure until I read the Rules and now I like them and once I can play it I think I will Love it.
The Rules: I have always wanted to play Fantasy, but every time I tried my brain would melt from the Complexity. It has always been hard to just pick up the book and learn to play that way without Veterans showing the way.
The Armies: I can now play the army I want without all of those "Tax Units" you had to buy first. And then some armies required movement trays to push everything around.
Now I can pick up any box of Beastmen and in four hours of assembly [with out painting] have an army on the table top. I have not been able to do that since the early days of Rouge Trader.
As for 'No Points'...I say good riddance to them. If you really want some level of organization just put a limit of each side can field 4-60 models.
The Silly Rules: Warhammer has always had silly rules, Look at the 'Holy Hand Grenade' and 'Morbo' (and that is how I spell it). People are upset that GW has finally pulled the Stick out of their . They want you to go out and have fun. If you can not have fun by doing silly little things you are taking the "Game" way to seriously.
Sure, the rules are clearly laughable in places, but it's GW skirmish fantasy. That means a) it's got a decent chance to become a typical thing (ie, pickup games will be doable), and b) it's friggin' skirmish fantasy. I've never been able to stick with FB because of all the damned dudes; this is far more up my alley.
I mean, I'll get to take a Stegadon, a Slann, a bunch of skinks and some skink support and call it an army (instead of "a start"). That's worth a ton to me.
This is all well and good but as I've said multiple times, whereas if you turned up to a WHFB pick-up game, you could quickly arrange a points value for your game and you'd be certain that the game you were about to have would be on a level playing field and, since WHFB 8th edition was generally pretty balanced, aside from taking optimal army lists (and we're still not exactly talking 3 Wraithknights like in 40k), your opponent couldn't really do anything to field an auto-win list. Basically, you can be sure any one game of WHFB you have is even, with minimal effort.
However, with Age of Sigmar I have to sit down with my opponent, examine both our collections and discuss what we think is fair. Yes, I am socially able to sit down, talk and come to an agreement with a fellow human, but this is not something we should have to do in a wargame. Can you imagine if your football (or soccer, as you'll know it) team turned up to a game and you had to sit down with the opposing team and say "Right then lads, who's allowed to touch the ball with their hands then?" or "do you reckon we should be allowed to shoot inside this box thing here?" It's just stupid, a waste of time and, frankly, completely unnecessary - all thanks to GW's laziness and, admittedly, slightly clever business tactics. Furthermore, even if my opponent and I do sit down and come to an agreement, we can't be sure that our estimates will result in an equal game and, if my opponent happens to be that kind of person, he is well within his rights set down by the rules to say "no I don't want an even game, I want to take nagash, archaon and 300 chaos warriors" and there's nothing I can do about that. Sure, I can, and will, refuse this person. But, funnily enough, I like playing wargames and I do actually want a game or two, especially when I've traveled 40 minutes to get to my FLGS/GW store. Travelling back in the car after refusing two people such games, I won't feel warm inside, proud of myself that I have risen above these scoundrels, I'll feel annoyed that I've wasted my time and petrol and not got a game in.
I am lending credence to your posts. Yes, you can sit down and come to an agreement with your opponent and, yes, if you happen to have lots of friends into the game this is probably easier. But my issue, and the issue of many others is that this is not always possible and, even when it is, you can't be sure if the game will be even (unlike WHFB) and that it takes a lot of time (unlike WHFB).
Perhaps we all lack the same wargame diplomacy skills as you, but surely you can lend credence to our posts and see why, actually, we aren't being "extreme" or "dramatic" but actually have legitimate concerns brought about by this lackluster ruleset?
Dr. Cheesesteak wrote: But that's also the point - play how YOU want! Cmon gamers, why is this a bad thing??
I'll sum up dozens of posts that you seem to be unwilling to at least lend ANY credence: arbitrariness does not equate to balance. Freedom doesn't equate to fairness.
3 skaven slaves are not equal to Archaon when we look at sudden death. Archaon says i win that because i choose eradicate.
Or i take 5 Dark Elf assassins, i pick a hero, and GG, i win.
Freedom is great, but freedom requires some moderate framework to avoid being arbitrary.
No I get that. Do you lend any credence to my posts? I've said numerous times TALK TO YOUR OPPONENT. Do you guys not know how to do that? Who the hell is going to play 3 Slaves vs Archaon? Who is going to agree to play against 20 Karl Franzes? Unless of course, these are actual friendly agreements for sh*tsngiggles. Jesus, can you guys stop being so extreme and dramatic.
Sure. Can you admit the rules are a mess and stop being so illogical ?
Some of us want the rules to make sense without having a filibuster like segue every game with our opponent. Some of us want to be able to walk into any game store when we travel with our army and be able to pick up a game without an hour's long SYOP meeting beforehand.
In other words, some of us are legitimately pissed that an already VERY LOOSE ruleset, despite long in length (WHFB), became a hot mess of no sense-making four page long alphabet soup.
I mean, you do realize, functionally, letter of the rules, the game is night unplayable on it's face right now? For christ sake, by the Rules as Written (RAW), a flier with a flying peg base can pass out bubbles of Gandalf-ian "you shall not pass" that your opponents models can't get into. I would legit, playing the rules as written, feel like a gigantic jerk playing a Phoenix right now. Unless of course charging isn't moving, which makes zero sense and causes a bunch of rule conflicts and certain things to no longer trigger on a charge. How should I play it ? Or should the almighty "TALK TO YOUR OPPONENT" (emphasis yours, btw) govern ?
Silly me for not wanting Charging to be movement when i play Tim, but not when i play Miranda.
Give me a break. You make it sound so simple, but it's not and you (should) know it. Do you play tournaments or competitive play at all ? Talk to you Opponent is not going to be a dispute resolving stance. The rule of Roll Off is all well and good but it shouldn't govern core mechanics like "is charging movement this game or not" ?
I will say this: Lulztacular rules aside, the warscrolls are gaining traction with me. They managed (probably by mistake...) to pull off some very subtle but elegant things.
Next round of games is tomorrow, we'll see how that goes.
This is all well and good but as I've said multiple times, whereas if you turned up to a WHFB pick-up game, you could quickly arrange a points value for your game and you'd be certain that the game you were about to have would be on a level playing field and, since WHFB 8th edition was generally pretty balanced, aside from taking optimal army lists (and we're still not exactly talking 3 Wraithknights like in 40k), your opponent couldn't really do anything to field an auto-win list. Basically, you can be sure any one game of WHFB you have is even, with minimal effort.
However, with Age of Sigmar I have to sit down with my opponent, examine both our collections and discuss what we think is fair. Yes, I am socially able to sit down, talk and come to an agreement with a fellow human, but this is not something we should have to do in a wargame. Can you imagine if your football (or soccer, as you'll know it) team turned up to a game and you had to sit down with the opposing team and say "Right then lads, who's allowed to touch the ball with their hands then?" or "do you reckon we should be allowed to shoot inside this box thing here?" It's just stupid, a waste of time and, frankly, completely unnecessary - all thanks to GW's laziness and, admittedly, slightly clever business tactics. Furthermore, even if my opponent and I do sit down and come to an agreement, we can't be sure that our estimates will result in an equal game and, if my opponent happens to be that kind of person, he is well within his rights set down by the rules to say "no I don't want an even game, I want to take nagash, archaon and 300 chaos warriors" and there's nothing I can do about that. Sure, I can, and will, refuse this person. But, funnily enough, I like playing wargames and I do actually want a game or two, especially when I've traveled 40 minutes to get to my FLGS/GW store. Travelling back in the car after refusing two people such games, I won't feel warm inside, proud of myself that I have risen above these scoundrels, I'll feel annoyed that I've wasted my time and petrol and not got a game in.
I am lending credence to your posts. Yes, you can sit down and come to an agreement with your opponent and, yes, if you happen to have lots of friends into the game this is probably easier. But my issue, and the issue of many others is that this is not always possible and, even when it is, you can't be sure if the game will be even (unlike WHFB) and that it takes a lot of time (unlike WHFB).
Perhaps we all lack the same wargame diplomacy skills as you, but surely you can lend credence to our posts and see why, actually, we aren't being "extreme" or "dramatic" but actually have legitimate concerns brought about by this lackluster ruleset?
comparing a physical sport to a miniature hobby but seriously, how many people just randomly go to their FLGS/GW and play random people they have never met? most of the time I always see a regular, its a tabletop wargame, get to know people, sign up on their facebook ,have meet ups... this is not the pokemon league, and anyways... if you have to travel 40min by car to your local gaming zone I suggest you REALLY make some friends so your time is not wasted (I have 3 gw stores all within 40 min walking distance and I love walking), what if you spend 40min traveling and there is no one at your local FLGS/GW store? are you going to blame peoples social lives for your lack of "gaming".
The Shadow wrote: This is all well and good but as I've said multiple times, whereas if you turned up to a WHFB pick-up game, you could quickly arrange a points value for your game and you'd be certain that the game you were about to have would be on a level playing field and, since WHFB 8th edition was generally pretty balanced, aside from taking optimal army lists (and we're still not exactly talking 3 Wraithknights like in 40k), your opponent couldn't really do anything to field an auto-win list. Basically, you can be sure any one game of WHFB you have is even, with minimal effort.
Is that why Beastmen had to get 300 additional points on ETC to be even remotely playable (and even then were bottom ladder spot takers)?
Okay, joking aside:
The Shadow wrote: he is well within his rights set down by the rules to say "no I don't want an even game, I want to take nagash, archaon and 300 chaos warriors" and there's nothing I can do about that. Sure, I can, and will, refuse this person. But, funnily enough, I like playing wargames and I do actually want a game or two, especially when I've traveled 40 minutes to get to my FLGS/GW store. Travelling back in the car after refusing two people such games, I won't feel warm inside, proud of myself that I have risen above these scoundrels, I'll feel annoyed that I've wasted my time and petrol and not got a game in.
I believe there is not a point made on all of Dakka that I agree more with than this one. Too bad some people are too ignorant to even imagine that.
as it stands .... i see no way to play this as a "game", with rule army building i would gladly try it.
but as written I would just prefer to play Cataan or Axis and Allies. I play Warhammer for large scale fantasy mass combat. So in order to scratch that need AoS does not work. but we will continue playing 8th
The Shadow wrote: This is all well and good but as I've said multiple times, whereas if you turned up to a WHFB pick-up game, you could quickly arrange a points value for your game and you'd be certain that the game you were about to have would be on a level playing field and, since WHFB 8th edition was generally pretty balanced, aside from taking optimal army lists (and we're still not exactly talking 3 Wraithknights like in 40k), your opponent couldn't really do anything to field an auto-win list. Basically, you can be sure any one game of WHFB you have is even, with minimal effort.
Is that why Beastmen had to get 300 additional points on ETC to be even remotely playable (and even then were bottom ladder spot takers)?
Okay, joking aside:
The Shadow wrote: he is well within his rights set down by the rules to say "no I don't want an even game, I want to take nagash, archaon and 300 chaos warriors" and there's nothing I can do about that. Sure, I can, and will, refuse this person. But, funnily enough, I like playing wargames and I do actually want a game or two, especially when I've traveled 40 minutes to get to my FLGS/GW store. Travelling back in the car after refusing two people such games, I won't feel warm inside, proud of myself that I have risen above these scoundrels, I'll feel annoyed that I've wasted my time and petrol and not got a game in.
I believe there is not a point made on all of Dakka that I agree more with than this one. Too bad some people are too ignorant to even imagine that.
I'd buy you a beer for this post if I were there.
the last comment from both of you is very sensible and in all honesty I kinda of agree but there is a single flaw with that, if everyone at the local FLGS/GW wants to play with nagash and 300 warriors and you are the only one who wants ye old warhammer style, I guess... you are in the wrong place :/ you cannot blame the other person for not wanting to play the way you want to play, its why the internet is so awesome, you can prepare for exactly the game you want instead of "chancing" it...
I would buy you both a beer and spike it so that we could wake up together spooning
The problem with the rules is not that someone can insist on using Nagash, Sigmar and the Spase Emporer of Space to have an unbalanced game. The problem is that there is nothing to indicate that this would result in an unbalanced game. We can only guess how much a model with 2 wounds is worth more than a model with 1.
Kilkrazy wrote: The problem with the rules is not that someone can insist on using Nagash, Sigmar and the Spase Emporer of Space to have an unbalanced game. The problem is that there is nothing to indicate that this would result in an unbalanced game. We can only guess how much a model with 2 wounds is worth more than a model with 1.
This is the key problem. The problem isn't just the overexaggerated 200 Barbarians vs. 10 Skaven Slaves situations. The problem is the huge grey zone in between. Is 10 Sigmarites vs. 50 Slaves balanced? Or 30 Slaves? Or 70? is one Bretonnian lance balanced to 2 units of NIght Goblins? One? Three? There's no means to get to a viable result and this is why AoS is currently a bloody mess.
I expect that most good store owners that want to create a solid gaming atmosphere for this (and it has tons of potential in regards to sales for stores since the buy-in is so low) will create a "store" comp system similar to what Mikhaila has stated he's doing in the N&R thread. I know one of our local store owners who enjoys Fantasy is already looking at it so that on game nights people can show up and expect a reasonable game.
The Shadow wrote: Sure, I can, and will, refuse this person. But, funnily enough, I like playing wargames and I do actually want a game or two, especially when I've traveled 40 minutes to get to my FLGS/GW store. Travelling back in the car after refusing two people such games, I won't feel warm inside, proud of myself that I have risen above these scoundrels, I'll feel annoyed that I've wasted my time and petrol and not got a game in.
I agree that pickup games probably won't work.
But I think in GW's eyes pickup games were an anomaly. You're not supposed to play with strangers. You're supposed to play with friends, people you communicate with outside the game.
In my area the gaming community has shrunk so much that we've had to start a forum for locals to arrange games, because if you just turned up hoping for a pickup game, odds would be good that you'd be the only person in the store. So we'll have no trouble setting up AoS games either. "Looking for someone to play Saturday night, 50 wounds, no summoning." Wait for reply, done.
So from what some people are saying you can't just show up at your LFGS and quickly find and talk to an opponent and quickly make an agreement.
All you got to do is go "Here is my army that I want to play it is X# of models."
What is different than showing up and saying I have X# of points?
I have never had a pick up game where we did not spend 5 min going over what we wanted or going to do in the way of scenario, points or even a time limit.
Yes, I will be giving it a try. My friend/primary opponent has been struggling to find time for 40k, even small points games. We considered trying out the Kill Team rules, but then AoS appeared. After looking over the free PDF's, I gotta say, AoS has a lot of things we're looking for in a game. Simple rule-set (and free to boot!), quick games, bring whatever you want and have fun. Neither of us has played fantasy before, but I figure we can proxy some models just to get a feel for it. So yes, I will try it.
All you got to do is go "Here is my army that I want to play it is X# of models."
What is different than showing up and saying I have X# of points?
There surely is a difference between "Oh, you have 2k points, I will grab my 2k points" and "oh, so you have about 50 models of varying power level that cannot be measured by any means (one wound model doesn't equal another one wound model, nor do 12 zombies equal a steam tank who, in addition, would get sudden death condition for being outnumbered) so I can't make a properly comparable army out of my miniatures, but I will try".
Also the simple difference of time it would take. Agreeing on point limit and amount of scenery is even non-existant issue in my country because almost everyone used the ETC comp that defines terrain pieces, balance and point costs - you just say "WFB ETC game" or "WFB ETC pair format" which means 1200 points armies and everything's clear. There's no debate other than point limit.
In AoS on the other hand you have to discuss every single unit both players are going to field as long as it's not the pre-made formations from warscroll compendia. How are you going to agree how many state troops are equal-ish to, say, Sigmarine Liberators or whatever they're called? What about monsters? And if one side wins, how do you know it's superior skills/favour of dice gods and not just one side being more powerful? What if one player feels that his army was weaker from the beginning, but the other one assured him that it's perfectly okay and would be unhappy to make his army weaker?
See, there's only so much you can achieve by "estimating" the balance. Things like that should never happen in any game.
Klerych wrote: Is that why Beastmen had to get 300 additional points on ETC to be even remotely playable (and even then were bottom ladder spot takers)?
A fair point but, as I've said before (somewhere), the fact that GW were faffing around with the End Times and AoS meant that Beastmen didn't get updated, something which would have most likely removed the need for that extra 300 points in the ETC.
Klerych wrote:
The Shadow wrote: he is well within his rights set down by the rules to say "no I don't want an even game, I want to take nagash, archaon and 300 chaos warriors" and there's nothing I can do about that. Sure, I can, and will, refuse this person. But, funnily enough, I like playing wargames and I do actually want a game or two, especially when I've traveled 40 minutes to get to my FLGS/GW store. Travelling back in the car after refusing two people such games, I won't feel warm inside, proud of myself that I have risen above these scoundrels, I'll feel annoyed that I've wasted my time and petrol and not got a game in.
I believe there is not a point made on all of Dakka that I agree more with than this one. Too bad some people are too ignorant to even imagine that.
I'd buy you a beer for this post if I were there.
Why thank you, and I'll hold you to that beer
Sigvatr wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote: The problem with the rules is not that someone can insist on using Nagash, Sigmar and the Spase Emporer of Space to have an unbalanced game. The problem is that there is nothing to indicate that this would result in an unbalanced game. We can only guess how much a model with 2 wounds is worth more than a model with 1.
This is the key problem. The problem isn't just the overexaggerated 200 Barbarians vs. 10 Skaven Slaves situations. The problem is the huge grey zone in between. Is 10 Sigmarites vs. 50 Slaves balanced? Or 30 Slaves? Or 70? is one Bretonnian lance balanced to 2 units of NIght Goblins? One? Three? There's no means to get to a viable result and this is why AoS is currently a bloody mess.
Yeah, 100% this. And, similarly, the whole "use your whole collection" mantra is, again, in principle, fine. The problem is, if we wanted to use our whole collections in WHFB, or any other game for that matter, we'd know exactly the differences in power levels between our collections and could then give the player with the least powerful collection some bonuses (i.e. free magic items, reinforcements etc)whereas with AoS, this isn't something you can do.
lord_blackfang wrote:
The Shadow wrote: Sure, I can, and will, refuse this person. But, funnily enough, I like playing wargames and I do actually want a game or two, especially when I've traveled 40 minutes to get to my FLGS/GW store. Travelling back in the car after refusing two people such games, I won't feel warm inside, proud of myself that I have risen above these scoundrels, I'll feel annoyed that I've wasted my time and petrol and not got a game in.
I agree that pickup games probably won't work.
But I think in GW's eyes pickup games were an anomaly. You're not supposed to play with strangers. You're supposed to play with friends, people you communicate with outside the game.
In my area the gaming community has shrunk so much that we've had to start a forum for locals to arrange games, because if you just turned up hoping for a pickup game, odds would be good that you'd be the only person in the store. So we'll have no trouble setting up AoS games either. "Looking for someone to play Saturday night, 50 wounds, no summoning." Wait for reply, done.
Again, fair enough that this game will work perfectly fine in situations where you can come to an agreement with your opponent beforehand, but that's not always possible and shouldn't be an issue in the first place. A further problem is that wounds still aren't an accurate measure of power levels. In your above example, you could turn up to your 50 wound game and find that the armies look horribly unbalanced against each other, and then have to try and work something else out.
Admittedly the staff tried to balance it by having the same amount of wounds on each side but really a points system would be better.
It sounds like being at a car dealership, and the salesmen trying to sell you a beautiful car with no engine.
But have no fear! They put you in the car and push it down the street, and you feel a bit of breeze go by. Surely, this gorgeous car is worth every penny, why would you gripe about something so minor as a missing engine?
All you got to do is go "Here is my army that I want to play it is X# of models."
What is different than showing up and saying I have X# of points?
There surely is a difference between "Oh, you have 2k points, I will grab my 2k points" and "oh, so you have about 50 models of varying power level that cannot be measured by any means (one wound model doesn't equal another one wound model, nor do 12 zombies equal a steam tank who, in addition, would get sudden death condition for being outnumbered) so I can't make a properly comparable army out of my miniatures, but I will try".
Also the simple difference of time it would take. Agreeing on point limit and amount of scenery is even non-existant issue in my country because almost everyone used the ETC comp that defines terrain pieces, balance and point costs - you just say "WFB ETC game" or "WFB ETC pair format" which means 1200 points armies and everything's clear. There's no debate other than point limit.
In AoS on the other hand you have to discuss every single unit both players are going to field as long as it's not the pre-made formations from warscroll compendia. How are you going to agree how many state troops are equal-ish to, say, Sigmarine Liberators or whatever they're called? What about monsters? And if one side wins, how do you know it's superior skills/favour of dice gods and not just one side being more powerful? What if one player feels that his army was weaker from the beginning, but the other one assured him that it's perfectly okay and would be unhappy to make his army weaker?
See, there's only so much you can achieve by "estimating" the balance. Things like that should never happen in any game.
It is really as complex as you want to make it.
If you both have a list of what models I want to take and the other has the same I think I can look at his list and see how close they are (once I am more familiar with the system).
But I want to just push plastic around the table and blow up most of the time. That is what AoS is all about as I read it.
There does seem to be a lot of griping about balance for AoS, but TBH points don't equal balance either.
I recently played a pick up game at a local store and my opponent asked if I could make 1850 points, with what I had on me, bearing in mind I had anticipated 1500 points, I could just make it, but it was un-optimised and being Orks as well, not exactly competitive.
Good, he said, the proceeded to produce 2 super heavies, and a couple of squadrons of tanks.
And here's me with a mainly footslogging, infantry heavy Ork army.
So, in conclusion, points doesn't always mean balance, and if you've ever played Orks in 40k, balance isn't exactly something that happens terribly much.
I prefer an unbalanced game, it makes handing my opponent their arse in a sling that bit more satisfying, especially if they were being a smug gakker in the first place.
-It's free, it's easy, and I already have models that will work with those rules.
However, the rule set is disappointing. The balance mechanism is weak. The aesthetic of the models have zero appeal to me (the sigmarines are better than 'moar skullz!' but I'm still not feeling them). In all it almost feels like the rule system was written so that the person who can afford the most expensive models has an advantage in a fight with even numbers and the person who can afford the most models has an advantage in a fight with troops of even capability. It's even better for the person with more money because they can outnumber the other player with superior troops and there is no restriction on it.
An Admittedly Blatantly Extreme example that is legal per the rules as written:
[Spoilered since a lot of folks won't want to read the example]
Spoiler:
A small reasonable (~US$180) empire force of
-1 empire general on griffin
-1 unit of 20 spearmen
-1 unit of 5 knights
-1 unit of 10 handgunners
-1 cannon
vs
An unrestricted Chaos demon force of
-29 demon princes (~US$1,200) that can summon more demon princes for a sudden death victory condition
or
-41 demon princes (~US$1,700) that can summon more demon princes to just outnumber your opponent from the start
No contest as to who will win
While the above example is extreme, it is easy to imagine a set up of the same $180 army going up against a $400 army and not initially appearing unbalanced to an inexperienced player. Even though there is still a vast power imbalance.
The balancing mechanism of this game is apparently based on the player's ability to recognize and avoid other players who will take advantage of these rules on purpose or through ignorance.
Conclusion: AoS will probably never be a game of my choice. But, if someone at my FLGS really wants a game of AoS more than anything else, I'll play. These guys play the games I want so it's only fair for me to play the games they want as well. I already have the models and have already read the rules.
Unless something truly unexpected comes out of GW though, they will get no more money from me. I'm definitely not buying the AoS set.
I have read the rules, tried a few games, and have 0 interest.
I much prefer block troop fantasy. For what AoS is, I'd rather play WM/HOR, I think the rules are much better.
The rules, while streamlined, are bland. As for the beard rules... We just ignored them. I am of the opinion that a players actions outside the game should have no effect on in game performance.
The models... well more spess mahreens is everything I could ever want! I know you don't have to play sanguinary guard but even the chaos models look like 40k wracks. I don't particularly care for the 40k aesthetic and it seems where it is going.
I'll continue with 8th until the sweedes come out with their version of 9th and maybe try that. Otherwise I'm effectively done as a GW customer for minis. I like their fluff and will continue to buy BL books. I like the FFGRPGs and board games, but 40k lost me at allies and fantasy is dead, by which I mean AoS is NOT warhammer fantasy, AoS is AoS. They are 2 completely different games.
Very true. Before AoS, people said the game was so imbalanced it might as well not have points. Now people say AoS is unbalanced because it doesn't have points.
I have tried KoW I honestly don't much care for it feels too simple and some of the models look like complete donkey. Yes I can use GW models but as stated I don't like the aesthetic they are taking.
As for what's similar the games I have played of both tend to end with a bit of a mosh in the middle. However I feel WM/HOR requires more skill & has game play I much prefer.
If you feel they only share round bases that is fine. I disagree. While still different, when compared to warhammer fantasy they're not too different in how they play from a broad perspective.
If you want to play WM/H, I'm not sure why you were playing WHFB. WHFB certainly does not segue into WM/H mechanically or even in terms of background. Sounds like your interests have changed quite separately from what GW is up to.
Shas'O Dorian wrote: For what AoS is, I'd rather play WM/HOR, I think the rules are much better.
led me to believe that you wanting to play WM/H has something to do with AoS.
It does have something to do with AoS. AoS is, from my experience, much more similar to WM/HOR than WHFB. Given the option I know what I would rather play. I understand that I am no longer GWs target marker but I am still allowed to be frustrated & lament the loss of WHFB and have an opinion on AoS which I feel is a PoS.
Partially yes. I want to play WM/HOR more now because my previous main game WHFB has been discontinued. I no longer have the option to play WHFB. I have a finite amount of time to spend on my hobby. That is divided up amongst the games I play. When you remove one of those, the others expand to fill.
I mean sure I can play it for a bit, the local group can try to keep it going, but let's be realistic, this is not sustainable. You can find small pockets of people who still play 7th but they are few & far between. Eventually they dwindle and die out and I don't have a desire to play life support to a game whose company no longer cares about it.
r_squared wrote: There does seem to be a lot of griping about balance for AoS, but TBH points don't equal balance either.
I recently played a pick up game at a local store and my opponent asked if I could make 1850 points, with what I had on me, bearing in mind I had anticipated 1500 points, I could just make it, but it was un-optimised and being Orks as well, not exactly competitive.
Good, he said, the proceeded to produce 2 super heavies, and a couple of squadrons of tanks.
And here's me with a mainly footslogging, infantry heavy Ork army.
So, in conclusion, points doesn't always mean balance, and if you've ever played Orks in 40k, balance isn't exactly something that happens terribly much.
I prefer an unbalanced game, it makes handing my opponent their arse in a sling that bit more satisfying, especially if they were being a smug gakker in the first place.
See, the big problem right here is that you're referring to another GW game as an argument. Aside from a couple examples of particular builds I don't really remember running into such issue in any other popular game where a whole faction by default is just weak. Sure, a Trencher-based Cygnaran army for Warmachine is weak compared to tournament power builds, but that's just one neglected build among a dozen available for the faction. There's no Blood or Dark Angels, Orks or Beastmen level of bad army as a whole nor totally broken ones like Tau+Eldar lists for 40k some time ago.
Overall if a company actually bothers to balance their models' point costs properly (that also including synergies with other units), it is the best way to try make things even. Even if it's not perfect, it's still the best option along with organization chart limits.
I am in the wait and see camp. I don't like it so far. I love the models and I am itching to give GW my money but there is no game. The rules are incomplete. No game length, no balance mechanism and loopholes/gaps that need to be addressed. I hate the idea of overlapping bases, and combat looks like a drudge. If this is it, then I'm out. Part of the fun for me is list design and tactics, there's no army construction in this system. If they add depth and balance then I will take another look but as it stands I'm not interested. I worry that part of the reasons some people are jumping in is because it is free to try. But when the old armies are phased out I wonder if people will be so keen to give their money over to play this game. In general I think the launch has been handled in a very amateurish way. Anyway, I am an optimist so I look forward to the game being developed, if not I haven't lost anything.
Another book that has the same SKU as the old WHFBBRB.
Hopefully this is a sign of a proper rulebook for the game. I mentioned in another thread, i am starting to really like the warscrolls, the 1% of stupid LARP rules aside. Now all we need is a true core ruleset, and i think we might be in business.
Still a little bummed out that templates don't seem to be a thing any more.
Manchu wrote: This kind of argument keeps coming up. Avoiding AoS will not help the kind of person actually willing to entertain such abuses in reality.
How about the following comparison:
20 Ogres
vs
50 Clan rats
The Ogres are outnumbered by far, so they will get Sudden Death. However, the Ogres are also way tougher than the clan rats. I would go as far to say the Clan Rats don't stand a change.
The problem I have is: How do I determine I'll have a fair game. An unbalanced match is fun for a single player, the one who has the superior army. How do we determine how many Ogres is enough against 50 rats?
Seems to be an overwhelming majority of folks on this poll who are actually willing to try Age of Sigmar. Reading the N&R thread you'd think it'd be the opposite lol.
I was thinking of selling my Nagash and Tomb Kings, but honestly, after looking at the warscrolls, I'm tempted to give the rules a try. Things seem more simplified, fun, and balanced. If only there was a points system or some kind.
The Ogres are outnumbered by far, so they will get Sudden Death. However, the Ogres are also way tougher than the clan rats. I would go as far to say the Clan Rats don't stand a change.
The problem I have is: How do I determine I'll have a fair game. An unbalanced match is fun for a single player, the one who has the superior army. How do we determine how many Ogres is enough against 50 rats?
This is the exact problem. Not the extremes, i.e. 100 clanrats vs. 5 Ogres, but rather the grey zone in between. Are 70 Clanrats fair? 80? 90? 50 Clanrats and 30 Plague Monks? 50 Clanrats and 40 Plague Monks? You just cannot tell.
angelofvengeance wrote: Seems to be an overwhelming majority of folks on this poll who are actually willing to try Age of Sigmar. Reading the N&R thread you'd think it'd be the opposite lol.
302 players going to give sigmar a go
273 against AoS or leaving the game
Hardly overwhelming majority in favor, thats with the 'on the fence' lot not included because they're conditional on something that might or might not happen.
With nearly 700 votes up I am surprised by how little movement in the results there has been, the percentages are basically the same as when there were 50 votes.
1] Am going to give it a try and see if I like it.
2] I gave it a try and I liked it.
3] I gave it a try and I did not like it
4] I will never try it ever.
I have no issues with 1-3.
#4 though, to not even give a FREE!!! game a try?
Actually kinda excited by this movement. Like past posters have written, I too originally wanted to get into WHF but it just looked way too slow and far too bulky for my tastes. As someone who is playing a game or two on a weeknight with his girlfriend, this is perfect. Count me in!
EDIT: do I also get cookies for the fact I posted on 7/7 at 7:00:07?
The its not a game camp I have to laugh as it is a game. You can play it, I have seen folk play it as a game hell I have seen people enjoy it.
Boo hoo its not fantasy, nah it not its AoS its a new game that GW want to make. Love it or hate it GW have chosen to go this way.
They don`t owe you anything.
If you hate the game which supposedly isn't a game even though it is fine. Say that and get over it. Nothing will change.
This is what GW see as the future a lot of us may not but that's really not anything to do with us. GW will either fail or succeed end of.
As for the rules there is and only ever will be 4 pages plus warscrolls. Frankly its enough. It doesn`t have to be complicated maybe it didn`t need to be quite so simple but again its what they have chosen to do. We can all accept it or move on. There are plenty more games to play and as AoS is free who cares if it sucks, IT IS FREE (for now)
So I got in my next set of games last night. I played the spearmen / archer formation vs. the foot ogre formation. We played "minimum bodies in the formation" just to put the game through its paces.
The only thing that we hard house ruled was Base-to-Base measuring, not model to model. We played all other rules as written.
At first i thought it was going to be quite lopsided. The archers were really good putting a lot of wounds with stormfall arrows on his ogres, but due to a miscalculated distance, he got a charge on a spearmen unit with 3 ogres, and that unit of spearmen evaporated.
However i rallied pretty well. Archers finished off an ogre unit, and put hurt on his other ogres. Meanwhile, due to sudden death, he picked "endure" with his Tyrant, so the clock was ticking. I could have spear charged an ogre unit and gotten rid of it with my other spearmen, but instead went for the wounded tyrant, killing him, and ending his sudden death kill condition.
My prince killed off his iron guts but was in turn finished off by his second ogre unit. Meanwhile my helms were locked up with yet another ogre unit. His belchers and bruiser were positioned badly and so never really came to bear (the belchers got to fire but often were just out of range of their target with a guy or two).
All in all: he killed 36 wounds, i killed 35. I snuffed his kill condition by sudden death, but we both lost our general. It was as close to a tie as you can get, but he did get a marginal victory due to wounds.
Thoughts:
1) I liked it way more than i thought i was going to. Way more.
2) There were some rules that just... weren't answered. We were invoking "Talk to your opponent" way too often. For instance, my spearmen charged his tyrant successfully, which left them within melee range of his ogres (for one thing this is questionably legal, RAW, but we deemed it so because otherwise the game becomes unplayable if everyone passes out their own banner of "but for a charge, cant get within 3 of me"). The question became, can the ogers attack them back even though there was no charge / no pile in. Yes?
3) The 50% of the time you go first thing actually was interesting. I didn't hate it. I kinda liked it.
4) You need to measure base to base. There's no denying that to me. Model to Model doesn't work and is stupid. Playing his game (with very different sized bases in opposition) just reinforced that even more.
5) The game is REALLY fast paced. Melee is brutal, but shooting can be too. High elf archers are unbelievably good. Anything with multiple wounds on its melee will murderlize single wound infantry.
6) As there was nothing otherwise, we deemed that as long as you had LOS by the rules, charges could be in non-linear. This was actually really awesome.
All in all... leaning towards liking it. I want a more fleshed out rule-set out of that forthcoming book, but right now, It was a LOT of fun to play. I had 46 models on my side, and he had 17 i think, which is small compared to 8th, but it was still good sized, and our game was done in 90 minutes, as opposed to several hours. And that's 90 minutes consulting books every 10 seconds or so.
I will say this: i noticed myself looking at pieces that i would not otherwise : Franz, Steamtank, Treeman, etc... so if other vets are like that, then they might have a winner on their hands with vets buying news stuff if they can also draw in new blood / people from other games.
I'd give it a B right now in terms of grade, but i can see A minus from where i'm standing.
On the contrary, most WHFB players have supported GW with brand loyalty and a lot of purchases for a long time. I understand that GW want to take their business in a new direction, but they could have at least kept supporting WHFB (even if it was mail-order only or whatever) for those people who have enjoyed and supported it for many years.
Haight wrote: 2) There were some rules that just... weren't answered. We were invoking "Talk to your opponent" way too often. For instance, my spearmen charged his tyrant successfully, which left them within melee range of his ogres (for one thing this is questionably legal, RAW, but we deemed it so because otherwise the game becomes unplayable if everyone passes out their own banner of "but for a charge, cant get within 3 of me"). The question became, can the ogers attack them back even though there was no charge / no pile in. Yes?
From what I understand, in this instance, the Ogres would, in theory, be able to attack (as they are within 3") but as, I imagine, their melee weapons have a range of 1" they are unable to do so. However, you do get to pile in 3" so as long as that unit can physically do the pile in then I see no reason why you wouldn't be able to attack.
I do fully understand about all the unanswered rules queries that crop up whilst playing the game. I'm predicting the FAQ for AoS to be longer than the rules.
Nope, won't play AoS. Hate the background and the dumbed-down rules.
...And, just like someone who's life-long love has announced that they've made plans for the future and that you're not included in them (as well as giving you "the finger" on the way out the door with a bunch of ridiculous rules), I'm more than a little bitter about the way GW is treating the older gamers.
Haight wrote: So I got in my next set of games last night. I played the spearmen / archer formation vs. the foot ogre formation. We played "minimum bodies in the formation" just to put the game through its paces.
The only thing that we hard house ruled was Base-to-Base measuring, not model to model. We played all other rules as written.
At first i thought it was going to be quite lopsided. The archers were really good putting a lot of wounds with stormfall arrows on his ogres, but due to a miscalculated distance, he got a charge on a spearmen unit with 3 ogres, and that unit of spearmen evaporated.
However i rallied pretty well. Archers finished off an ogre unit, and put hurt on his other ogres. Meanwhile, due to sudden death, he picked "endure" with his Tyrant, so the clock was ticking. I could have spear charged an ogre unit and gotten rid of it with my other spearmen, but instead went for the wounded tyrant, killing him, and ending his sudden death kill condition.
My prince killed off his iron guts but was in turn finished off by his second ogre unit. Meanwhile my helms were locked up with yet another ogre unit. His belchers and bruiser were positioned badly and so never really came to bear (the belchers got to fire but often were just out of range of their target with a guy or two).
All in all: he killed 36 wounds, i killed 35. I snuffed his kill condition by sudden death, but we both lost our general. It was as close to a tie as you can get, but he did get a marginal victory due to wounds.
Thoughts:
1) I liked it way more than i thought i was going to. Way more.
2) There were some rules that just... weren't answered. We were invoking "Talk to your opponent" way too often. For instance, my spearmen charged his tyrant successfully, which left them within melee range of his ogres (for one thing this is questionably legal, RAW, but we deemed it so because otherwise the game becomes unplayable if everyone passes out their own banner of "but for a charge, cant get within 3 of me"). The question became, can the ogers attack them back even though there was no charge / no pile in. Yes?
3) The 50% of the time you go first thing actually was interesting. I didn't hate it. I kinda liked it.
4) You need to measure base to base. There's no denying that to me. Model to Model doesn't work and is stupid. Playing his game (with very different sized bases in opposition) just reinforced that even more.
5) The game is REALLY fast paced. Melee is brutal, but shooting can be too. High elf archers are unbelievably good. Anything with multiple wounds on its melee will murderlize single wound infantry.
6) As there was nothing otherwise, we deemed that as long as you had LOS by the rules, charges could be in non-linear. This was actually really awesome.
All in all... leaning towards liking it. I want a more fleshed out rule-set out of that forthcoming book, but right now, It was a LOT of fun to play. I had 46 models on my side, and he had 17 i think, which is small compared to 8th, but it was still good sized, and our game was done in 90 minutes, as opposed to several hours. And that's 90 minutes consulting books every 10 seconds or so.
I will say this: i noticed myself looking at pieces that i would not otherwise : Franz, Steamtank, Treeman, etc... so if other vets are like that, then they might have a winner on their hands with vets buying news stuff if they can also draw in new blood / people from other games.
I'd give it a B right now in terms of grade, but i can see A minus from where i'm standing.
Fun little battle report :-)
Sounds like you played Sudden Death wrong, Sudden Death is chosen at the start of the game after deployment and Endure means any one of your starting units has to remain alive by the end of Battle Round 6.
You played the charges right, models cannot move within "3 of an enemy unit except in the charge phase if they can reach at least one model at 1/2 an inch.
And then as the other enemy unit is now within 3" they are eligible to make a pile in, even though they were not charged.
Yep, it's great fun and I think GW are onto a winner too. I bought 2 High Elf Heroes for my Empire army today. Can't wait to field them :-)
Haight wrote: So I got in my next set of games last night. I played the spearmen / archer formation vs. the foot ogre formation. We played "minimum bodies in the formation" just to put the game through its paces.
The only thing that we hard house ruled was Base-to-Base measuring, not model to model. We played all other rules as written.
At first i thought it was going to be quite lopsided. The archers were really good putting a lot of wounds with stormfall arrows on his ogres, but due to a miscalculated distance, he got a charge on a spearmen unit with 3 ogres, and that unit of spearmen evaporated.
However i rallied pretty well. Archers finished off an ogre unit, and put hurt on his other ogres. Meanwhile, due to sudden death, he picked "endure" with his Tyrant, so the clock was ticking. I could have spear charged an ogre unit and gotten rid of it with my other spearmen, but instead went for the wounded tyrant, killing him, and ending his sudden death kill condition.
My prince killed off his iron guts but was in turn finished off by his second ogre unit. Meanwhile my helms were locked up with yet another ogre unit. His belchers and bruiser were positioned badly and so never really came to bear (the belchers got to fire but often were just out of range of their target with a guy or two).
All in all: he killed 36 wounds, i killed 35. I snuffed his kill condition by sudden death, but we both lost our general. It was as close to a tie as you can get, but he did get a marginal victory due to wounds.
Thoughts:
1) I liked it way more than i thought i was going to. Way more.
2) There were some rules that just... weren't answered. We were invoking "Talk to your opponent" way too often. For instance, my spearmen charged his tyrant successfully, which left them within melee range of his ogres (for one thing this is questionably legal, RAW, but we deemed it so because otherwise the game becomes unplayable if everyone passes out their own banner of "but for a charge, cant get within 3 of me"). The question became, can the ogers attack them back even though there was no charge / no pile in. Yes?
3) The 50% of the time you go first thing actually was interesting. I didn't hate it. I kinda liked it.
4) You need to measure base to base. There's no denying that to me. Model to Model doesn't work and is stupid. Playing his game (with very different sized bases in opposition) just reinforced that even more.
5) The game is REALLY fast paced. Melee is brutal, but shooting can be too. High elf archers are unbelievably good. Anything with multiple wounds on its melee will murderlize single wound infantry.
6) As there was nothing otherwise, we deemed that as long as you had LOS by the rules, charges could be in non-linear. This was actually really awesome.
All in all... leaning towards liking it. I want a more fleshed out rule-set out of that forthcoming book, but right now, It was a LOT of fun to play. I had 46 models on my side, and he had 17 i think, which is small compared to 8th, but it was still good sized, and our game was done in 90 minutes, as opposed to several hours. And that's 90 minutes consulting books every 10 seconds or so.
I will say this: i noticed myself looking at pieces that i would not otherwise : Franz, Steamtank, Treeman, etc... so if other vets are like that, then they might have a winner on their hands with vets buying news stuff if they can also draw in new blood / people from other games.
I'd give it a B right now in terms of grade, but i can see A minus from where i'm standing.
Fun little battle report :-)
Sounds like you played Sudden Death wrong, Sudden Death is chosen at the start of the game after deployment and Endure means any one of your starting units has to remain alive by the end of Battle Round 6.
You played the charges right, models cannot move within "3 of an enemy unit except in the charge phase if they can reach at least one model at 1/2 an inch.
And then as the other enemy unit is now within 3" they are eligible to make a pile in, even though they were not charged.
Yep, it's great fun and I think GW are onto a winner too. I bought 2 High Elf Heroes for my Empire army today. Can't wait to field them :-)
He did choose it at the beginning, the battle report is written in a manner that doesn't illustrate that terribly clearly though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Coldhatred wrote: I'm buying the boxed set. I like what I see already.
I'm REALLY pleasantly surprised. I went in wanting to hate it with every iota of my pedantic game designing core (there was a kernel of me that admired the simple elegance of many of the warscrolls, but i loathed every inch of the core rules and was actively looking for ways to illustrate their horridness).
I ended the game actually not only NOT hating it, but liking what i played, and i'm pretty sure i had a better time than the last few games of 8th i played.
THere's still issues. List construction weight (even the GW notepad leak doesn't address that, as warscrolls alone don't answer list composition weight problems) and measuring model to model among them, but it's a lot more fun and fast pace than i was thinking it would be.
...And, just like someone who's life-long love has announced that they've made plans for the future and that you're not included in them (as well as giving you "the finger" on the way out the door with a bunch of ridiculous rules), I'm more than a little bitter about the way GW is treating the older gamers.
I'm one of them, though not as long in the tooth as some (i'm 36), been playing GW in one form or the other since the 90's - started with 2nd ed 40k, which was a hoot.
Give the game a go. Despite the hot mess the core rules appear to be, it's a surprisingly fun and elegant game with just a few minor tweaks (the ONLY tweaks we did in our game was measure to base to base, and if there were any of the LULZ rules, they happened the first time automatically, and on 4+ thereafter.... this ended up not even being a thing as we had none of the lulz rules pop up).
Or not, that's cool too, but as my posts illustrated, I was an 8th fan, and on a mission to hate this game, and I came out pleasantly surprised and wrong. It's not perfect, but it's actually pretty damn cool.
Coldhatred wrote: I'm buying the boxed set. I like what I see already.
I'm REALLY pleasantly surprised. I went in wanting to hate it with every iota of my pedantic game designing core (there was a kernel of me that admired the simple elegance of many of the warscrolls, but i loathed every inch of the core rules and was actively looking for ways to illustrate their horridness).
I ended the game actually not only NOT hating it, but liking what i played, and i'm pretty sure i had a better time than the last few games of 8th i played.
THere's still issues. List construction weight (even the GW notepad leak doesn't address that, as warscrolls alone don't answer list composition weight problems) and measuring model to model among them, but it's a lot more fun and fast pace than i was thinking it would be.
That's pretty much how I went in. I was still getting over the fact that the Old World was gone and that this was different so it must be bad(?), but I was very surprised by how much I like it. I am very excited about it and a friend that hasn't been excited about Warhammer since he gave up due to painting intimidation back during 6th Edition is now quite interested in this more accessible game. Looking forward to it.
So I got in my next set of games last night. I played the spearmen / archer formation vs. the foot ogre formation. We played "minimum bodies in the formation" just to put the game through its paces.
The only thing that we hard house ruled was Base-to-Base measuring, not model to model. We played all other rules as written.
At first i thought it was going to be quite lopsided. The archers were really good putting a lot of wounds with stormfall arrows on his ogres, but due to a miscalculated distance, he got a charge on a spearmen unit with 3 ogres, and that unit of spearmen evaporated.
However i rallied pretty well. Archers finished off an ogre unit, and put hurt on his other ogres. Meanwhile, due to sudden death, he picked "endure" with his Tyrant, so the clock was ticking. I could have spear charged an ogre unit and gotten rid of it with my other spearmen, but instead went for the wounded tyrant, killing him, and ending his sudden death kill condition.
My prince killed off his iron guts but was in turn finished off by his second ogre unit. Meanwhile my helms were locked up with yet another ogre unit. His belchers and bruiser were positioned badly and so never really came to bear (the belchers got to fire but often were just out of range of their target with a guy or two).
All in all: he killed 36 wounds, i killed 35. I snuffed his kill condition by sudden death, but we both lost our general. It was as close to a tie as you can get, but he did get a marginal victory due to wounds.
Thoughts:
1) I liked it way more than i thought i was going to. Way more.
2) There were some rules that just... weren't answered. We were invoking "Talk to your opponent" way too often. For instance, my spearmen charged his tyrant successfully, which left them within melee range of his ogres (for one thing this is questionably legal, RAW, but we deemed it so because otherwise the game becomes unplayable if everyone passes out their own banner of "but for a charge, cant get within 3 of me"). The question became, can the ogers attack them back even though there was no charge / no pile in. Yes?
3) The 50% of the time you go first thing actually was interesting. I didn't hate it. I kinda liked it.
4) You need to measure base to base. There's no denying that to me. Model to Model doesn't work and is stupid. Playing his game (with very different sized bases in opposition) just reinforced that even more.
5) The game is REALLY fast paced. Melee is brutal, but shooting can be too. High elf archers are unbelievably good. Anything with multiple wounds on its melee will murderlize single wound infantry.
6) As there was nothing otherwise, we deemed that as long as you had LOS by the rules, charges could be in non-linear. This was actually really awesome.
All in all... leaning towards liking it. I want a more fleshed out rule-set out of that forthcoming book, but right now, It was a LOT of fun to play. I had 46 models on my side, and he had 17 i think, which is small compared to 8th, but it was still good sized, and our game was done in 90 minutes, as opposed to several hours. And that's 90 minutes consulting books every 10 seconds or so.
I will say this: i noticed myself looking at pieces that i would not otherwise : Franz, Steamtank, Treeman, etc... so if other vets are like that, then they might have a winner on their hands with vets buying news stuff if they can also draw in new blood / people from other games.
I'd give it a B right now in terms of grade, but i can see A minus from where i'm standing.
correct me if I'm wrong (sincerely saying that), but weren't you criticizing the hell out of AoS earlier?
Haight wrote: So I got in my next set of games last night. I played the spearmen / archer formation vs. the foot ogre formation. We played "minimum bodies in the formation" just to put the game through its paces.
The only thing that we hard house ruled was Base-to-Base measuring, not model to model. We played all other rules as written.
At first i thought it was going to be quite lopsided. The archers were really good putting a lot of wounds with stormfall arrows on his ogres, but due to a miscalculated distance, he got a charge on a spearmen unit with 3 ogres, and that unit of spearmen evaporated.
However i rallied pretty well. Archers finished off an ogre unit, and put hurt on his other ogres. Meanwhile, due to sudden death, he picked "endure" with his Tyrant, so the clock was ticking. I could have spear charged an ogre unit and gotten rid of it with my other spearmen, but instead went for the wounded tyrant, killing him, and ending his sudden death kill condition.
My prince killed off his iron guts but was in turn finished off by his second ogre unit. Meanwhile my helms were locked up with yet another ogre unit. His belchers and bruiser were positioned badly and so never really came to bear (the belchers got to fire but often were just out of range of their target with a guy or two).
All in all: he killed 36 wounds, i killed 35. I snuffed his kill condition by sudden death, but we both lost our general. It was as close to a tie as you can get, but he did get a marginal victory due to wounds.
Thoughts:
1) I liked it way more than i thought i was going to. Way more.
2) There were some rules that just... weren't answered. We were invoking "Talk to your opponent" way too often. For instance, my spearmen charged his tyrant successfully, which left them within melee range of his ogres (for one thing this is questionably legal, RAW, but we deemed it so because otherwise the game becomes unplayable if everyone passes out their own banner of "but for a charge, cant get within 3 of me"). The question became, can the ogers attack them back even though there was no charge / no pile in. Yes?
3) The 50% of the time you go first thing actually was interesting. I didn't hate it. I kinda liked it.
4) You need to measure base to base. There's no denying that to me. Model to Model doesn't work and is stupid. Playing his game (with very different sized bases in opposition) just reinforced that even more.
5) The game is REALLY fast paced. Melee is brutal, but shooting can be too. High elf archers are unbelievably good. Anything with multiple wounds on its melee will murderlize single wound infantry.
6) As there was nothing otherwise, we deemed that as long as you had LOS by the rules, charges could be in non-linear. This was actually really awesome.
All in all... leaning towards liking it. I want a more fleshed out rule-set out of that forthcoming book, but right now, It was a LOT of fun to play. I had 46 models on my side, and he had 17 i think, which is small compared to 8th, but it was still good sized, and our game was done in 90 minutes, as opposed to several hours. And that's 90 minutes consulting books every 10 seconds or so.
I will say this: i noticed myself looking at pieces that i would not otherwise : Franz, Steamtank, Treeman, etc... so if other vets are like that, then they might have a winner on their hands with vets buying news stuff if they can also draw in new blood / people from other games.
I'd give it a B right now in terms of grade, but i can see A minus from where i'm standing.
Fun little battle report :-)
Sounds like you played Sudden Death wrong, Sudden Death is chosen at the start of the game after deployment and Endure means any one of your starting units has to remain alive by the end of Battle Round 6.
You played the charges right, models cannot move within "3 of an enemy unit except in the charge phase if they can reach at least one model at 1/2 an inch.
And then as the other enemy unit is now within 3" they are eligible to make a pile in, even though they were not charged.
Yep, it's great fun and I think GW are onto a winner too. I bought 2 High Elf Heroes for my Empire army today. Can't wait to field them :-)
He did choose it at the beginning, the battle report is written in a manner that doesn't illustrate that terribly clearly though.
Haha, that's cool. Just to point out Endure applies to every model you start with, doesn't have to be chosen. You might have known that already too :p
Any army that is capable of wiping out yours in 6 rounds should be able to do it in 7 or 8 or10, which is the standard victory condition anyway. This makes SD irrelevant. If the army can do it quicker than the normal time it almost certainly is not the weaker army.
Secondly it introduces possible confusion about models that are brought on to the table after the start of the battle.
I was still getting over the fact that the Old World was gone and that this was different so it must be bad(?), but I was very surprised by how much I like it.
Thats great but I find that a lot of the AoS are over compensating for the new games flaws by calling fantasy bad now. Ive seen it in a few threads AoS is new and replaces fantasy therefor somehow it means fantasy needed taking down and was bad and toxic now apparently and been a competitive game is the most evil thing it could have been.
So I got in my next set of games last night. I played the spearmen / archer formation vs. the foot ogre formation. We played "minimum bodies in the formation" just to put the game through its paces.
The only thing that we hard house ruled was Base-to-Base measuring, not model to model. We played all other rules as written.
At first i thought it was going to be quite lopsided. The archers were really good putting a lot of wounds with stormfall arrows on his ogres, but due to a miscalculated distance, he got a charge on a spearmen unit with 3 ogres, and that unit of spearmen evaporated.
However i rallied pretty well. Archers finished off an ogre unit, and put hurt on his other ogres. Meanwhile, due to sudden death, he picked "endure" with his Tyrant, so the clock was ticking. I could have spear charged an ogre unit and gotten rid of it with my other spearmen, but instead went for the wounded tyrant, killing him, and ending his sudden death kill condition.
My prince killed off his iron guts but was in turn finished off by his second ogre unit. Meanwhile my helms were locked up with yet another ogre unit. His belchers and bruiser were positioned badly and so never really came to bear (the belchers got to fire but often were just out of range of their target with a guy or two).
All in all: he killed 36 wounds, i killed 35. I snuffed his kill condition by sudden death, but we both lost our general. It was as close to a tie as you can get, but he did get a marginal victory due to wounds.
Thoughts:
1) I liked it way more than i thought i was going to. Way more.
2) There were some rules that just... weren't answered. We were invoking "Talk to your opponent" way too often. For instance, my spearmen charged his tyrant successfully, which left them within melee range of his ogres (for one thing this is questionably legal, RAW, but we deemed it so because otherwise the game becomes unplayable if everyone passes out their own banner of "but for a charge, cant get within 3 of me"). The question became, can the ogers attack them back even though there was no charge / no pile in. Yes?
3) The 50% of the time you go first thing actually was interesting. I didn't hate it. I kinda liked it.
4) You need to measure base to base. There's no denying that to me. Model to Model doesn't work and is stupid. Playing his game (with very different sized bases in opposition) just reinforced that even more.
5) The game is REALLY fast paced. Melee is brutal, but shooting can be too. High elf archers are unbelievably good. Anything with multiple wounds on its melee will murderlize single wound infantry.
6) As there was nothing otherwise, we deemed that as long as you had LOS by the rules, charges could be in non-linear. This was actually really awesome.
All in all... leaning towards liking it. I want a more fleshed out rule-set out of that forthcoming book, but right now, It was a LOT of fun to play. I had 46 models on my side, and he had 17 i think, which is small compared to 8th, but it was still good sized, and our game was done in 90 minutes, as opposed to several hours. And that's 90 minutes consulting books every 10 seconds or so.
I will say this: i noticed myself looking at pieces that i would not otherwise : Franz, Steamtank, Treeman, etc... so if other vets are like that, then they might have a winner on their hands with vets buying news stuff if they can also draw in new blood / people from other games.
I'd give it a B right now in terms of grade, but i can see A minus from where i'm standing.
correct me if I'm wrong (sincerely saying that), but weren't you criticizing the hell out of AoS earlier?
I'm going to take your "sincerely" at face value, despite having a raised eyebrow towards it's genuineness.
I had many initial concerns, some of which panned out immediately (model to model measuring ; we jettisoned this immediately). Sudden death's balance as well - we played "minimum formation size" to continue to get a handle on the rules, but i can see sudden death breaking when you get rid of that. It was a challenge with the min elf vs. min ogre formation already, i just got lucky. Movement is still clunky in places. Rules that do the exact same thing have different names, sometimes even within an armies scrolls (see dwarves : gromril shield, dwarven shield). Can you shoot into melee ? I dunno, and neither do you. If you can, can you hit your own guys ?
Etc.
It was better than i thought, however it's still miles from a tight ruleset. I enjoyed the pacing, flow, and fun. I didn't like some of the finer mechanical points, the vagueness, and i think we had to "Talk to your opponent" way too often for core mechanical things.
But yes, i'm man enough to admit it's more fun than i thought it would be. Hopefully you're man enough to admit the rules do have issues. Luckily both our concerns would be solved with a book that expounds upon and tightens up the rules.
Haight wrote: So I got in my next set of games last night. I played the spearmen / archer formation vs. the foot ogre formation. We played "minimum bodies in the formation" just to put the game through its paces.
The only thing that we hard house ruled was Base-to-Base measuring, not model to model. We played all other rules as written.
At first i thought it was going to be quite lopsided. The archers were really good putting a lot of wounds with stormfall arrows on his ogres, but due to a miscalculated distance, he got a charge on a spearmen unit with 3 ogres, and that unit of spearmen evaporated.
However i rallied pretty well. Archers finished off an ogre unit, and put hurt on his other ogres. Meanwhile, due to sudden death, he picked "endure" with his Tyrant, so the clock was ticking. I could have spear charged an ogre unit and gotten rid of it with my other spearmen, but instead went for the wounded tyrant, killing him, and ending his sudden death kill condition.
My prince killed off his iron guts but was in turn finished off by his second ogre unit. Meanwhile my helms were locked up with yet another ogre unit. His belchers and bruiser were positioned badly and so never really came to bear (the belchers got to fire but often were just out of range of their target with a guy or two).
All in all: he killed 36 wounds, i killed 35. I snuffed his kill condition by sudden death, but we both lost our general. It was as close to a tie as you can get, but he did get a marginal victory due to wounds.
Thoughts:
1) I liked it way more than i thought i was going to. Way more.
2) There were some rules that just... weren't answered. We were invoking "Talk to your opponent" way too often. For instance, my spearmen charged his tyrant successfully, which left them within melee range of his ogres (for one thing this is questionably legal, RAW, but we deemed it so because otherwise the game becomes unplayable if everyone passes out their own banner of "but for a charge, cant get within 3 of me"). The question became, can the ogers attack them back even though there was no charge / no pile in. Yes?
3) The 50% of the time you go first thing actually was interesting. I didn't hate it. I kinda liked it.
4) You need to measure base to base. There's no denying that to me. Model to Model doesn't work and is stupid. Playing his game (with very different sized bases in opposition) just reinforced that even more.
5) The game is REALLY fast paced. Melee is brutal, but shooting can be too. High elf archers are unbelievably good. Anything with multiple wounds on its melee will murderlize single wound infantry.
6) As there was nothing otherwise, we deemed that as long as you had LOS by the rules, charges could be in non-linear. This was actually really awesome.
All in all... leaning towards liking it. I want a more fleshed out rule-set out of that forthcoming book, but right now, It was a LOT of fun to play. I had 46 models on my side, and he had 17 i think, which is small compared to 8th, but it was still good sized, and our game was done in 90 minutes, as opposed to several hours. And that's 90 minutes consulting books every 10 seconds or so.
I will say this: i noticed myself looking at pieces that i would not otherwise : Franz, Steamtank, Treeman, etc... so if other vets are like that, then they might have a winner on their hands with vets buying news stuff if they can also draw in new blood / people from other games.
I'd give it a B right now in terms of grade, but i can see A minus from where i'm standing.
Fun little battle report :-)
Sounds like you played Sudden Death wrong, Sudden Death is chosen at the start of the game after deployment and Endure means any one of your starting units has to remain alive by the end of Battle Round 6.
You played the charges right, models cannot move within "3 of an enemy unit except in the charge phase if they can reach at least one model at 1/2 an inch.
And then as the other enemy unit is now within 3" they are eligible to make a pile in, even though they were not charged.
Yep, it's great fun and I think GW are onto a winner too. I bought 2 High Elf Heroes for my Empire army today. Can't wait to field them :-)
He did choose it at the beginning, the battle report is written in a manner that doesn't illustrate that terribly clearly though.
Haha, that's cool. Just to point out Endure applies to every model you start with, doesn't have to be chosen. You might have known that already too :p
I did not, but fair being fair, i didnt also check it when my opponent "picked" his tyrant. Unfortunately, i think i like Endure even less then. So if i play minimum foot elves vs. minimum foot ogres, i have to wipe out his ogres in totality in 6 turns or i lose.
Uhm.... what ?
This just makes me think that Endure is even more god awful than i was giving it credit for before. I shouldn't have to wipe out your force because i have 33% more models than you do. That's not balanced.
Sudden Death is just plain bad and does not help to balance the game in any way, shape or form. If you want a balanced game, try and even things out with wounds, formations or these points formulae that people have been coming up with, but don't even bother with Sudden Death.
To be honest, it doesn't surprise me the ratio of acceptance/refusal is nearly 50/50.
People who were used to WFB game system are generally upset with the way AoS works. Too many changes at once are understandably hard to accept.
On the other hand, those who were never brought to WFB because of...reasons take AoS as it is; a new game, with a new universe and new rules. And I can understand why they're saying it's fun.
The real question is to know if AoS will be fun on the long term. For now, since it's new and people discover it, it can be fun to make the same thing again and again. But always "killing everything in the middle" will eventually get boring.
So we will need stuff to use - and it seems that's what GW is intending to do, with that "big book" coming soon and having a lot of...scenarios, as if it was a campaign mode.
And strangely...I actually feel like they're making "new" with "old" - at the beginning, when WFB was just a way to play big battles for role playing games. With scenarios and campaigns, thus.
I'm still not sure. I'm actually interested by some of their ideas and quite bothered by others. Rules are what they are (and honestly, that's not something very hard to do when you're used with GW games) but well...
I think I will rather wait to see what we will actually get; new books, new models, new prices (?), new fluff. No need to buy in a hurry, especially with the way GW keeps everything they do secret.
But since the rules are free and you can actually use anything you want (since bases "aren't important", you can really use any figurine from any source for all the warscrolls if you want, nobody will stop you - well, except for your opponent ), there is no harm playing a few games from time to time. Of course, that won't give GW a lot of money but hey...that's fair game, I believe.
It's funny to see that I can actually use my old models from the game Confrontation with that new ruleset. The fact square bases a bit different from GW's isn't important anymore, according to their rules. And yeah, Wolfen will be nice ogres/minotaurs/big guys or whatsoever.
I think this will end up being New Coke or Crystal Clear Pepsi or even 4th ed D&D. Lots of buzz at first but when the reality of "this is it?" sets in, it'll decline.
MWHistorian wrote: I think this will end up being New Coke or Crystal Clear Pepsi or even 4th ed D&D. Lots of buzz at first but when the reality of "this is it?" sets in, it'll decline.
Just a prediction.
What really hurt 4thD&D wasn't really the change of rules; it was the content of the books.
Fewer background and plenty of new (and sometimes useless) rules.
For a RPG game, that was a serious mistake. Still, 4th edition had (and certainly still has) its own community. It just wasn't enough.
We'll see what kind of content GW will bring to AoS - and from that, it will be a success or a failure.
For now, they managed to get the "old school of gamers" angry. That's a huge gamble, as it was for D&D. Future will tell, but indeed...it's not an easy one.
Well, if we're expecting it all to go New Coke, then they would be going back to WHFB in 6 months and everyone would love them for it and they would experience an unprecedented upswing in sales...
That's not the reaction I would have to the nilly willy shifting back and forth.
I'm just really glad I completely ignored the whole (now invalidated) End Times nonsense.
I'm just really glad I completely ignored the whole (now invalidated) End Times nonsense.
Ah! I remember clearly I was told being a fool when I was saying that series announced the end of WFB.
And I felt their rage when those people actually saw it was exactly that. Some still didn't believe it until AoS came. And some still dare to say it's not really the end of WFB.
Tried to play a few games with my dwarfs. Things I noticed was, that big special characters are better then anything else, specialy if they are mounted. Cavalery is OP. The only way for dwarf players to win is to spam artilery, which at the same time makes it very unfun for the other player and turns the whole game in to a roll check if I get two first turns back to back and kill his tyrions/melekiths. Armies that can't be killed with cannons are impossible to beat with dwarfs. It is a good thing that most of the time magic is not an important, but when it is it breaks the game. Something like nagash can solo a dwarf army. Sudden victory is the most stupid set of rules ever. Untargetable units , nagahs with zombi dragons, mass cavalery all are more devastating then a foot army, but can be run with fewer models. Summoning is probably the close second thing to sudden death. It breaks the game even when armies are limited to just formation compositions, because stupid GW worded the size of an army in a such a way that it is checked for legality only durning construction.
I hope they fix it in a real rule book or something, because right now it is dead for tournaments and very unfun outside of tournaments.
My dwarfs are doing fine in aos i only have 3 cannon and thats plenty to kill a monster even nagash. Foot troops work fine for me slayers are excelent in this game now and for an enemy who hides at the back theres rangers who shoot there crossbows twice if theres more than 20 of them coming on in t2 with bugmans help.
Ive found so far with this game that units need to work in tandum and boost each other sure a cav charge will mess a unit up but then what, there on there own and die the constant to hit/wound rolls really changes things and turn priority makes a big diffrence. I'm playing it and getting the box it's got me back into fantasy so alls good to me.
NecroPunk wrote: I think I'm most excited for the continuous narrative. I mean, AoS is the very first chapter in what I hope will be a very long story.
Yeah, I like that too. I always loved that in WarmaHordes with each supplement progressing the storyline forward, although that game is a bit too competitive to fully make use of it. AoS seems to be perfect for that. Just like LotR was - overall loose formation skirmish games allow your army to flow around and make use of terrain properly - that's what I hated about WFB - shoe box pushing movement mechanic that only punished you for cool scenery features.
I find their balancing mechanics interesting. True line of sight for attacking things, even if attacker and target are locked in seperate melees you can still shoot them. Also, when measuring from the model instead of the base you can pile up bases to get more models in melee and reaching units such as spearmen and lunging monsters get to hit more often. Remember that the model isn't moved in any way until the measuring is done. So pivoting and the like WILL NOT give you an advantage. Playing on a 3"x3" table will give you a couple hours of gameplay and limit the effectiveness of summoners and big monsters because they can't hide well from things that threaten them. Also with pile in moves you don't want to bunch up your army too much because the opponent may be able to swing his forces around your front line units while piling in and now your archers are getting their teeth kicked in when they thought they were safe.
You don't pre plan your army. You each have a collection to choose units from, and take turns deploying them. So death player places negash, dark elf player places bolt throwers to kill him. Death player then counters that with cavalry to rush the bolt throwers before they doe serious damage, dark elf player surrounds bolt throwers with a big ring of dread spears. And so on until the deployment zone is full, or you agree that there is enough to play on the table.
Deployment zone size, you max out on army size based on the table you play on. It even limits summoned units due to being restricted in how close they have to be to the summoner and how far they have to be from the enemy. Which keeps negash from just flooding the table after the first turn, but you have to rush him to keep him in line.
As for the sudden death rules, if you have 33% more models and got to cherry pick what you field to counter what they put down placing a turn limit on when you have to table your opponent is a legitimate balancing factor for victory.
. They want you to go out and have fun. If you can not have fun by doing silly little things you are taking the "Game" way to seriously.
