Given this is such a momentous release, a lot of threads have been posted covering essentially the same ground. In order to draw all these conversation together, I am consolidating them here. What do you think about Age of Sigmar? Have you played yet? Are you going to try it or buy any AoS products?
Keep in mind that Rule One is Be Polite. No matter what you think about AoS or WHFB, it is not a valid reason to attack people who play/dis/like those games. Please be especially mindful about avoiding inflammatory terms, generalizations, and blanket (mis)characterizations. Thanks!
I might not have minded it if it didn't represent the death of WHFB.
As it is - not one cent for AoS, and I have no interest in trying to play with those downloadable rules that came off the back of a kiddie-meal restaurant placemat.
I really liked the WHFB fantasy setting - I still think WHFRP's "Enemy Within" campaign is the best RPG supplement ever published - and it was sad to see them burn a deep, living background down because the bean-counters didn't like what they were seeing from the financial returns.
Best thing that could have happened to fantasy from my point of view. It was stale and boring and this freshens it up. Yes its extreme but it needed it.
Personally never been very interested in fantasy but AoS has me hooked. Pre ordered two copies of the game to start a khorne army and will buy more to add to it, hell when either dwarves or undead get re done will likely get a small army for them too.
Another plus point for it, my wife is interested in it and I mean actually interested not just the usual oh right looks ok but genuinely interested with the simple rules and look she has decided sigmarites are for her and she has even worked out a colour scheme and all sorts. It is pure win win for me.
Looking forward to getting some games in with many new faces
Eh, wondered why all them threads got locked... like some sort of mass cull. Though, seeing them all linked in the OP in one place does make me realise how many of them there were.
I guess I may as well sum up my main points regarding AoS:
- I do appreciate the game for what it is, and I will undoubtedly have fun playing it, providing I can meet certain conditions (balance etc) beforehand
- AoS isn't a mass battle game, which disappoints me. AoS players have to be considerate of me, and others, who liked that sort of game.
- AoS isn't of the scale or aesthetic of what I deem to be "Fantasy"
- I fear that GW's lack of support of WHFB will, eventually, lead to it being extremely hard to find a game of it.
- I also feel that GW could have released AoS as a separate game, and continued to support WHFB, even if they had to cut many of its lines or move them to mail order only.
- I feel that the complete lack of balancing systems, the lackluster and clunky rules, the lack of depth and the disregard to a lot of realism (being able to fire a bow in combat, for example) makes AoS a bad game to play, without players having to tweak it (which they shouldn't have to do)
- WHFB is simply a better game, for those reasons above. Yes, some people will prefer AoS but saying it is a game of better quality is like saying Sharknado is a better film than LotR: Return of the King (first best picture-winning, 10+ Oscar -winning film I could think of) simply because you enjoyed it more.
- Whether you're pro-Aos or pro-WHFB, you need to consider that/why other people prefer their game. However this recognition does not change what each game is
I really liked the WHFB fantasy setting - I still think WHFRP's "Enemy Within" campaign is the best RPG supplement ever published - and it was sad to see them burn a deep, living background down because the bean-counters didn't like what they were seeing from the financial returns.
So you wanted them to keep investing in a dead platform that is actually making them lose money
Plenty of people play WHFB, just not many buy models from GW anymore. Price simple as that.
The game just has nothing to offer me. Don’t like the setting, don’t like the system
I'm currently in the middle of a GM'ed hex campaign, revolving around dodgy goings on at Brass Keep. The encounters are either played as WHFB games or using a tweaked version of Warhammer Skirmish, for smaller encounters. I'm trying to open the road to Middenheim at the moment, so old Boris can get some White Wolf reinforcements to me. And its Awesome.
Magical realm A vs magical realm B, just doesn’t have any of that depth and richness to exploit. And you cant do proper Battles any more. Which as a WHFB player, that’s kind of what I want from my GW fantasy fix. I have more skirmish games, including GW ones that I can ever play properly, I don’t need another.
My opinion is what happened to fantasy was extreme and too much. They could've waited for the many warhammer fantasy video games to come out and given them time before axing off fantasy. The fact the 'dawn of war' series did so well and hooked me into warhammer in the first place should tell GW something. Perhaps they should branch out rather than get obsessed over IP protection and trying to sue people at first opportunity.
The move GW made alienated a good portion of their warhammer fantasy fans and they have a right to be angry. How would anybody else feel if they'd spent hundreds and put lots of time, effort and progress accumulating money only to be told the setting they loved was destroyed and if they like competitions they best just 'GET OUT!'? Even the local GW manager mentioned that if people quit that GW didn't want them anyway. You know back in 2007 i was told by a GW manager/employee some sales pitch that 'Sure you spent a lot of money on warhammer but you'll have it longer whereas with a video game you spend 50 dollars and are through with it in a month.' Lately i've seen 'End Times' books and stuff being taken off the shelves after having only been on them for a few months and costing about 70 something USD to buy. GW doesn't understand that we're not made out of money. Treating us like saps that'll just buy anything new they put out and crap ourselves and buy the next new thing when they make the previous one obsolete in 3 months is going to alienate and anger the player base.
My opinion: I can see AoS as something fun to play every now and then if I didn't have to invest more than maybe fifty bucks in it at most, preferably half that, and if I can find the right people rather than play with randoms. But from my experience as well as from watching, it's not really a quality game, nor something memorable. A casual game to be causally forgotten in a few years, and occasionally be reminded "oh yeah, that's a thing".
That is, as long as the rumors are right and the non-legacy armies are going to not have the stupid "beard" rules. If those non-legacy armies are infested with that crap too, then I don't even see this game being that much. They're stupid rules thoughtlessly thrown in, and as a result, are rife for abuse and powergaming, not the kind of well-planned rules necessary for the casual game it is pretending to be.
I think the biggest failing of GW was their inability to have a story that progresses without it being huge and impacting beyond reason.
Why couldn't they have, instead of end times, have had this new beastman, Ork or whatever rise up through the rank and lead an army on a huge campaign to take a city. They then could release a book of this character with details of his past and so on. Then the story of his quest to take a city and then what happens to the city once captured. Then it could detail the rivals story as well. Add to this new scenarios and new character rules and people might start getting peaked interest in the setting.
Just keep making nice normal changes to a setting seems a little hard for GW to grasp as most events have to be crazy important to even be worth putting in a rulebook of theirs.
With all the factions, land mass and so on they could have done a lot to increase interest that didn't involve a giant killing off of a setting and then a new game. It also isn't hard.
Out of interest, who would have been excited to see, for example, a scenario book that features a skaven incursion into a Lizardmen temple to try get a magic artifact. Quickly Skink braves on patrol go to intercept the skaven. From there the battle escalates as more forces from both sides are drawn into the conflict. Maybe the lizardmen go further into the skaven cave to take back the artifact? Maybe the lizards hold them off? maybe the Skaven take the artifact and start creating a new prototype weapon?
The scenario book can have rules for the generals on both sides. Maybe scenario book that features the initial fight and escalates into the large battle. This gives people the chance to slowly buy into the game and grow the collection. Potential for a new skaven model as well depending on the artifact.
Bam, to me that is sensible and easy story telling that can get people buying books and maybe armies.
Instead we get end times (lame) and then total reboot.
So my opinion? Really over the top and complete waste of a potentially cool and growing setting. I like Warhammer lore (game was ok) and I would have purchased the book above.
I actually agree with melissia here. I think this game will be forgotten in a few years tops. This will go the way of dreadfleet, mordheim and other unsupported games by GW. The whole unofficial army books readily available online for free points to this being very possible.
-------
Btw best idea i had for list restrictions are here.
Note normal heroes, wizards and monsters don't count against model cap.
0-2 Heroes (for each hero under max amount add 10 models to army cap)
0-1 Wizards (for each wizard under max add 10 models to army cap)
0-1 Named Characters (for every named character you have subtract 15 models from the model cap)
A model that is a wizard and also a hero takes up both slots and same goes for named characters. Monsters that are wizards or named are also taken into account. A named hero takes up the hero and named hero slot.
0-1 Monsters, each monster takes the place of 15 models from max models per army.
0-2 War machines or weapons teams, each war machine takes away 10 models from rank and file limit.
No more than 60 models per army from normal rank-and-file.
Units of models of normal rank-and-file have wounds count against model limit. For instance 15 ogres (4 wounds per model) are the max in model count.
-------
Also add this part for 1 wound models.
How about for 1 wound models that make up units we have a system? Each number will represent 1/2 a model against model count.
1-(1/2 a model) horde-units such as skavenslaves will be in this slot
2-(1 model) trained-units such as clanrats will be in this slot
3-(1 and 1/2 models) veteran-units such as stormvermin will be in this slot
4-(2 models) elite-units such as censer bearers and gutter runners will be in this slot
Elves for instance will usually run in the 3 and 4 category. All units like swordmasters, white lions, phoenix guard, sisters of averlorn are in the 4 category (2 models per). Slaves, zombies, peasants and maybe skinks are in the 1 category. Crappy rank and file such as skeletons, clanrats, marauders and most basic empire soldiers are in the 2 category (basically trained but not well). 3 is for usually the elite of horde armies and the core units of elite armies so basically bog standard elves, dwarfs and saurus and for horde armies you have stormvermin, greatswords and other such things. 4 is basically for the best 1 wound models elite armies can bring. Basically think of chaos chosen and elite elf and dwarf units.
I really liked the WHFB fantasy setting - I still think WHFRP's "Enemy Within" campaign is the best RPG supplement ever published - and it was sad to see them burn a deep, living background down because the bean-counters didn't like what they were seeing from the financial returns.
So you wanted them to keep investing in a dead platform that is actually making them lose money
Keep investing? They could have just kept releasing rules-sets (which we would all dutifully have purchased) and never invested in another new sculpt again. Trust me, I think most WHFB players would have been a lot better with that than with the choice they ultimately made.
I really liked the WHFB fantasy setting - I still think WHFRP's "Enemy Within" campaign is the best RPG supplement ever published - and it was sad to see them burn a deep, living background down because the bean-counters didn't like what they were seeing from the financial returns.
So you wanted them to keep investing in a dead platform that is actually making them lose money
Something tells me you wouldn't be saying that if your system was on the chopping block.
They merely needed to spread fantasy into other outlets such as video games. Total War: Warhammer would've been a great effort. Instead we get an incredibly half-baked system. You know what really gets at me? The fact my army was one of the few older than 8th edition armies still to be updated. So now i have the grand choice of only playing 8th edition with an army book never meant for 8th edition with about an 8 page FAQ or i have the choice of playing really crappy half-done rules in Age of Sigmar. My choices either way are pretty terrible.
I personally enjoy Age of Sigmar and I think it's only going to get better.Unfortunately people forget that it is still a new game, so won't have the tactical or competitive depth of Warhammer Fantasy, which had years to develop. I'm looking forward to seeing which direction GW takes AoS.
WargamingWarrior wrote: I personally enjoy Age of Sigmar and I think it's only going to get better.Unfortunately people forget that it is still a new game, so won't have the tactical or competitive depth of Warhammer Fantasy, which had years to develop. I'm looking forward to seeing which direction GW takes AoS.
I dont know... I have played plenty of new edition games and they seemed to be written with competence.
Bolt Action is first edition and that ruleset is pretty good for example.
It does not take a genius to release decent rules without selling 8 editions or more to get there. I think 2 editions is usually at most what is needed.
Once a die hard Warhammer Fantasy fan said to me: "The reason I dislike 40K is because I see nothing special in the fluff. I only see Green Space Marines, Blue Space Marines, Red Space Marines and that's all. I'm not interested in fantasy based in space"....
I did not replied with any arguments, simply because I had no interest in Fantasy Battle at all. But now I can pretty much said the same - All I see is Space Marines dressed up like gladiators into sword and sorcery - Conan the Barbarian - Fantasy Like....
I personally think Age of Sigmar is terribad. I played Warhammer Fantasy to have fun building lists, coming up with interesting army ideas within the ruleset, and actually *use strategies*. Everything I loved about Warhammer Fantasy is absent in Age of Sigmar and thus, I'm not getting involved save the rare pick up game or whatever.
But this is something of a new dawn for the old Warhammer fantasy, as I think we're going to see a lot of fan stuff being made, some of which will be better than the GW stuff. It's like the new NetEpic.
Three weeks ago if I went to play 8th and brought Eliasson's fine Cathay Codex, I'd probably be laughed out because it wasn't "GW Official", even though I believe he balances his stuff just as rigorously as GW does. Now if I went to play 8th with a friend and I brought it, I think nobody would mind giving it a try. This is an age of upheaval, that much is for sure.
so if want to post in response to one of the locked threads, we post it here?
This thread was actually about the analysis of wargaming community, not quite about AoS exclusively and how much we like/dislike it.
But anyway, I just wanted to add how offputt...you know what, nevermind. Feels so wrong to post it here and not in the original thread lol.
I'll just sum it up by saying I thank GW so much for making AoS if only b/c it diminishes the ultra-competitive powergamers. And I appreciate the objective to win as much as anyone. I never play just for fun. I always play to win. Winning is fun. But I vary my lists, I give myself a challenge, try to implement something fluffy or thematic perhaps, etc. You'll never see me dedicate my entire work week to coming up w/ a list to beat someone on a Friday night pick-up game. And it appears AoS will weed those types out.
Commissar Molotov wrote:I really liked the WHFB fantasy setting - I still think WHFRP's "Enemy Within" campaign is the best RPG supplement ever published - and it was sad to see them burn a deep, living background down because the bean-counters didn't like what they were seeing from the financial returns.
I just got my hands on the first book from 1986. It's really quite something.
Ejay wrote:So you wanted them to keep investing in a dead platform that is actually making them lose money
The setting was used for a profitable game line for almost three decades. It's recent financial trouble but past success tells us that it's not the setting, but what GW was doing with the game. Continuing to do the same and investing more money in a failed platform obviously wasn't going to work, but that doesn't mean you have to burn it to the ground and start over. Instead you can stop doing what's not working, look at what was working when the company grew from a UK importer of D&D into an international miniatures company and do more of that.
If the Warhammer universe served as a successful basis for a commercial product for decades and then it starts failing, the place to look for a problem to fix is not in the setting, but in how it has been mishandled in recent years.
I'd post a review but it's really too hard to think right now with this knife stuck deep in my back. Even half a bottle of whiskey doesn't dull the pain of them salting the wound with their neckbeard jokes.
Mysterious Pants wrote: I personally think Age of Sigmar is terribad. I played Warhammer Fantasy to have fun building lists, coming up with interesting army ideas within the ruleset, and actually *use strategies*. Everything I loved about Warhammer Fantasy is absent in Age of Sigmar and thus, I'm not getting involved save the rare pick up game or whatever.
But this is something of a new dawn for the old Warhammer fantasy, as I think we're going to see a lot of fan stuff being made, some of which will be better than the GW stuff. It's like the new NetEpic.
Three weeks ago if I went to play 8th and brought Eliasson's fine Cathay Codex, I'd probably be laughed out because it wasn't "GW Official", .
I agree with your feelings. and BTW that Codex is quite nice. Did you actually make a Cathay army?
It's a common problem with fantasy warhammers, but the size and shape of those sigmarine hammers has been bugging me and jogging my memory. Now I finally realise what they remind me of, and it's kind of appropriate to GW.
Am somewhat disappointed that my thread got rolled into this. Does this mean that if we're on topic for one thread in the OP, we're on topic for this thread?
Just got back from my FLGS where some Fantasy players had gathered tonight to try out Age of Sigmar before the midnight release. They were nice enough to let me watch and answer my questions as they played. Here are my impressions:
1. Against armies that are similarly constructed, the game is actually quite well-balanced. It still needs some sort of general rules for army construction. Number of wounds doesn't cut it; unit types need to be restricted. Deployment is also a problem; I would recommend adapting the scenarios in the starter set until more are released.
2. You want a game where close combat is powerful? This is that game. CC makes or breaks games, and the threat of CC dictates how people move and use terrain. Instead of only the first couple ranks mattering, you can now bubble-wrap and dogpile like in 40k. Just remember that if an unengaged enemy unit is within 3" of your combat they can pile into you! If you couldn't shoot into combats, assault would be broken in this game.
3. You know what's great in CC? Monsters. Even with their weakening with taking wounds, they are still more than capable of wrecking face and smashing through infantry blobs. Proper CC Heroes are no slouches either.
4. You want to kill monsters or heroes? Magic is how. Arcane Arrow is one of the most powerful spells in the game. Magic is great for whittling down monsters or heroes while staying safely out of CC range. Massed shooting can have a similar effect.
5. You want morale to matter? It definitely does here. Battleshock can be just as deadly as a good round of shooting or assault. The command ability that lets a unit automatically pass is one of the most important things you can do to keep your army alive and intact.
6. The most important dice roll is the one that decides who goes first in the round. Games are won and lost based on this single roll-off every game turn.
Overall, I can definitely see the potential in Age of Sigmar for a great game that's loads of fun. There's a solid rock-paper-scissors dynamic to the balance between infantry, monsters, heroes, and wizards. However, if the BRB doesn't deliver on giving some sort of army construction rules, deployment rules, and terrain rules, I can't see this game surviving the current wave of novelty. An FAQ and fixing summoning would be nice too.
TheNewBlood wrote: Am somewhat disappointed that my thread got rolled into this. Does this mean that if we're on topic for one thread in the OP, we're on topic for this thread?
Just got back from my FLGS where some Fantasy players had gathered tonight to try out Age of Sigmar before the midnight release. They were nice enough to let me watch and answer my questions as they played. Here are my impressions:
1. Against armies that are similarly constructed, the game is actually quite well-balanced. It still needs some sort of general rules for army construction. Number of wounds doesn't cut it; unit types need to be restricted. Deployment is also a problem; I would recommend adapting the scenarios in the starter set until more are released.
Try the list restrictions i posted. They're probably not perfect but it should be helpful.
-------------
Btw best idea i had for list restrictions are here.
Note normal heroes, wizards and monsters don't count against model cap.
0-2 Heroes (for each hero under max amount add 10 models to army cap)
0-1 Wizards (for each wizard under max add 10 models to army cap)
0-1 Named Characters (for every named character you have subtract 15 models from the model cap)
A model that is a wizard and also a hero takes up both slots and same goes for named characters. Monsters that are wizards or named are also taken into account. A named hero takes up the hero and named hero slot.
0-1 Monsters, each monster takes the place of 15 models from max models per army.
0-2 War machines or weapons teams, each war machine takes away 10 models from rank and file limit.
No more than 60 models per army from normal rank-and-file.
Units of models of normal rank-and-file have wounds count against model limit. For instance 15 ogres (4 wounds per model) are the max in model count.
-------
Also add this part for 1 wound models.
How about for 1 wound models that make up units we have a system? Each number will represent 1/2 a model against model count.
1-(1/2 a model) horde-units such as skavenslaves will be in this slot
2-(1 model) trained-units such as clanrats will be in this slot
3-(1 and 1/2 models) veteran-units such as stormvermin will be in this slot
4-(2 models) elite-units such as censer bearers and gutter runners will be in this slot
Elves for instance will usually run in the 3 and 4 category. All units like swordmasters, white lions, phoenix guard, sisters of averlorn are in the 4 category (2 models per). Slaves, zombies, peasants and maybe skinks are in the 1 category. Crappy rank and file such as skeletons, clanrats, marauders and most basic empire soldiers are in the 2 category (basically trained but not well). 3 is for usually the elite of horde armies and the core units of elite armies so basically bog standard elves, dwarfs and saurus and for horde armies you have stormvermin, greatswords and other such things. 4 is basically for the best 1 wound models elite armies can bring. Basically think of chaos chosen and elite elf and dwarf units.
flamingkillamajig wrote: My opinion is what happened to fantasy was extreme and too much. They could've waited for the many warhammer fantasy video games to come out and given them time before axing off fantasy. The fact the 'dawn of war' series did so well and hooked me into warhammer in the first place should tell GW something. Perhaps they should branch out rather than get obsessed over IP protection and trying to sue people at first opportunity.
The move GW made alienated a good portion of their warhammer fantasy fans and they have a right to be angry. How would anybody else feel if they'd spent hundreds and put lots of time, effort and progress accumulating money only to be told the setting they loved was destroyed and if they like competitions they best just 'GET OUT!'? Even the local GW manager mentioned that if people quit that GW didn't want them anyway. You know back in 2007 i was told by a GW manager/employee some sales pitch that 'Sure you spent a lot of money on warhammer but you'll have it longer whereas with a video game you spend 50 dollars and are through with it in a month.' Lately i've seen 'End Times' books and stuff being taken off the shelves after having only been on them for a few months and costing about 70 something USD to buy. GW doesn't understand that we're not made out of money. Treating us like saps that'll just buy anything new they put out and crap ourselves and buy the next new thing when they make the previous one obsolete in 3 months is going to alienate and anger the player base.
To be fair, on your second point about people effectively losing out on a game they have invested in, this is a risk that every person has to consider when they invest into a game. I'm not trying to mitigate their loss, or try to invalidate their feelings. But games won't always exist forever. I was heavily invested in Heroclix when it was first released and bought product and played it religiously. Then Topps had a panic attack and ended up dropping the game. I'm fortunate that the game came back, but for several years, the game I loved and devoted my time and money into was effectively GONE. Was I pissed? Yes. But it opened my eyes to this realization.
I don't expect 40k to be around forever. When/if it dies, it'll suck. But it will likely happen.
That is a good point, Malevolence. Most games do not have anything like the lifespan WHFB enjoyed. (Starship Troopers, AT-43, Confrontation, etc., etc.) Of course, there have been folks who felt the specific WHFB they loved "died" with the advent of a new edition. I read a lot of that around here when Eighth came out.
I just came back from the midnight release party for AoS at my LGS. The store was pretty packed and everyone seemed to really enjoy the miniatures and demos. I think AoS is going to do very well, especially compared to WHFB's performance over the past 5+ years. 40k players will probably be getting Age of Abaddon or what have you in the not too distant future.
I feel bad for the Fantasy players, because GW was silent for months and then sprung a new system and completely pulled support from the old. I'm not a super geek but I can't think of a reboot in any fandom or media that has done that. Some people will say 'GW said they were ending the world, you should have known!' But the direction of fluff is different from the future of a game system, I really think they should have just straight-up SAID what they were going to do.
All that said, I was never going to play WHFB in its old form, I enjoyed the background but the entry cost in terms of money and time was a deal-breaker. Last night on a whim I showed the AoS rules to my non-gamer-but-game-to-try-my-games wife. After commenting on the length ("Its not a book?") she read them and wants to try a game soon. That would never have happened in a million years with WHFB and has only ever happened once before (ironically, with X-Wing). So in my book Fantasy went from a zero to a slight positive. We'll see how her first game goes.
Manchu wrote: That is a good point, Malevolence. Most games do not have anything like the lifespan WHFB enjoyed. (Starship Troopers, AT-43, Confrontation, etc., etc.) Of course, there have been folks who felt the specific WHFB they loved "died" with the advent of a new edition. I read a lot of that around here when Eighth came out.
I just came back from the midnight release party for AoS at my LGS. The store was pretty packed and everyone seemed to really enjoy the miniatures and demos. I think AoS is going to do very well, especially compared to WHFB's performance over the past 5+ years. 40k players will probably be getting Age of Abaddon or what have you in the not too distant future.
My guess will be this: Age of Sigmar is going to be Fantasy until this game revives the interest/possibility of a 9th edition. I think when GW refines the basic starter rules, the game will get more favor amongs vets as well. I have a feeling what will happen is AoS will become the Fantasy intro game, that allows newcommers to play with their first few investments and have fun doing it. Then, if they keep investing, they can move up to a much grander, more in depth/complicated game if a 9th edition comes out or if GW redistributes 8th.
Honestly, I was always on the fence about Fantasy because of the general cost. 40k was expensive enough, but the base points limit that people tended to play for Fantasy was 1000+ points MORE than 40k. Not to mention the armies had a lot of units. The Orc and Goblin book intimidated me with just how many units they had. i didn't even know where to begin.
With AoS, I can play small, invest small, and have some fun with Fantasy's great model line. Then, when I build up enough, I can join the guys who still intent to play 8th edition, and that will give me time to figure out what I want to buy for that massive army.
Melevolence wrote: My guess will be this: Age of Sigmar is going to be Fantasy until this game revives the interest/possibility of a 9th edition.
There may eventually be an "advanced" handbook for AoS but I honestly don't think GW will go back to blocks of troops.
rabidaskal wrote: I really think they should have just straight-up SAID what they were going to do.
Just looking at the date on the product, AoS was well on its way since at least 2014. In some ways, the release mirrors the fluff -- a bolt from the blue strike. Guess that makes us customers the hordes of enraged Khornites? If the shoe fits ...
In all seriousness, I can see why GW did not say -- hey guys, we are getting rid of rank and flank altogether, along with points-based list building -- months before they were ready for release. That would have caused at least the same amount of hard feelings as currently and arguably more, considering we'd be waiting for all the gorgeous models to assuage skepticism, bafflement, and downright offense. Doing it this way is certainly shocking -- but with shock comes awe, I guess.
rabidaskal wrote: After commenting on the length ("Its not a book?") she read them and wants to try a game soon.
This is such an important point, and not just for non-gamers and would-be gamers!
My opinion is that Age of Sigmar has some good core ideas but needs some fleshing out. There is no rules at all to army building other than using Warscrolls and the guidelines provided therein. However, I am excited by the idea that I can just take units from whatever faction I want. It'd be neat to add some Dwarven warriors or Wood Elf archers to support my Sigmarines. Sooo.... I'm a little torn.
Maybe what I would like to see is a book that puts some kind of army composition to Age of Sigmar. As cool as how open list building is Age of Sigmar is impossible to run tournaments for out of the box.
Regardless, I love the Sigmarines and even if Age of Sigmar tanks there are plenty of alternative games to use the models. KoW comes to mind and maybe Dragon's Rampant.
Have played a few games and the game is really awesome and fun, however as mentioned army list building is somewhat of an issue, especially at my FLGS. We have been working on creating some form of Format when it comes to list building that we feel so far has worked really well, especially in larger sized games. We ran this all day today and had zero complaints and overall seemed to work really well:
-12 War Scrolls Max
-x3 Hero War Scrolls Only
-x3 Monster War Scrolls
-Max number of Wounds in a Unit: 40
Keeping it to this everyone was able to have fun and even run Formations that they wanted to and no one had to worry about anyone trying to pull some crazy shenanigans. Personally I played my Wood Elves against the new Stormcast Eternals, new Khorne and an Undead army. Shooting in this edition/game got even better with no negative modifiers for range or terrain and my Waywatchers and Glade Riders proved that! Looking forward to expanding my Aelf army to include some more units from the High Elf forces and see how it goes!
Commissar Molotov wrote:I really liked the WHFB fantasy setting - I still think WHFRP's "Enemy Within" campaign is the best RPG supplement ever published - and it was sad to see them burn a deep, living background down because the bean-counters didn't like what they were seeing from the financial returns.
I just got my hands on the first book from 1986. It's really quite something.
Ejay wrote:So you wanted them to keep investing in a dead platform that is actually making them lose money
The setting was used for a profitable game line for almost three decades. It's recent financial trouble but past success tells us that it's not the setting, but what GW was doing with the game. Continuing to do the same and investing more money in a failed platform obviously wasn't going to work, but that doesn't mean you have to burn it to the ground and start over. Instead you can stop doing what's not working, look at what was working when the company grew from a UK importer of D&D into an international miniatures company and do more of that.
If the Warhammer universe served as a successful basis for a commercial product for decades and then it starts failing, the place to look for a problem to fix is not in the setting, but in how it has been mishandled in recent years.
Ok, so I'm a gate crashing 40k player here, but I exalted this post as it just nicely sums up the problem with GW all over. Nevermind all the "no market research" nonsense, the current management have zero ability to do any kind of critical self reflection. Any problem with sales, player base etc. can't possibly be the result of their decisions. It must be the fault of small third party manufacturers. Or eBay bits sellers. Or everyone in the world suddenly simultaneously getting bored with a game that they've loved for over three decades. Or moon rays.
Whatever your feelings on AoS I hope everyone can recognise that GW need to wake up fast, because any company that is that detached from reality is going to get in real trouble, real fast.
I played a couple more games yesterday in store, one of which appeared to be quite a lop-sided game at one point. An army of Dwarves and lizardmen Vs Ogres and Goblins.
Basically, the terrifying large monsters, Giants and Mangler Squigs, were all destroyed by the end of turn 1 leaving a swirling shooting/ melee of units.
We had a couple of ambush units, and some camouflage skinks which, in cover managed to throw a confident pair of opponents completely off guard.
We also discussed game breaking deathstars. Units of Ogres, backed up with multiple wizards casting Mystic shield against the same unit to give unbeatable armour saves, 1+ save anyone? However, -2 rends and Mortal wounds helped there.
It was interesting fun, and we all seem to be learning the strengths and weakness of the format.
One thing that leapt out at me was the balancing system. We didn't adopt one, apart from our own self-regulation. However, this consisted of, "you can't take that whole load of Ogres, they've only got 2 units of skinks and some quarrellers."
This was a natural thing to do and I agree that the points mechanic has been deliberately left out to force people to adopt a more social attitude towards their opponents. Whilst it's possible to be a bell end, you are actively discouraged from doing so by the fact that the game would be utterly pointless, and over by turn 1 or 2. No one would bother playing that again, what's the point?
However, the games were fun, and I was surprised at how much strategy, team work and sportsmanship came out of the games. More so than the usual 40k games I've played.
Sportsmanship and team work particularly, were very obvious. Both sides were genuinely seeking opportunities for everyone to enjoy themselves, and were playing with that in mind. Strategy came from studying our unit abilities and working out how to best place and utilise them in the face of what appeared to be overwhelming superiority.
With those aspects in mind, it's been a winner for me so far.
I hate myself for enjoying it so much, though it means I can do a Clan Skyre Skaven army on the "cheap"...though Stormvermin are nasty!
I think on a largish table, with good terrain, it will become more than just a giant mosh pit in the middle. I think the combat phase is more nuanced than I originally though. Activating the wrong unit and the wrong time can be fatal.
All in all, it was good fun. GW will probably get a few more dollars out of me for it.
However, the games were fun, and I was surprised at how much strategy, team work and sportsmanship came out of the games. More so than the usual 40k games I've played.
Sportsmanship and team work particularly, were very obvious. Both sides were genuinely seeking opportunities for everyone to enjoy themselves, and were playing with that in mind. Strategy came from studying our unit abilities and working out how to best place and utilise them in the face of what appeared to be overwhelming superiority.
With those aspects in mind, it's been a winner for me so far.
Funny enough, but that kind of behavior isn't coming from the rules; I play many other games and I don't really see many players acting as a jerk - except for a few "social cases".
It comes from the players, and for now, in stores, it's obvious the managers would promote "fun and not nitpicking playstyle" for the demo games, because the rules are so easy to abuse and they don't want their game to look bad or silly.
We'll see if that stays the same in the next few months.
For myself, I believe AoS will attract new players - rules are free, you can play with a few models and games don't have to take a lot of time (you can also easily make a few games in a row!). Prices are relative; GW's ones aren't so high compared to other skirmish games. Since you don't have to buy a few dozen boxes to really "start playing", that new politic will surely be appealing to a lot of people previously staying out of this because of the high investment.
We just have to see what will be available in the future. It will be fun to see what the next months will bring ...
2. You want a game where close combat is powerful? This is that game. CC makes or breaks games, and the threat of CC dictates how people move and use terrain. Instead of only the first couple ranks mattering, you can now bubble-wrap and dogpile like in 40k. Just remember that if an unengaged enemy unit is within 3" of your combat they can pile into you! If you couldn't shoot into combats, assault would be broken in this game.
3. You know what's great in CC? Monsters. Even with their weakening with taking wounds, they are still more than capable of wrecking face and smashing through infantry blobs. Proper CC Heroes are no slouches either.
4. You want to kill monsters or heroes? Magic is how. Arcane Arrow is one of the most powerful spells in the game. Magic is great for whittling down monsters or heroes while staying safely out of CC range. Massed shooting can have a similar effect.
5. You want morale to matter? It definitely does here. Battleshock can be just as deadly as a good round of shooting or assault. The command ability that lets a unit automatically pass is one of the most important things you can do to keep your army alive and intact.
6. The most important dice roll is the one that decides who goes first in the round. Games are won and lost based on this single roll-off every game turn.
2-3: combat's important in a wargame, and monsters are important in a GW wargame. Well I never. The assertion that a weird shooting mechanic (that I can't see in the rules pdf) is the only thing that saves it doesn't sit well.
4: magic is powerful in a GW wargame. Get away.
5: didn't some people dislike KoW because morale mattered?
6: I've got a great house rule that'll make AoS even easier to learn and more streamlined. Each player deploys their forces, then they flip a coin to decide who wins...
On that note, yeah, no. I don't think that a couple of guys in a random GW store coming up with unofficial, unsupported house rules entirely counts.
I've decided today that I will be exchanging the starter set for some 40k stuff instead :p I've already bought the game on pre-order.
My store manager is going to be upset about it since he has been so excited for this game. But it's a lot of money to spend on a game that I won't have motivation to play.
I've done some thinking and my conclusion is this; that they would pretty much have to re-design the whole game to fix it. I'm looking back on all of the other game systems that I have played over the years. Gorkamorka, Epic 40k, Gothic, Necromunda......I'm not saying that I'm the biggest expert of table top games or anything, but for me I think AOS might just be the worst game ever designed.
They could maybe fix the balance and add some points cost, I have heard rumors of this. But that won't fix the issues with the core gameplay. Your units always interact the same way with other units...the dice never change. There is no strategy with movement and no consequences to being charged. Measuring from the model and not the base was just a horribly conceived idea.....scratching your painted miniatures trying to cram your guys in. The scenery and cover in general is just crap. I was trying to watch a battle report on Youtube and it was just so boring, I had to skip to the end :p
This is just my opinion on it. I have noticed a lot of people on Dakka supporting AOS and being optimistic about it. I don't know if it's because it is new and exciting game and they just want to love it. Or maybe they want to be the alternative, because the reviews have been so bad on the product.
I'm actually a GW fanboy too. I dropped money on AOS right away and the game didn't even need to be very good for me to spend more on it. But the product is the absolute worst case scenario for me.
I'll preface this by saying imo I was neither a white knight on AoS, its release and rules nor a hater.
I was willing to give it a shot as fantasy was never my main game and whilst I loved the lore I had no real attachment to the game – I own no fantasy models but have played games with friends around the 2001 edition and again in the 2009 edition.
In terms of my gaming background I have played all of 40k editions bar 3rd, played Warmachine, read the rules for Force on Force and played several other games with different mechanics – Space Hulk, Bloodbowl, BFG and other board games like Axis and Allies, Risk etc.
That is not trying to say I am an experienced gamer or know everything but I'd consider myself far from a greenhorn either.
So. With that in mind, here's my review for a first game of AoS.
I played orcs n Gobbos VS Lizardmen with the following armies:
O&G: Ork warboss on boar – 6 w
Ork shaman on boar – 5w
Ork bully – 4w
Ork bully – 4w
2 x 10 Ork boys – 20w
10 x Ork arrerboys -10w
5 x Boarboys – 10w
15 x gobbos – 15w
2 x rocklobbas – 10w
Total W = 84
Model count = 56
Lizardmen: Saurus oldblood – 7w
Saurus standard bearer - 4w
10 x Saurus – 10w
5 Krox – 20w
2 x 7 cham skinks – 14w
2 x 4 terradon riders – 24w
Stegadon – 10w
Total W = 89
Model count = 40
I chose each army basically like this: A Lord style character or Command-esque unit
A few normal core units mixed with shooting
Something I considered might be fun – Stegadon and Gobbo artillery
Something useful – Terradon and Boarboys
I gave very little thought to points (in terms of old WHFB ideals), wounds or what was fair until towards the end of each army when I did try and balance things out a bit via # of wounds.
I never played O&G or Lizzies in WHFB so leave it up to the more experienced guys here to comment on the lists or see if I was completely out of whack.
Either way, I mainly tried to pick two roughly balanced armies to have some fun.
Overall thoughts:
Setup: The random terrain table roll I feel dosent work as fairly as it should. As you can see the Lms ended up with no terrain in one of their table quarters. In dirtier, shooting heavy battles this could make a real difference as having a +1 save for cover allied to say the magic shield can really improve a units survivability. I think every quarter should have at least 1 piece of terrain in it, even if its just a small wood or wall etc.
The other thing the rules dont clarify is who actually places the terrain down and in what positions. I couldn't find a rule for this? Have you guys?
I also ignored the terrain effects table, I think its very weak and just adds something else to track of with no overly fun elements. YMMV.
The alternating unit deployment mechanic was very interesting, in fact I really enjoyed it. It makes you have to react to your opponents placements of units and effectively try and "read" what his plan is. Of course he might well be using a feint or a unit as a distraction to throw you off.
In this game it was apparent the Terradons were going after the Orc artillery and as a result the Orcs reinforced that area with Gobbos which were originally planned to form a huge skirmish line centrally. It was a fun mechanic in this game.
The Warlord trait table is OK, I didn't find it made much of a difference this game but it could be a major factor in other games – a single re-roll might save your general or get a spell off and 2-3 on it is useful.
Command abilities especially for low LD armies makes a big difference, twice the Orcs managed to save units from being BS'd from the table.
Strategic VS Tactical elements: I'll say this straight up, a lack of objectives or overall "goal" really hurts the game. Mine didn't bog down too much into a central mosh pit as I chose to move and attack other isolated units but I have seen several reps where it becomes just that. Its too one dimensional and frankly eliminates almost completely refused flanks, objective defence, using dedicated outflankers for obj captures, tactical focal points and even use of terrain features.
Afaik the new scenarios coming out will put some form of objective into them such as get X models off the board or kill the general or capture a point and this absolutely needs to be the case imo.
A few "whack em till dead style" games sure can be fun but on a long term basis, its definitely not going to keep my interest.
I await the new scenarios.
I feel a strategic element is lacking in the game so far. However tactical nuances do exist and for those claiming its just pewpew in a mosh are incorrect. Running skirmish lines, bublewrapping key units, shooting priority, hth target and turn priority, removal of casualties, stacking wounds or not on multi wound models all play a part in this as does taking cover and trying to get the best save possible (cover + magic shield) or simply staying out of LoS.
Combinations such as having your general use a command ability or inspiring presence can also have an affect on the game.
No, these arent earth shattering dynamics and experienced gamers will be well used to them, however, they are present and most certainly do make a difference.
Bases VS actual models. Again straight up to me this dosent work at all. I was proxying 40k models for this but even then found myself quite literally shoving models closer to the enemy in order to get hth range. It felt totally wrong and almost childish. Something as simple as an extended weapon arm poking into someone's belly can make a big difference and I dont agree with it Im afraid.
Things get worse when you have 3-4 units in melee range juggling for position. Since bases dont matter at all, you can as said, shove the model as close as you like in all sorts of strange rotations and "clumped-uped-ness".
I will definitely be houseruling that aspect to use bases again even it means less attacks or less clear situations.
Shooting: Shooting is simply and fairly clear, anyone who has ever played any wargame will get it, range, LoS, to hit etc all apply and theres no real need to comment further. It works as a mechanic.
On the shooting into and out of combat, in my game it didn't make a huge difference as I hadn't a massive amount of ranged units, however as a tactics, it will definitely influence games for the better imo. It adds another layer to the target priority angle, you must consider wiping out ranged units, even skirmishers as they will continue popping away at you VS taking out the real harder dedicated hth units.
I liked it tbh and so far welcome it as a rule.
Hand to hand combat: taking a step back and looking at the game overall I did enjoy the hand to hand. It ultimately felt juicy especially something like the Kroxigors Vs the Orc Boyz and then the General piling in.
However I do concede it got quite complicated and sometimes difficult to track who attacked, hit what and who can pile in etc.
I think on a personal level for future games some sort of home-made chart or grid to track things would go a long way.
There was also a lot of looking up of special hth attacks or abilities which slowed things down a lot. However this is common with new games systems and rote and practice will get over this.
Hero characters definitely make a difference and hit hard as they should do – but dont seem too overpowered - in my game anyway. Having said that, big block units like the Orcboys or Saurus felt underwhelming and a bit like filler in some sense which was disappointing. I had more fun with the Boarboys and Stegadon than the rank n file troops. Should that be AoS or was WHFB the same? Im kinda 50-50 on that point and more games are needed.
Some units felt a touch wacky – Terradons with 16 attacks in a unit of 4 or Boarboys with 15 in 5 did again take away from the core troops. Solution? Take more Core guys? It then becomes difficult imo due to model placement and the distance to attack rules. Even with 10 Boyz I found it hard to squeeze them into the big fight that erupted.
Im not convinced on this so far but overall the mechanic rates as OK.
Magic: I didn't have enough wizards to really make a big difference in this game so cant really comment on what might be broken or fun in that aspect. From my reading of the rules the relatively low cost of casting means one must always take a counter wizard to try and dispel as you could have lots of nasty stuff going off if not.
More games are needed in that aspect for myself.
Dice rolls: I found I was rolling a lot of dice tbh. However the fact that a lot of the rolls are flat i.e. 3+ 4+ etc does speed things up. Even with things like 20 dice, it was a case of batch rolling which sped things up nicely. Im not sure in bigger games how it might go however as some models can make multiple shooting and hth attacks. TBC I feel.
Overall impressions: It was a fun game, I did enjoy it. However until some form of objectives or strategic element is introduced, longevity is most certainly going to suffer.
Was it as fun as some of the old WHFB games I had? Hmmm, some elements were, it was faster, it was simpler, there were less omfg moments ala comet of cassander or Arkans flying chariot of crazy. However the hth did get bogged down a bit and keeping track of it was tough. Tactical movement is less important now than target priority and hth priority and terrain didnt feature much which Im personally disappointed in, being a terrain nut. Whilst I thin something like 40ks random difficult terrain stuff is crap, some form of loss or angle should be brought in I feel – it adds another layer of tactics.
Thats it for me so, I'm hoping to get the batrep with pics up today or during the week. Hope the review was useful.
Addendum:
6. The most important dice roll is the one that decides who goes first in the round. Games are won and lost based on this single roll-off every game turn.
I completely forgot about this in my game. Darn it. I ddnt even realise it was a rule. that will make an enormous difference in the game. I'll have to refight so and see what impact it has.
AoS is popular with 40k players. I hear a lot of people around this forum saying they hated fantasy but played 40k and they love AoS which is all well and good for them but some of us did like fantasy so to say "get over it" from a 40k perspective would be like GW making 40k mass army with square bases and totally changing your game and then us saying "well its more like fantasy which is great so get over it"
AoS is like the new Star trek movies, Abrams said "lets make it more like star wars, people love star wars" and they did and lots of star wars types liked it but a lot of the star trek fans didn't because its not star trek, its star wars wearing star treks face. AoS shares warhammer fantasies name and races but beyond that, its not fantasy. It feels more like dredfleet and yes I own a box of dredfleet because its a nice standalone one off game and AoS; is more like a small one off independent game. It does not deserve to be fantasy's full replacement it just doesn't have enough meat to be a full on game.
I'll probably pick up a small force later on when the armies are all released just to store in case I want to have a one off game but im not going in to collect, it just doesn't have longevity for a table top game and thats my opinion on it.
I saw the beginnings of a game in my local GW earlier this week and there was a LOT of "ok, this is how we'll do this. This is how we'll work around that" type of talk. The store manager was even getting involved and suggesting things, which leads me to believe that it may come to be a passable pick up game in that store but I highly doubt there will ever be anything sweeping and official for the ruleset as far as fixes go.
Manchu wrote: That is a good point, Malevolence. Most games do not have anything like the lifespan WHFB enjoyed. (Starship Troopers, AT-43, Confrontation, etc., etc.) Of course, there have been folks who felt the specific WHFB they loved "died" with the advent of a new edition. I read a lot of that around here when Eighth came out.
I just came back from the midnight release party for AoS at my LGS. The store was pretty packed and everyone seemed to really enjoy the miniatures and demos. I think AoS is going to do very well, especially compared to WHFB's performance over the past 5+ years. 40k players will probably be getting Age of Abaddon or what have you in the not too distant future.
The launch party I went to went really well, too. It was more people that I saw interested in spending money on Fantasy than I've seen in like, the last 3 years put together. It didn't hurt that the weekend was a Magic prerelease date, and there were people who went for that, and saw Sigmar too.
The box contents are really beautiful. The miniatures are just amazing, and the book has wonderful artwork in it, though amazingly little written content for 96 pages. Compared to the WMH starter set book, it blows it out of the water in terms of presentation and fluff (well, there is essentially no fluff in the WMH starter rulebook). It's *clearly* built with a different target audience in mind.
I get "it", it's just that "it" isn't very good in my opinion, and certainly isn't really what I want out of a wargame.
And I understand that. But that's still beyond the point. You may or may not get that AoS is not designed for players like you, but it still seems a lot of the complainers don't.
Discussing w/ a local game designer, I had originally compared it to various macaroni and cheese products and recipes, but the game designer compared it more to Mercedes.
Basically, he said say you were a Mercedes-Benz (MB from here on out!) collector and bought a new MB every couple years or so. But suddenly MB says they're going to stop making luxury cars and only make economy hatchbacks. I can understand that if an MB collector would be angry. But you can still drive your old MB's. You can still find new cars to collect every couple years. I get not liking the fact MB changed their manufacturing brand, but why dwell on it? Why constantly complain about it? It won't change anything. Your life isn't negatively affected by it. Go collect Lexus instead, or again, just drive your MB's you already have... (another funny coincidence, BoLS did an article about Cadillac in a similar regard, and it's worked out for Cadillac)
But that still doesn't quite address the point the article - and GW - is trying to make. The game is almost ironic in that it's so free and open in rules, that it's actually designed - just not explicitly - to be self-regulated by the players. The overly-austere, discourteous, stubborn powergamers keep trying to point out how flawed the design is, but it seems they just aren't grasping the intention behind the design, b/c they keep criticizing the mechanics as if AoS is supposed to be comparable to 40k (I almost wanna say this is like a right-brain vs left-brain thing).
The game seems to be pulling off its intended goal quite nicely, given how many people/groups are actually communicating, coming up w/ ideas, testing things out, and...COMMUNICATING, etc. Besides new players, those are the types of players AoS is intended for. The people who are just constantly complaining w/o even playing it or coming w/ ideas to break the game - "derp, 20 Archaons, derp" - are essentially beating a dead horse.
So the "it" or the point being the complainers are just perpetuating the negative perception that the community has and that AoS is designed to weed out for itself. Yet rather than weed them out, it's just brought them out to be more vocal. At least in the short term. I'm sure in 3~10 months, the community will normalize and the QQers will be mostly quiet.
And it isn't even a shot at all powergamers in a vacuum or anything like that. There are amicable ones out there. I know a couple of local powergamers who don't like AoS. But rather than constantly whine and complain about the mechanics, they're trying out other games, sticking to 8E, proxying their WHFB models for similar games, hell, or even actually playing it to try to still figure out ways to make it work, etc. Read: moving on or adapting.
Plus, you almost addressed your own problem here. You said it yourself - AoS is not what you want in a wargame. So adapt. That's what we as humans are - or at least should be - all about. You can either adapt by finding something different to play or adapt by finding ways to make AoS work for you. Or stick to 8E, etc.
Honestly, what do you do whenever you test out (you have tested AoS, right?) a game? Constantly complain about it for a week or just move on to something else? A complaint about money sunk into the-now-unsupported-WHFB I can understand, but there are still options to put those models to use (KoW, LotR, WHFB 8E, etc).
Los pollos hermanos wrote: AoS is popular with 40k players. I hear a lot of people around this forum saying they hated fantasy but played 40k and they love AoS which is all well and good for them but some of us did like fantasy so to say "get over it" from a 40k perspective would be like GW making 40k mass army with square bases and totally changing your game and then us saying "well its more like fantasy which is great so get over it"
Yeah, it's not fair for 40k players to tell Fantasy fans to "get over it". GW didn't just switch the bases; GW made a new game that uses the same models, but is an unrecognizably different game. So Fantasy fans being sad is a natural thing. Call it what it is: Fantasy Battle was deemed unviable as a commercial product and axed.
On the other hand, as other people have said, the sales have been flagging for a long time, and GW at least gave Fantasy a fitting send-off with End Times -- something most companies that are going to ditch a product wouldn't do. And it wasn't a weak send-off, either. There were plenty of awesome End Times models.
Finally, there is nothing preventing the use of 8e rules in the Sigmar setting. I don't preclude the possibility that one day, GW will release a set of new rules optimized for high model count Fantasy, either -- or maybe a Kill Team type supplement, that gives official rules changes for playing a different type of game (except bigger, in this case, not smaller).
Manchu wrote: 40k players will probably be getting Age of Abaddon or what have you in the not too distant future.
Having played AoS, moving 40k to Age of Abaddon is not a bad thing.
Look at how streamlined AoS is. Imagine if 40k were just as clean and smooth, instead of having rules crossreferenced everywhere. Each unit boiled down to its essence, with everything on one page. That would be great.
Sure, the game could stand some complications like Characters joining units, but overall, it's very good.
Basically, he said say you were a Mercedes-Benz (MB from here on out!) collector and bought a new MB every couple years or so. But suddenly MB says they're going to stop making luxury cars and only make economy hatchbacks. I can understand that if an MB collector would be angry. But you can still drive your old MB's. You can still find new cars to collect every couple years. I get not liking the fact MB changed their manufacturing brand, but why dwell on it? Why constantly complain about it? It won't change anything. Your life isn't negatively affected by it. Go collect Lexus instead, or again, just drive your MB's you already have... (another funny coincidence, BoLS did an article about Cadillac in a similar regard, and it's worked out for Cadillac)
Except its not just switching to a new car, its stopping supporting your luxury cars (if we're going with that example) it means they're stopping insuring your car, making parts for your car and beyond. Any Mercedes owner would be rightly annoyed. They'd say sure make affordable hatchbacks but keep supporting luxury cars for god sake you built your company on them. Or imagine if Apple stopped selling mac products and switched to PC desktops, there would be an amazing uproar.
As for it doesn't negatively effect your life thats subjective. A lot of players simply don't like this new system. What are they going to play now if their local switches over to everyone playing AoS they're now left out. They have to go find a new group who play a different game. Perhaps someones left with thousands of pounds of warhammer for a new system they cannot enjoy even when they wanted to or tried it out. Maybe someone just invested in an expensive unit to go along with a list they have been perfecting for months, now worthless for their original intent. So we cannot say for sure that warhammer switching over isn't going to negativly effect any players. As I said before on another thread, what happens when your club wants to play with those silly beard rules and you really don't? you're left out.
Now I don't own any warhammer anymore so AoS doesn't really effect me but I can easily see it from those perspectives who have lost something in this change over and denying that isn't going to help anyone. Nor is telling them to either 'leave' 'stop whining' 'or adapt or get out' because they have only just recently lost what might have been a big thing in their lives or perhaps their only hobby. Give them time to grieve over it for gods sake before kicking them out.
But that still doesn't quite address the point the article - and GW - is trying to make. The game is almost ironic in that it's so free and open in rules, that it's actually designed - just not explicitly - to be self-regulated by the players. The overly-austere, discourteous, stubborn powergamers keep trying to point out how flawed the design is, but it seems they just aren't grasping the intention behind the design, b/c they keep criticizing the mechanics as if AoS is supposed to be comparable to 40k (I almost wanna say this is like a right-brain vs left-brain thing).
The game seems to be pulling off its intended goal quite nicely, given how many people/groups are actually communicating, coming up w/ ideas, testing things out, and...COMMUNICATING, etc. Besides new players, those are the types of players AoS is intended for. The people who are just constantly complaining w/o even playing it or coming w/ ideas to break the game - "derp, 20 Archaons, derp" - are essentially beating a dead horse.
So the "it" or the point being the complainers are just perpetuating the negative perception that the community has and that AoS is designed to weed out for itself. Yet rather than weed them out, it's just brought them out to be more vocal. At least in the short term. I'm sure in 3~10 months, the community will normalize and the QQers will be mostly quiet.
I mentioned this in the Discussions thread:
A lot of "power gamers" and competitive players only want the illusion of balance. They don't actually WANT balance. I am as guilty of it as the next guy, in 40k and other games. The whole idea of list building is that before the game starts you can give yourself an advantage by creating a better list than your opponent. This is actually antithetical to "balance". The only thing balanced is that both sides have the opportunity to create lopsided power lists, and it makes anything that isn't a power list a loser's list or a fluff bunny list.
There is a class of gamer that I personally don't connect with: the type of person who isn't all that smart or creative, but sees a clever idea on the Internet, builds that list or some variant, and then feels smug or superior when they go play someone (often in a pickup) and destroy them. They feel good about themselves, when really, they should just admit that 75% of their win was due to a list that is 90% unoriginal. This is not balance.
The whole problem with point-based listbuilding is A+B+C is not equal to A, B and C separately. If you take out the points, and force the players to cooperatively design the terms of combat, then player 1 can look at player 2's A+B+C, and say, "well, that's pretty powerful". The thing is, this isn't what a lot of competitive players want. They want to surprise their opponent, and win on the merit of the cleverness of fitting more power into a list of points, rather than what they do with the army.
In 40k, for many, many editions, this has led to dominant armies (can we say Grey Knights?) and monobuilds (can we say Wave Serpents?), especially for people who enjoy winning but don't want to think very hard to be creative. Or buy models to try stuff out that might not be a good long-term strategy.
Now, I am one of the guys who really enjoys being clever and fitting more power into a list of points, so as I say, I'm guilty of this. It's FUN, and AoS takes that away. On the other hand, from a practical perspective, when we play, we actually do the AoS thing in 40k with our armies already -- if someone has something really powerful, we offset it before the game begin because there is no point in playing a game with a predetermined outcome.
Is the AoS way a good solution? Well, for me, not really. On the other hand, I really hate playing 1850 optimized points with a suboptimzied list, knowing that it's an exercise in futility, too. I prefer what we do in 40k (pregame adjustments), but I get it: that just doesn't work if it's a tournament/competitive scene.
Basically, he said say you were a Mercedes-Benz (MB from here on out!) collector and bought a new MB every couple years or so. But suddenly MB says they're going to stop making luxury cars and only make economy hatchbacks. I can understand that if an MB collector would be angry. But you can still drive your old MB's. You can still find new cars to collect every couple years. I get not liking the fact MB changed their manufacturing brand, but why dwell on it? Why constantly complain about it? It won't change anything. Your life isn't negatively affected by it. Go collect Lexus instead, or again, just drive your MB's you already have... (another funny coincidence, BoLS did an article about Cadillac in a similar regard, and it's worked out for Cadillac)
As for it doesn't negatively effect your life thats subjective. A lot of players simply don't like this new system. What are they going to play now if their local switches over to everyone playing AoS they're now left out. They have to go find a new group who play a different game. Perhaps someones left with thousands of pounds of warhammer for a new system they cannot enjoy even when they wanted to or tried it out. Maybe someone just invested in an expensive unit to go along with a list they have been perfecting for months, now worthless for their original intent. So we cannot say for sure that warhammer switching over isn't going to negativly effect any players. As I said before on another thread, what happens when your club wants to play with those silly beard rules and you really don't? you're left out.
if having to find new people to play games w/ is a true detriment to your life, then you have it pretty lucky...
"If you break your neck, if you have nothing to eat, if your house is on fire, then you've got a problem. Everything else is inconvenience." - Robert Fulghum
But that still doesn't quite address the point the article - and GW - is trying to make. The game is almost ironic in that it's so free and open in rules, that it's actually designed - just not explicitly - to be self-regulated by the players. The overly-austere, discourteous, stubborn powergamers keep trying to point out how flawed the design is, but it seems they just aren't grasping the intention behind the design, b/c they keep criticizing the mechanics as if AoS is supposed to be comparable to 40k (I almost wanna say this is like a right-brain vs left-brain thing).
The game seems to be pulling off its intended goal quite nicely, given how many people/groups are actually communicating, coming up w/ ideas, testing things out, and...COMMUNICATING, etc. Besides new players, those are the types of players AoS is intended for. The people who are just constantly complaining w/o even playing it or coming w/ ideas to break the game - "derp, 20 Archaons, derp" - are essentially beating a dead horse.
So the "it" or the point being the complainers are just perpetuating the negative perception that the community has and that AoS is designed to weed out for itself. Yet rather than weed them out, it's just brought them out to be more vocal. At least in the short term. I'm sure in 3~10 months, the community will normalize and the QQers will be mostly quiet.
Now, I am one of the guys who really enjoys being clever and fitting more power into a list of points, so as I say, I'm guilty of this. It's FUN, and AoS takes that away.
See, pts aside, I've found some interesting combos w/ my Dwarfs and Empire that weren't there in 8E. Empire seem to have got even MORE access to buffing combos. Which given how it's now just flat To Hit, To Wound and not Str/Tough based, makes them even more powerful than 8E, imo. Yeah, it may not have the creative aspect of fitting it into a list regulated by a pts system, but again, there are still ways to force limitations on yourself and still come up w/ creative or interesting ways to get the most out of what you're fielding.
The BoLS Cadillac analogy is a good one, because it's true. And it's not just Caddy.
Are people aware that BMW no longer makes entirely lightweight sport sedans? Yet the X5 sells very well, and the huger and heavier 5 and 7 continue to get bigger and heavier. BMW (and Mercedes) even sells front wheel drive cars. Thing is, BMW adapted, and continues on.
Buick was marketing almost exclusively to retirees, but then they rolled back to younger professionals with family-friendly wagons like the Enclave, launching progressively smaller cars and crossovers like the Encore. They're on a huge roll.
Had BMW and Buick stayed only with the past, they wouldn't be as successful. When you're struggling, and you've got deep pockets, it's time to roll the dice and make big changes.
Manchu wrote: 40k players will probably be getting Age of Abaddon or what have you in the not too distant future.
Having played AoS, moving 40k to Age of Abaddon is not a bad thing.
I would stop playing entirely if that happened. AoS is a mess of badly written, badly thought out rules, not something I'd want to dedicate years of my life to.
Vermis wrote: 2-3: combat's important in a wargame, and monsters are important in a GW wargame. Well I never. The assertion that a weird shooting mechanic (that I can't see in the rules pdf) is the only thing that saves it doesn't sit well.
4: magic is powerful in a GW wargame. Get away.
5: didn't some people dislike KoW because morale mattered?
6: I've got a great house rule that'll make AoS even easier to learn and more streamlined. Each player deploys their forces, then they flip a coin to decide who wins...
On that note, yeah, no. I don't think that a couple of guys in a random GW store coming up with unofficial, unsupported house rules entirely counts.
I wasn't trying for some "earth-shattering" conclusion about the game. I meant that post to illustrate that there is actual tactical and strategic depth to the game, despite what some people have been saying. I still have problems with key aspects of the game like the dice roll to see who goes first in the round and the lack of rules for army construction, deployment, and terrain.
Fun fact: because AoS lacks an explicit prohibition on shooting into ongoing combats, RAW you can. RAW also says that pivoting on the spot costs movement and you can deploy however the feth you want as well. Read into that what you will. I personally think that shooting into combats is a necessary balancing element for shooting vs. assault.
It is really sad that Warhammer Fantasy got axed for a game that at the moment does not fill the same niche as Warhammer Fantasy. I really think that Age of Sigmar could be a good game, and one that I would definitely be interested in playing, if the rules released so far are a base to add upon key needed elements. There have already been leaks that the BRB for Age of Sigmar is 264 pages long. I would bet money that more than 4 of those pages are devoted to rules.
Los pollos hermanos wrote:I'll probably pick up a small force later on when the armies are all released just to store in case I want to have a one off game but im not going in to collect, it just doesn't have longevity for a table top game and thats my opinion on it.
Weeell... there are other options for your small force. Lion Rampant (40-60 models) is a new, fairly popular medieval game but already usable for fantasy, with a recent article in the Wargames: Soldiers and Strategy magazine with further suggestions and conversions for fantasy, and a fantasy sequel - Dragon Rampant - out later in the year. Brink of Battle uses even smaller forces (more 'gang' skirmish) and recently had a fantasy supplement released for it, and of course there's the redoubtable A Song of Blades and Heroes. Can't remember if Frostgrave has been released just yet, but in other forums I see a fair following already, if you like the idea of wizards and their bodyguards exploring a frozen city, Mordheim-style. Etc. etc.
I'm already sifting through my fantasy mini collection to see what I can put together and organise for the former two (pretty much everything, that's how the games are designed), and I'm stepping up expansion of my few high elf minis off ebay, even starting a small dark elf force. AoS will do wonders for my fantasy gaming.
Lord Corellia wrote:I saw the beginnings of a game in my local GW earlier this week and there was a LOT of "ok, this is how we'll do this. This is how we'll work around that" type of talk. The store manager was even getting involved and suggesting things, which leads me to believe that it may come to be a passable pick up game in that store but I highly doubt there will ever be anything sweeping and official for the ruleset as far as fixes go.
This is one of the big problems I have with it so far: it basically demands that players do the Nottingham studio's job and finish writing big chunks (most?) of it themselves. I keep hearing people say that the books and scenarios are coming and will turn it into something scintillating, and fair enough if they do, but at the mo it feels a bit like GRR Martin saying "Don't worry! They're coming! The dragons are coming!"
And on the other end of the scale from the response to Pollos: for those who like big battles with ranked-up models, there are already some established and playtested rule sets that you can slot any minis into, and could use some love. (One or two have dropped off that list in the meantime, but heck, another's popped up too.)
Considering my rather large blunder forgetting about the turn dice off, for those of you who have played more games, how big a mechanic is this? Thinking about it some more, does it make that much a of a difference? Does it actually favour more reactionary, defensive armies?
I have played the starter set and actually had a lot of fun with it. Some rules I don't like is measuring weapon to weapon (we will likely do base to base).
I enjoyed being able to roll of for the turn, it bit me in the ass but had I won the roll it would of been glorious, I am stoked to see some of the scenerios.
I realize this is a whole new game and treat it as such, I have no intention of ever breaking out my old WoC army and likely will just sells it for whatever I can get and buy more Ininity or Age of Sigmar models.
Ratius wrote: Considering my rather large blunder forgetting about the turn dice off, for those of you who have played more games, how big a mechanic is this? Thinking about it some more, does it make that much a of a difference?
It's a pretty big deal, because it mixes things up with double turns - it's probably the big game changer in what is otherwise predictable Igo-Ugo. This will matter a lot more when objectives come into play in scenarios, compared to "close in and kill things".
Got it and the box is pretty good. I am going to be picking up some more undead for my army, but will be sticking to square bases so I can also play KoW.
Ratius wrote: Considering my rather large blunder forgetting about the turn dice off, for those of you who have played more games, how big a mechanic is this? Thinking about it some more, does it make that much a of a difference?
It's a pretty big deal, because it mixes things up with double turns - it's probably the big game changer in what is otherwise predictable Igo-Ugo. This will matter a lot more when objectives come into play in scenarios, compared to "close in and kill things".
I'll give it a try. Can't really judge it if I've not played it. There are some things I really dislike regardless of the game (measuring from the model, "beard rules") but it looks like I'll only really be playing with friends, using very small forces, so we'll probably just house-rule the stuff we don't like. Hoping for some proper campaign rules, and we talked about the method of using wounds as a makeshift points cost.
I saw the new models and terrain in person at WHW today and I think they look much better in real life than I expected. The Chaos stuff doesn't interest me (it didn't even before AoS, though), but I might get some of the Eternals for conversions if nothing else when they're released separately. I could use them for different systems as knights, golems etc, maybe even paint some up as statues to use as scenery or objectives.
If it turns out to be a poor game, well, at least I didn't spend money on the rules...and there are plenty of other games I can use fantasy minis in.
Fezman wrote: I'll give it a try. Can't really judge it if I've not played it. There are some things I really dislike regardless of the game (measuring from the model, "beard rules") but it looks like I'll only really be playing with friends, using very small forces, so we'll probably just house-rule the stuff we don't like. Hoping for some proper campaign rules, and we talked about the method of using wounds as a makeshift points cost.
I saw the new models and terrain in person at WHW today and I think they look much better in real life than I expected. The Chaos stuff doesn't interest me (it didn't even before AoS, though), but I might get some of the Eternals for conversions if nothing else when they're released separately. I could use them for different systems as knights, golems etc, maybe even paint some up as statues to use as scenery or objectives.
If it turns out to be a poor game, well, at least I didn't spend money on the rules...and there are plenty of other games I can use fantasy minis in.
The measure from model might actually work if we weren't so sued to measuring from base for every other game. I think that will become the norm, and I daresay in the next edition of AoS it will be changed.
The Beard Rules are just silly. I think they're fun to read; I don't think anyone will ask that they be played literally.
The models -- both the Sigmarites and the Chaos -- are stunning, in my opinion. They're much better than Isle of Blood or Dark Vengeance, or even Space Hulk, in my opinion. I am not entirely sure I've seen a collection of plastic models as good as the AoS box set before -- or at least, I can't think of them. The Choas models aren't my thing either, but I can appreciate how terrific the sculpts and production are. Alignment, mold lines, and all that kind of thing are exceptional as well.
The Prosecutors (angel guys) and Cat Dude are out of this world, to me. As separate models, I would have paid $100+ for just them without thinking about it twice. Those wings just rock. Some of the Chaos guys look like amazing sculpts, when you put them beside unpainted DV models.
The Prosecutors (angel guys) and Cat Dude are out of this world, to me. As separate models, I would have paid $100+ for just them without thinking about it twice.
Fezman wrote: I'll give it a try. Can't really judge it if I've not played it. There are some things I really dislike regardless of the game (measuring from the model, "beard rules") but it looks like I'll only really be playing with friends, using very small forces, so we'll probably just house-rule the stuff we don't like. Hoping for some proper campaign rules, and we talked about the method of using wounds as a makeshift points cost.
I saw the new models and terrain in person at WHW today and I think they look much better in real life than I expected. The Chaos stuff doesn't interest me (it didn't even before AoS, though), but I might get some of the Eternals for conversions if nothing else when they're released separately. I could use them for different systems as knights, golems etc, maybe even paint some up as statues to use as scenery or objectives.
If it turns out to be a poor game, well, at least I didn't spend money on the rules...and there are plenty of other games I can use fantasy minis in.
The measure from model might actually work if we weren't so sued to measuring from base for every other game. I think that will become the norm, and I daresay in the next edition of AoS it will be changed.
The Beard Rules are just silly. I think they're fun to read; I don't think anyone will ask that they be played literally.
The models -- both the Sigmarites and the Chaos -- are stunning, in my opinion. They're much better than Isle of Blood or Dark Vengeance, or even Space Hulk, in my opinion. I am not entirely sure I've seen a collection of plastic models as good as the AoS box set before -- or at least, I can't think of them. The Choas models aren't my thing either, but I can appreciate how terrific the sculpts and production are. Alignment, mold lines, and all that kind of thing are exceptional as well.
The Prosecutors (angel guys) and Cat Dude are out of this world, to me. As separate models, I would have paid $100+ for just them without thinking about it twice. Those wings just rock. Some of the Chaos guys look like amazing sculpts, when you put them beside unpainted DV models.
Man, I really enjoy seeing a positive post like this right now
JohnHwangDD wrote: played AoS, moving 40k to Age of Abaddon is not a bad thing.
Oh I am totally with you on that. I am kind of nervous about it happening TBH because of how expensive it will be for me ... especially if it actually turns out to launch as a 30k product.
The Prosecutors (angel guys) and Cat Dude are out of this world, to me. As separate models, I would have paid $100+ for just them without thinking about it twice.
perhaps a bit much there.
Ah come on, people have been way over-the-top negative about AoS all week. Let the man have his joy.
A long long time ago in a galaxy far far away there live a Great Wizard.
The GW had many children conceived of his magic. His most beautiful, beloved of all who saw her, was the princess Warhammer Fantasy Battle.
WHFB's fame spread throughout the galaxy, until GW thought it would be good to bring out a companion for her, and he used his magic to create a prince, Warhammer 40K.
WH40K was vigorous, proud and successful. In time, his popularity came to surpass that of his beautiful sister WHFB, who fell into a pallid wasting illness, not helped at all by various quack remedies GW gave her.
GW was stricken with grief at the decline of WHFB and, fearing her death, he decided to preserve the best part of her for all time. Thinking it good, he caused WHFB and WH40K to fall in love with each other, and a child was born whom he named WHAOS.
But in the birthing of WHAOS, WHFB's last strength was spent and the princess died.
= = = = = =
Age Of Sigmar is the incestuous lovechild of WHFB and WH40K. It is naturally very similar to its parents, but has also inherited a number of unfortunate recessive genes that make the game less healthy that it could have been. Among these we see:
IGOUGO turn sequence Movement rules out of 40K 6th, themselves derived from WHFB 8th. The detailed Stat Line is almost the same as in the parent games, just changed around a bit in the way it is presented. The clunky To Hit, To Wound, To Save combat mechanic has survived with minor changes that actually make it slightly more complex and time-consuming. Universal Special Rules have re-appeared in the form of the Key Words.
To be sure, some rules have been lost in the simplification; the army list system has gone entirely, there are almost no tactical factors or terrain effects, and Psychology has been reduced.
Frankly I am less saddened by the lost of army lists than many people. I think the "list to win" approach to games is a bad one. However I do think some kind of balance system is enormously helpful for many different types of game situations, for veterans and beginners alike.
Overall these changes make the game a lot simpler but they also reduce the depth of tactics.
Some new areas that have arisen, such as Sudden Death, unfortunately are weak if not borderline unworkable, and give an impression of being tacked on without much consideration of the effects.
In short, AOS combines some of the worst aspects of its parents while losing some of the best of them. It is fairly clunky as a skirmish game and doesn't look like it will scale up well for larger battles.
In my opinion this is a very sadly wasted opportunity to completely redesign the game from the ground up.
That said, AOS certainly is playable, and even fun. It has the rules needed to move units around and fight with each other. It is simple to explain to a new gamer and anyone who has played WH before because the basic IGOOGU sequence and movement/combat rules are very easy to grasp.
It is also free, and GW to their credit have provided all the war scrolls necessary to use the old WHFB armies.
The models are awesome if you like their style, and will help the new box fly off the shelves.
GW must hope to sustain interest in the longer term with scenarios, campaign packs and new armies (or new models for old armies). Hopefully, advanced add-on rules will be published as well, to add back some of the stuff that has been taken out.
If not, I can't see many veteran players buying as much AOS as they do/did 40K or WHFB, because there is less long-term tactical interest in the game. I also can't see newcomers buying up huge armies, unless it is just for the collectibility of the models. The rules do not look like they will scale well, and while the box scenarios play OK with the boxed set of figures, once people have to make up games without any balance rules, things will tend to go wrong.
The TL;DR:
A simple, skirmish level derivative of WHFB/40K, combining some of the worst of both systems while losing some of the best. Simple, playable and fun for beginners but not likely to engage long term attention without a lot more new stuff coming out from GW.
This is garbage. Absolute utter horrid garbage. I just went to a GW and of course they won't allow any restrictions because that'd be house rules. So basically the absolute best way for balance they have is just what opponents agree on only restricted 'by your imagination'. The only thing you can do is maybe eyeball it and hope there's balance maybe.
If i ever play warhammer fantasy. Oh wait i'm sorry 'Age of Sigmar' it'll be at a FLGS and not at a GW and i'll make a point of only buying from a FLGS when i do.
You know GW could have made warhammer fantasy have 1/4 of the rules of 8th edition (25 pages of rules altogether in the main rulebook would be fine basically). Simplification is ok even having a simplified version of victory conditions, terrain, magic or points might have helped as would expanding into other outlets such as video games like 'total war: warhammer' as they seemed to be doing. Instead they have a game with a 12 year old minimum age restriction with rules humor only a 6-8 year old with ADD would love and would probably move on from after only a few games. The rules book is 4 pages long. The characteristics are simplified and only exist half of what they did (no initiative, toughness, strength, WS or BS). The game in 8th edition had 56 spells (7 for each rulebook lore) and various different factions had their own spells. The AoS rulebook has a grand total of 2 universal spells. They destroyed the lore and made a new one with space marines of sorts and that's probably the least bad thing they did.
Just to give you an idea of how bad this is not one fantasy player showed up for a battle today with Age of Sigmar. On it's release day in a GW that has sometimes been filled it probably had more 40k players in it today. Sure the AoS boxset sold a few copies (mostly to 40k players) but nobody played anything AoS with any of their fantasy models. Last week only one game was tried out for a test run between two brothers with AoS. The GW was emptier than it was last week and that was only pre-order day whereas this is release day. There was maybe 5 people at the store at any one point for most of the day and not one played a game. That is absolutely pathetic for a game release. At least one 40k player said he'd be furious if what happened to fantasy happened to 40k as well.
-----------
Anyway here are my options as i see them. Either i play 40k, i go to another store completely to play fantasy or just go with some vassal system and play with player made restrictions (i can talk about it as mods agreed we could) or switch to another game company's product completely like warmachine.
If i switch to another company's game or play in a different store i may buy used online so GW makes no money. I realize that might make them kill off the game but that might be better than to see it turned into this garbage.
If anybody wants we could also start up some sort of boycott on GW products. Just throw out a signature and promise not to buy GW products in any way that could net them money.
flamingkillamajig wrote: This is garbage. Absolute utter horrid garbage. I just went to a GW and of course they won't allow any restrictions because that'd be house rules. So basically the absolute best way for balance they have is just what opponents agree on only restricted 'by your imagination'. The only thing you can do is maybe eyeball it and hope there's balance maybe.
If i ever play warhammer fantasy. Oh wait i'm sorry 'Age of Sigmar' it'll be at a FLGS and not at a GW and i'll make a point of only buying from a FLGS when i do.
Just to give you an idea of how bad this is not one fantasy player showed up for a battle today with Age of Sigmar. On it's release day in a GW that has sometimes been filled it probably had more 40k players in it today. Sure the AoS boxset sold a few copies (mostly to 40k players) but nobody played anything AoS with any of their fantasy models. Last week only one game was tried out for a test run between two brothers with AoS. The GW was emptier than it was last week and that was only pre-order day whereas this is release day. There was maybe 5 people at the store at any one point for most of the day and not one played a game. That is absolutely pathetic for a game release. At least one 40k player said he'd be furious if what happened to fantasy happened to 40k as well.
At my GW, plenty of fantasy players tried out AoS, and every single one said nothing but good things about it. It's easy to get into, pretty tactical despite the four pages of rules, and you can do custom scenarios easy as pie- you just need to create one with your opponent and that's it. Watched four guys have a three v one (chaos vs High Elves & Stormcast), where the chaos kept respawning and the Order team had to wait out six turns. Scenario made up on the spot.
Plus the models are very nice; some of the Stormcast models are only two-piece!
A simple, skirmish level derivative of WHFB/40K, combining some of the worst of both systems while losing some of the best. Simple, playable and fun for beginners but not likely to engage long term attention without a lot more new stuff coming out from GW.
A not so simple as it seems game with nuances that are patently ignored - see multiple reviews of the game:
Spoiler:
Strategic VS Tactical elements:
I'll say this straight up, a lack of objectives or overall "goal" really hurts the game. Mine didn't bog down too much into a central mosh pit as I chose to move and attack other isolated units but I have seen several reps where it becomes just that. Its too one dimensional and frankly eliminates almost completely refused flanks, objective defence, using dedicated outflankers for obj captures, tactical focal points and even use of terrain features.
Afaik the new scenarios coming out will put some form of objective into them such as get X models off the board or kill the general or capture a point and this absolutely needs to be the case imo.
A few "whack em till dead style" games sure can be fun but on a long term basis, its definitely not going to keep my interest.
I await the new scenarios.
I feel a strategic element is lacking in the game so far. However tactical nuances do exist and for those claiming its just pewpew in a mosh are incorrect. Running skirmish lines, bublewrapping key units, shooting priority, hth target and turn priority, removal of casualties, stacking wounds or not on multi wound models all play a part in this as does taking cover and trying to get the best save possible (cover + magic shield) or simply staying out of LoS.
Combinations such as having your general use a command ability or inspiring presence can also have an affect on the game.
No, these arent earth shattering dynamics and experienced gamers will be well used to them, however, they are present and most certainly do make a difference.
Yes its skirmish level as a derivative - so many are other game systems - cool? No? Oh right......
Nope - it actually simplifies some of WHFB crazy and OTT rules, whilst making it easy for "newbies" like me to engage. It isnt perfect but as a 4 page ruleset its fun, accessible, and mostly clear (yaya - no points /objs needs to be fixed)
Scenarios are incomming with objs, less killkill and more ideas/potential than moshes.
And as to long term - after a week, you are judging it? Lets, roll with them punches........
Yeah well how long have you played fantasy for? The point being this alienated a lot of long time fantasy players. Without points or some roundabout idea of balance and preventing players from making list restrictions in their stores how the **** do they expect people to have a good game? There's a difference between having a simple game and a game which has no clue for ADD riddled 6-8 year olds that are absolutely hyper-active.
The Prosecutors (angel guys) and Cat Dude are out of this world, to me. As separate models, I would have paid $100+ for just them without thinking about it twice.
perhaps a bit much there.
Ah come on, people have been way over-the-top negative about AoS all week. Let the man have his joy.
_Tim?
I think it's hard for people to take Talys at his word when he seems to have no upper limit to how much he'll pay for GW(?) miniatures. His gaming group is apparently the thing of Tom Kirby's dreams!
Accolade wrote: I think it's hard for people to take Talys at his word when he seems to have no upper limit to how much he'll pay for GW(?) miniatures. His gaming group is apparently the thing of Tom Kirby's dreams!
OTOH, I'm not paying another penny for Fantasy, but I still like how AoS has transformed Fantasy.
The AoS design philosophy works very well for me, and can easily be expanded to accommodate block infantry and bases, along with area terrain. Even "points", if that becomes a thing.
I'm sorry but there are mechanical blunders in the AoS rules that a company with 30 years of experience just plain should not be making.
I wholly understand and appreciate some of the themes running through the rules design, but come on. I am a 15+ year fan of GW, and met the AoS rules with sharp interest. I hated what they did to the Old World, but was really excited with the possibility of a ruleset that due to no need for complete dedication to memorize all the rules, could easily be slotted in amongst all the others I try to keep up with.
But then upon reading things like measuring from weapon tips, overhanging bases, and the like, I kept thinking, "....What? ". This game has tons of out-of-the box decisions that no other publisher would think to make, because they are not the "good" kind of lateral thinking.
I would absolutely love to play AoS but I fear the abuse I would have to endure from players that would otherwise be policed (at least a little) by a better rule system. I live 25 miles from the nearet LGS, so I need to play games where I am not wasting my time making the trip, but instead having fun.
The entire theory of AoS sounds fun, but the implementation is scary.
I constantly find myself reading things that get posted and thinking, "C'mon, GW! I was really interested in this!"
I continue to strongly believe we will see points cost system released for this game.
As and when that comes about, I will welcome the opportunity to try out AoS, until it possesses that ability I will not play it, I largely rely on pick up games with near strangers and the whole 'gentleman's agreement' notion GW seems fixated with, that we all belong to a small group of friends and that lots of working out just what you want to work or not work is done beforehand. I need something that will work for pick up and tourney gaming, this, as it stands, does not meet that criteria.
The Prosecutors (angel guys) and Cat Dude are out of this world, to me. As separate models, I would have paid $100+ for just them without thinking about it twice.
perhaps a bit much there.
Ah come on, people have been way over-the-top negative about AoS all week. Let the man have his joy.
_Tim?
I think it's hard for people to take Talys at his word when he seems to have no upper limit to how much he'll pay for GW(?) miniatures. His gaming group is apparently the thing of Tom Kirby's dreams!
i could easily see GW charging $60CDN each for a box of the Prosecutors and Battlecat...
i'd buy them...
luckily, we can all be happy that they are priced way lower in the starter set...
i've already made up my mind to buy Lantern Man & Baby Gryph when he comes out, and i don't even know what he costs yet...
doesn't matter to me...
i either want something, at which point the question becomes, "do i have that much cash in my pocket???", or i don't want something, at which point it wouldn't matter if the model only cost a dollar...
the new box of Sigmarites being the same price as a box of generic Termies, for bigger minis with more options, seems fair to me...
i mean, collecting miniatures is my hobby...
some people collect Lego...
would you judge someone because they are happy to pay $200 for a Lego Tie-Fighter???
five minis, for a quarter of that price, that i get to paint???
sounds fine to me...
So I went to my local GW this morning looking to get a box of Assault Marines to work on. I totally forgot about the AOS stuff. They had the models set up on a table and I have to say they do look much cooler in real life. Still kind of on the fence on getting the boxed set though because I want to see about the rules. I have yet to read any of the stuff... only stuff I've heard about is the 'non-conventional' stuff and maybe the weird thing with overlapping bases.
Actually maybe I won't read into it... maybe its better not to open Pandora's Box huh? My wallet is already crying from building computers, comic books, and other stuff haha.
Played AoS today at the FLGS. Long story short, we had fun and enjoyed the game.
Roughly 1000 points of Ogres vs. 1500 points of Warriors of Chaos for the 8th edition folks out there.
I ran the Ogres with five total scrolls. A giant, butcher, mournfang x4, leadbelchers x4 and ironguts x4.
My opponent ran Chaos with a mounted chaos lord, blightkings x6, wrathmongers x5, chariots x3, skullcrushers of khorne x5 and a hellcannon.
We played the rules as written. No modifications, no attempts for balance in list building. We wanted to run the rules as presented to us with the only limiting factor our collections of painted miniatures. We ended playing on a 4x4 table because of the FLGS magic prerelease tournament. Each table quarter had two pieces of terrain and we ended rolling some very interesting/useful/game changing pieces of terrain.
After deployment we did some quick math and my opponent had 34% more models than me so I opted for Sudden Death Victory conditions and chose Seize Ground. I chose a wall just inside his territory. I wanted to use my Firebelly and Ogres x4 but I was literally running out of room and it was becoming obvious that my opponent was looking to use a lot of models. My opponent really wanted to use his hellcannon and had not deployed it by the time I stopped deploying. Hindsight being 20/20, I'm thinking it should have counted as four models instead of one model but the result is the same, he had a third more models than I did. (If my math is wrong here, please let me know.)
I won't go into a turn by turn battle report, i'll just post our biggest realizations and impressions of the game.
Rend and Multiple points of damage is huge: The Ironguts were ridiculous with the -1 Rend and 3 Damage.
Mortal wounds are huge: The Iron Fists on the Mournfang Cavalry finished off the Chariots when I rolled 4 sixes to save their attacks. The Hell Cannon did 10 mortal wounds to the Leadbelchers in the first turn.
3 inch bubble: This is pretty important regarding charging and piling into combat. Make sure you pay attention to how you move your models and where your place them.
Bases don't matter: We are on the fence about this. On one hand, it's so ingrained in us to measure from the base regardless of the shape or size. On the other hand, some of our models have some rather dramatic poses and it was nice to not have to smoosh them together to show they were locked in close combat.
Rolling Target Numbers: I've seen people complain that AoS is nothing but 4+, 4+, 4+, 3+, 5+ ad nauseum. As a former VC player that was pretty normal for my blocks of zombies and skeletons. Get stuck in early and just start tossing dice for the rest of the game until crumble damage finished me off. My opponent and I thought it made the game move much faster since we didn't have to roll for any heroes, lords or special rules separately for each unit.
Battle Shock: Losing whole models sucks. Be sure to use your inspiring presence.
Retreat: Neither one of us used this tactic but we both believe it's pretty important if used correctly. The chariots got stuck in on turn two with the Mournfang. The Blightkings joined the fight on turn 3 but my opponent didn't think to retreat to free up his chariots.
Choosing the order in which units attack in close combat: We really like this level of strategy. Do I attack with my full strength giant or my unit that has a few wounds left and might die first?
Long story long: This is a very different game. As such, we really liked it. Magic and close combat was quicker and easier to resolve. List building and balance might still be an issue depending on your opponent. Several of us were talking and we aren't sure how to run a campaign or tournament so that's still a sticking point for some people. It was fun for us to take the models we really wanted to use and not have to worry about points and percentages. Some of the guys really liked the new models while my opponent and I were happy to use our old stuff still. We were also happy to finish our first game in 2.5 hours.
Initially, we weren't sold on Age of Sigmar. Its so different from 8th edition that we didn't know what to expect. But we figured that since we've spent so much time and money on buying, building and painting our armies that we might as well try it. Da hell, the rules are free, why not? I'll be honest though, there are several people at my FLGS I'll hesitate to play a game with. They have a knack for breaking any system wide open and really sucking the fun out of any game from any company, not just GW.
Accolade wrote: I think it's hard for people to take Talys at his word when he seems to have no upper limit to how much he'll pay for GW(?) miniatures. His gaming group is apparently the thing of Tom Kirby's dreams!
If the mounted lord Celestant and the Prosecutors were produced for WMH, they would exceed $100. Borka is a $60 model and is the closest WMH comparable. I assure you the 3 prosecutors would be $20+ models, each.
So saying I would pay market value for them ($100) isn't really all that exciting. Of course, I'm happy that I don't have to! They just happen to be my favorite models in the box.
And sorry, yeah, I'm thinking Canadian dollars; the box set is $150 Canadian -- which is actually cheaper than $125 USD, as the currency exchange is 20%.
I now have 3 games under my belt, so I feel like I can weigh in a bit more here and will try and summarize my opinions on key issues
Points and balance: not needed and already built into the game respectively. On a model to model basis they are already balanced. For every 10 infantry you have the equivalent of 5 cavalry. Monstrous models will have more wounds and will have devastating attacks, but can be easily focused down and killed in a turn. Heroes, while good on their own, are force multipliers for your army as a whole. What distinguishes units are special rules and how they synergize with other models in your army. TOs will find eventually figure out some system, others will adopt, simple as that.
Strategy and Tactics: This game is more then omg turn 3 mosh pits in the middle. Every part of your turn has consequence. What spells do I need to cast, which unit needs my command ability? Where do I need to move my units for charge, or conversely, what combats do I need to pull units out of this turn. Swapping out combatants in the movement and charge phases can be huge. I'd much rather have my Bleakswords in CC then my Darkshards, even if it costs me my shooting for a turn. Shooting can take out whole units or weaken monstrous models, reducing their effectiveness in all phases. Combat is probably the biggest part of the game. What is the order I need to do my combats in? Should I split my attacks between two units? What units can I kill enough of to possibly destroy in the Battleshock phase? Did I succeed in piling my units with farther reach behind the ones with shorter reach? Spear units behind sword units for example.
Magic: Far far easier to do and not nearly as powerful, though there can be an argument that summoning is OP right now. Mystic shield can save units.
I'm going to repeat some advice the owner of my GW I go to said: Go in with no expectations, treat it as the new game it really is. Play with the models you think are cool and you want to play with, forget list building and tweaking and min/maxing your army. Although I personally understand that there are people that love that part of the game as well.
I love AoS. There's so much potential for the game. I love not having to memorize table after table. I love not having to worry about Str vs Tough WS and BS. I've only played against friends so far, but I can't wait to play against my first random. I really, honestly, want GW to incorporate parts of the game into 40k, and might suggest doing that the next time me and my friends play 40k.
Just want to speak on this point: A Dwarf Hammerer is not worth a Phoenix Guard or a Sword Master of Hoeth (in the latter case, they're the same statline except the Sword Master re-rolls 1s to hit). There's also nothing stopping you from taking more than 5 cavalry per your opponents 10 infantry, as Warscrolls only describe a minimum unit size.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Talys, it is not correct to compare the higher prices of Warhamchine models with Warhammer Fantasy models, because you don't need as many of them.
Except that AOS doesn't need that many models.
And no Warmachine players actually limit themselves to a minimum force.
By any measurement, it is perfectly valid to compare the prices of Warmachine (Hordes, since I mentioned a Trollbloods hero) models to AoS models. The model counts for averageish armies will be in the same order of magnitude. Anyone playing Sigmar with WHFB sized armies intact will be some new kind of masochist
And the 4 models I mentioned are Sigmarites - Lord Celestant and 3 Prosecutors. You can't even use them in Fantasy Battle, because there are no rules for them in Fantasy Battle.
Borka + Bear and Lord Celestant + Drakoth are comparable in both size and unit type -- though the mounted Lord Celestant will be significantly larger than Borka. Not to mention all plastic, and in my opinion, a technically superior kit in resolution casting, unusual shape of finished model -- most metrics an unbiased modeler would judge by.
Also, I think at this point, it's perfectly fine to compare the starter kit for Warmachines (or Hordes) with the starter kit for Age of Sigmar. Both give you a pretty good place to start the game. Though, for a non-beginner, I would highly recommend the new single faction war boxes, either in addition to or instead of the two-faction starter box for WMH as an excellent model/dollar value.
Personally, I have a number of problems with the rules. All of them are overshadowed by the total lack of a points or equivalent balancing system. If that is implemented (even in the normal, far-from-perfect GW fashion) I can easily overlook what I don't like about the rules in favor of what I do. I have read (and heard in person) over and over how AoS works/can work with gentlemen's agreement on forces, or how this is a good thing because it drives away ultra-competitive players. The thing is, the solution to those players has been and always will be to simply not play with them. AoS is easily broken down to one-sided conditions but since people can simply not play against such players the problem is resolved. There was absolutely nothing stopping anyone from doing that before (outside of formal competitions, of course), the implied idea that AoS somehow newly incorporates such options is false. Further, I see constantly reiterated that the points system was hardly balanced before, which is true. However, AoS took a balance scale varying from 1 to 10 and made it 1 to 100. There isn't even a baseline for what's balanced beyond wound count, which seems to be the basis for all of the house-rules that attempt to replace point costs. Yet even that is a poor comparison since wound to wound is far less balanced than points to points was (going with the previous example, maybe 1 to 50).
My first trial of AoS had me and a friend bring what we honestly believed were two evenly-matched armies to the table, both with the same wound count. It was completely one-sided. My theoretically balanced force dominated his, and by the end of the game it was clear that he didn't really stand a chance from the onset. I suppose that now we have a better idea of what's better than what, but without a balance system there is no indicator for why someone won the game. Did I win because I played with more skill than my opponent? Or just because my army was better? At least with points cost there was skill going into making a list, AoS strips that away. It was also very easy to pick out the handful of overpowered options from the Army Books and have a gentleman's agreement not to abuse them, but with AoS even that can lead to one side being vastly outmatched without any intentional optimization. It seems like we have gone from something where the WAAC armies were intentional and identifiable as such where now that can not only be made intentionally (and more effectively at that, infinite Fateweaver summoning anyone? tomb scarab-sudden death combo?) but can also be done by complete accident. The solutions to this have gone from being casual to being absolutely required to reasonably play the game. Besides, it has been stated many times over that the biggest strength of GW games is the ease of finding pick-up-games, but when the balance hinges entirely upon player agreement rather than at least having a basis of point cost to start from, that ease-of-gaming largely evaporates since each players definition of balance is different.
For me the most disappointing thing is not what Age of Sigmar is, but what it could have been. There is so much potential for a really great game and for some people it makes the mark, but for many it falls short. It seems to underscore just how far Games Workshop's view of reality is separated from reality itself. Maybe it will sell well, maybe it will flop, or crash and burn. But whatever it does, GW will have no idea why it did that aside from whatever concoction of ideas they brew up for themselves in their corporate offices, which is only going to lead the company (and their games) further downward in the long run as they continue to ignore feedback of any sort.
primalexile wrote: I have played the starter set and actually had a lot of fun with it. Some rules I don't like is measuring weapon to weapon (we will likely do base to base).
I enjoyed being able to roll of for the turn, it bit me in the ass but had I won the roll it would of been glorious, I am stoked to see some of the scenerios.
I realize this is a whole new game and treat it as such, I have no intention of ever breaking out my old WoC army and likely will just sells it for whatever I can get and buy more Ininity or Age of Sigmar models.
Model to model measurement simply allows WHFB based armies to be used without any unfair advantage due to the much smaller size of their bases. Once people convert their armies to the new bases it will make a lot more sense to measure base to base.
Movement costs for pivoting models are irrelevant as there is no facing. There may be cases where a long thin model gains an advantage by approaching head on or side on, in which case it is worth measuring accurately, and this will continue to be the case for oval based models if we change to base to base measurement. But for most models I doubt it is worth slowing down the game to measure accurately model to model.
By any measurement, it is perfectly valid to compare the prices of Warmachine (Hordes, since I mentioned a Trollbloods hero) models to AoS models.
Agree. Even if you needed less, it's still a price for a few mehly casted metal or terrible quality resin miniatures.
Talys wrote: Also, I think at this point, it's perfectly fine to compare the starter kit for Warmachines (or Hordes) with the starter kit for Age of Sigmar. Both give you a pretty good place to start the game. Though, for a non-beginner, I would highly recommend the new single faction war boxes, either in addition to or instead of the two-faction starter box for WMH as an excellent model/dollar value.
I dare you to make Men-o-War viable! I double dare you! Or at least they were only remotely close to being playable under eIrusk, but even then terribly overcosted for how easily they died and how few of them you had.
But yeah, I agree, one can compare those three. Although AoS set seems to be superior in terms of useful content and definetely in terms of sculpts.
Here were my quickfire thoughts from last weekend:
- I need to print my warscrolls
- Set up is super quick and simple
- Stopping deploying first to go first is a nice trade-off
- All models are useful (I finally played Masque of Slaanesh and she was top)
- Minimal chart checking
- Monsters getting weaker is neat
- A lot of 4+ then 4+ then 5+
- Shooting into and out of combat is vital
- Spells are simple and powerful. My Tzeentch Herald took out a Dwarf Lord in one phase (fire cast on a 10, enabled me to use the tome for 3D6 to do 1D6 more mortal wounds).
- Commands are, again, simple and powerful
- The first game with more models wasn't as fun
- Not sure of what the optimal table size is (appears like 4x4)
- Still concerned about turn 2 pile-in; thankfully this wasn't as heavy in game two
- Measuring from any point of a model wasn't an issue
- Units getting a bonus at 20+ models worked as a trade-off (as that caused me to get SD in the second game)
- Heroes can run around solo and feel important; they also act as buffs for light infantry units
- Rolling off who goes first from turn two on wards had us both holding our breath for those rolls
- There's something rather RTS about it...
Have some more games booked in this weekend so will see how it goes.
I went down to my local G.W yesterday and had my first game of AOS.I played my Chaos warband against a High elf force, we started by agreeing the size of forces by weiging up each in size ( no counting wounds etc ) and remaining fair and not trying to out weigh each other.
I used ; 5 Putrid blight kings, 5 slaanesh marader horsmen, 5 Tzeench Chaos knights, 3 Khorne chaos ogres, and a Chaos Giant all held together with a Chaos Lord with a mark of Nurgle.
He Used 10 Silver Helms, 10 Pheonix Guard, 15 sisters of averlon and 2 High elf mages on mounted.
The game lasted for about 2 hours give or take and flowed well. We had a little confusion of rules ( I think the more we play the more it wil become easy as we are learning a new stat line system). Over all I think it is a great new style of a old favourite game easy to pick up and just as fun to play. If you dont beleive me have a go at your local shop....
I have a great deal of love for the old 8th edition and the creativnes that is allowed in character creation. However I am happy to try a new system (and go back to 8th if need be) after all the rules cost nothing and I already have all the minatues I need to start !
So here is full video I did on the models, rules and armies that are for the new game AoS. Also so a few ideas in there on what I want to do with it and if you want to join in. More the merrier.
I started playing fantasy well over 20 years ago, for a good while it was my main game, and I have spent thousands of pounds and hundreds of hours on it over the years.
The sharply declining quality of the rules and the horrific balance turned me away from WHFB during 7th and the 'improvements' of 8th killed off any desire that I had to play the game completely.
None the less I still like the Old World and I am still interested in the type of game that fantasy used to be. Large armies with an emphasis on movement and maneuver with enough fantasy craziness to keep things interesting without going completely overboard.
AoS has extremely shallow rules that are clearly not designed for 'serious' wargaming, I can see little of worth with the game itself and the models themselves are far too stylised and cartoonish for my tastes so I have no interest in them either.
Most unforgivably though is the complete destruction of the Old World and literally decades of world building just so that GW can knock out some half arsed experimental game rather than actually put real effort into fixing the horrible mess that they had allowed WHFB to become after years of cack handed neglect.
I already had precious little regard for GW given that it can't seem to do anything right, seemingly willfully, but AoS has completely destroyed any lingering regard I had for them. I now sincerely hope that they go bankrupt as soon as possible on the off chance that someone competent picks up their IP. GW has proven time and time again that they simply can't be trusted to maintain and promote the worlds that they created and nurtured during their golden years.
I don't think that I will have long to wait as AoS will almost certainly not halt their diminishing fortunes, never mind reverse the trend.
TL: DR GW have lost what little good will they had remaining with me after destroying one of the most vibrant and venerable fantasy worlds in favour of this abomination.
AoS best thing to happen to fantasy in my opinion. Might not be shared here but both my local gw's have been packed with old and new players of fantasy all buying either AoS or new forces. Its gonna be a good summer of gaming for me. If only more folks gave it a chance and see that it is good and works then the game will go even further. So far its selling well just need to see if it continues. After my khorne force is complete ill be startingonba new force either undead or dwarfs
I wouldn't be surprised if the product line was discontinued in a year or two. I have nothing against the game. If people like it, that's great. I hope it remains and remains entertaining for those folks. But nothing has attracted me to the game so far.
For me, AoS has me interested in buying Fantasy miniatures again. Ive loved the universe but hated the game. The mechanics were just too clunky for me and almost no one played around here. Those that did spent most of the game arguing over how X rules worked when Y and Z units were mashed up, and I swear 70% of armies were Vampires. As it was, people had armies but never played.
I sympathize with the old WHFB players, but am somewhat excited to see a more playable rules set (in my opinion of course; I know that others would disagree, and thats fine!)
I've played a half-dozen games now, and watched about the same amount. Most of my first impressions still stand.
1) No balancing mechanism = severe lack of interest from myself and those I played with. Most of the people I played/watched are WHFB vets, two of them weren't (one of those being completely new to wargaming). With that said, every single person said the same thing: without some sort of balance mechanism, there's no real point to the game.
2) Summoning is broken.... mostly. If you continue to play and accept the game without a balancing mechanism, then summoning is no big deal. You go right ahead and summon the hell out of those units! But assuming some sort of balancing mechanism is warranted, 'free units' usually break balance.
3) Shooting into combat = goofy. I guess GW considers this a 'tactic' now, but it just feels weird. The fact that you have zero chance to hurt your own guys seems silly.
- Rules are quick and easy to learn
- We still use movement trays, at least at the start, to make moving large groups very fast.
- Without scenario/objectives, most games ended up being a big scrum-fest in the middle of the board.
- Most folks were not keen on the 'roll initiative' at the start of each turn. Too random.
- Those folks I played with/spoke to you played 8th, are keeping their 8th edition stuff. It remains to be seen how much of 8th will continue to be played, but most folks I've spoken to consider AOS a different game to be -added- to their play-list, not -replacing- WHFB for them.
I think its an simplistic game with no depth and will be forgotten in a year or two. Its also a big middle finger to long time players and is indicative of what GW thinks of its customers; as children.
I tried Aos, I really did. I find it to be a big pile of steaming crap and laziness. What amazes me is how forgiving people are of this 'game'. I've had very little fun in the games I've played and will not be giving it another go in the near future.
It has only done a few things right in my opinion.
1) Free easily accessible rules.
2) made all units viable.
3) Gave Brets and Beastmen their... *cringe* updated 'army book'.
I would probably be a lot more forgiving of AoS if it didn't replace the only version of Fantasy I knew (8th.) It's just too different, and throws away too much of what I liked in old Fantasy.
I.. I just hate this game and everything it stands for. It reaks of laziness (the 4 page rule book is so simplistic, any reasonable wargamer could have written it.. lets be honest here,) and subtle contempt of the old fantasy. If they just put as much effort towards old fantasy as they have so far in AoS with advertising, teasers, etc, fantasy would have done better.
The new lore is just.. *sigh* I can sit here writting an essay on everything I dislike about AoS but it would be pointless. My experience is that AoS fanatics will defend this travesty of a fantasy game to the death while ignoring its very glaring flaws and shortcomings. The fact that the 'unofficial' tournament rules more than double the size of the official rules shows how incredibly lazy the 4 page ruleset is.
AoS leveled the playing ground. Literally. GW would now have the chance to put their fantasy section back on track. A skirmish level game was the perfect decision from a marketing point of view and AoS has the potential (!) to be an outstanding game with short, easily readable and simplified rules. It now has two fix its two main problems:
a) Incomplete rules: The game currently lacks complete rules as there are no rules on force organization, albeit those are necessary.
b) Large scale battles: AoS currently scales absolutely terrible to bigger scale battles. This closely ties in with a). A small battle with small forces is easily balanceable, a slarge scale battle with 150+ models and 10+ units isn't. Not only do you have to factor in individual unit strength, you also have to count in for added tactical options, more special rules / synergies etc.
AoS offers a neat little ruleset and the one thing it does have going for it is the synergy system it has - it usually is a good idea to keep your army together as units support each other. It has the potential to be a very good game. It definitely will not be a top tier game on X-Wing levels, as GW doesn't know how to properly write rules, but there is a chance that it gets back on track and provides a neat, little, non-serious entry-level tabletop experience.
GW's track record says otherwise, but maybe, just maybe, this time, they manage to not screw it all up again. 500 small, green thumbs are pressed.
Just want to speak on this point: A Dwarf Hammerer is not worth a Phoenix Guard or a Sword Master of Hoeth (in the latter case, they're the same statline except the Sword Master re-rolls 1s to hit). There's also nothing stopping you from taking more than 5 cavalry per your opponents 10 infantry, as Warscrolls only describe a minimum unit size.
Also the fact that BomBomHotdog is speaking about things being balanced going off wounds (10 infantry = 10 wounds = 5 cavalry) but the whole "wounds = points" system is absolutely nothing to do with GW or AoS, it's 100% unofficial and something the community had to come up with in order to give the game some semblance of balance. The fact that players are having to extensively house-rule AoS to make it playable on a fair level is the biggest indicator for me that AoS is simply a bad game.
Sigvatr wrote: AoS leveled the playing ground. Literally. GW would now have the chance to put their fantasy section back on track. A skirmish level game was the perfect decision from a marketing point of view and AoS has the potential (!) to be an outstanding game with short, easily readable and simplified rules. It now has two fix its two main problems:
a) Incomplete rules: The game currently lacks complete rules as there are no rules on force organization, albeit those are necessary.
b) Large scale battles: AoS currently scales absolutely terrible to bigger scale battles. This closely ties in with a). A small battle with small forces is easily balanceable, a slarge scale battle with 150+ models and 10+ units isn't. Not only do you have to factor in individual unit strength, you also have to count in for added tactical options, more special rules / synergies etc.
AoS offers a neat little ruleset and the one thing it does have going for it is the synergy system it has - it usually is a good idea to keep your army together as units support each other. It has the potential to be a very good game. It definitely will not be a top tier game on X-Wing levels, as GW doesn't know how to properly write rules, but there is a chance that it gets back on track and provides a neat, little, non-serious entry-level tabletop experience.
GW's track record says otherwise, but maybe, just maybe, this time, they manage to not screw it all up again. 500 small, green thumbs are pressed.
I agree with this wholeheartedly, especially the slim hope that GW does what's needed to improve the game rather than leaving it where it is (or perhaps more likely, letting it slide downward). To say that AoS is nothing but bad is an exaggeration, but to say that it can really succeed and surpass its predecessor without changes to the current ruleset is probably just as much of an exaggeration. We'll see...
Well, I read the 96 page book. As some others have said, it sure doesn't take long, LOL.
There are plenty of awesome pictures and inspirational artwork. About half the book is fluff, the other half is game-related, and both halves have more visuals and big spacing than anything else. However, that being said, it was quite light and enjoyable. It's just enough to wet my appetite to find out what is happening in the world, without having too much detail for someone who isn't really invested in the game world.
In that sense, it's a better fluff book than the 40k one in the BRB set, which goes into a chronology and list of events that frankly, new players will just fall asleep reading. I like all that stuff, but save it for a later book, not the one that's supposed to get us excited to play a game and paint some minis.
It sure looks like many scenarios are coming our way, as, probably are many formations for each faction (battalions, I think they're called in Sigmar).
The fluff is pretty cool, and I liked the story of how it went from End Times to the Age of Sigmar. Oh, also, I like how there are Grand Alliances in addition to Factions. Storywise, it makes a lot of sense, and it has some gaming potential. I'm not sure if/when rules will take advantage of this. I enjoy how Chaos has basically won and taken over, and Order, led by Sigmar, is the underdog, but has a stronghold in Azyr and that now, with the Eternals is ready to go to battle with Choas (and perhaps win!).
I know there were all those people who didn't like the power creep or super-hero-isation of humans, but frankly, in my opinion, it makes more sense for an enhanced / magical humans to fight demons and the denizens of chaos, destruction and living dead than it does for 18th century common troops who should really scream and run at the first sign of the Nagash, a Necrosphynx, or a Putrid Blightking. Hell, I sure would.
So anyways, Skaven or Lizardmen aren't gone as factions -- those factions just participate at different levels of commitment to their chosen Alliance. Which is cool!
Somebody on a Warhammer Fantasy Facebook page called me a 'traitor' because I just so happen to like AoS despite the fact that I have great respect and appreciation for oldhammer as well.
I was on the fence about aos and then I saw the army design and scenario pdf that's been floating around and that one little document made something click for me and now I am actually psyched about aos.
if there's one aspect that I really like about aos it's the freedom to take what I want from a pure aesthetic aspect. You want to run a whole army of a super cool looking rare unit? In oldhammer no way but now go for it.
I haven't had the chance yet but I'm looking forward to trying equal points in wounds of grunts vs big guys.
correct me if i'm wrong, but hasn't it been stated by the GW rep at Warhammer Open Day that this will be a living rulebook style, where things can be added and tweaked as time goes on???
this is day 2 of a whole new world...
i have a feeling there are a lot more changes to come, and some of them may even be good...
You could do the exact same thing before. Noone forced you to play at exactly even points or even follow the FOC. In WHFB, you could always choose between either playing a regular game w/ equal points limit or a free game with anything you and your opponent agreed on.
No, you can also make up house rules in Age of Sigmar. There are many variations of points in the Proposed Rules section, you can pick any of those or make up your own.
Rihgu wrote: No, you can also make up house rules in Age of Sigmar. There are many variations of points in the Proposed Rules section, you can pick any of those or make up your own.
Neither are house rules part of the game, nor do they even come close to having an innate balance mechanism. Let alone the fact that a game requiring house ruling to work is as sad as it can get from a quality point of view.
What I was saying is that running pure White Lions + Lion Chariots in 8th edition was house ruling anyways, it's just now it's been flipped so that points = house rules and take whatever = actual rules.
I don't see what the difference is besides in 8th edition the points were "GW approved", which is ultimately meaningless based on how under/overcosted many units were.
So the options with Age of Sigmar are still the same:
1) Play the "GW approved" way.
2) House rules.
Even an unbalanced point system was still something to work with. Besides, house ruling to not use a points system (or even just adjust a few choices) is hardly on equal ground with having to make your own for a system that doesn't have one at all.
Just the fact that you guys have to even talk about fixing a game from a multi-million dollar/pound company who went on record stating that they have plenty of cash reserves is laughable.
Spend your time and money elsewhere. I'm not saying abandon GW or your favorite game, but don't try to do GW's job for them.
It's this strange abuse-taking mindset is what allowed GW to do this to you.
It's like Nigerian scammers these days still saying they're from Nigeria in their scam emails. They do this because anyone who responds are obviously suckers that they can con more money from.
In this case, anyone still spending time and money on this is obviously so far gone that GW knows they can milk even more money from them.
Vertrucio wrote: Just the fact that you guys have to even talk about fixing a game from a multi-million dollar/pound company who went on record stating that they have plenty of cash reserves is laughable.
Spend your time and money elsewhere. I'm not saying abandon GW or your favorite game, but don't try to do GW's job for them.
It's this strange abuse-taking mindset is what allowed GW to do this to you.
It's like Nigerian scammers these days still saying they're from Nigeria in their scam emails. They do this because anyone who responds are obviously suckers that they can con more money from.
In this case, anyone still spending time and money on this is obviously so far gone that GW knows they can milk even more money from them.
What it comes down to, often is that gaming isn't black and white, perfect and unplayable.
The best fit on the market for me might be a 75% match for what I'm looking for, combining models, game, what my friends want to play and perhaps many other factors. the next best game for me might be a 55% fit. I'm not talking about any specific game, by the way.
So my option is to self-improve the 75% fit game, perhaps to 85%, and be happy with that or go do something else that has nothing to do with gaming. Of course, if everything I did in life had to be a 95%+ fit, I wouldn't do much of anything.
For what its worth had the young lad and his friend with me (14/13) while I picked up some paint Saturday. They did a demo game and were hooked. Both liked the aesthetic of both sides and could not stop jabbering about it. There were also 3 other games of AoS going on (all WFB vets) playing lizards, Vampires, Daemons, and Empire. All seemed to be having a great time.
A closer look at the minis and I am impressed, which caught my attention hobby wise.
Needless to say I walked out of there with a AoS box and my son and his friend have been going at it since.
From my perspective, the game seems fine. My gaming days have been mostely behind me, but I must admit, seeing AoS has got my interest rekindled. It certainly has lowered the cost of entry big time which in my opinion was one of the things killing WFB and also hurting 40k to some extent as well.
Started painting my first eternal today, I'm really enjoying the detail on these figs. They're also definitely designed to take full advantage of the citadel "paint recipe" setup and shades with how the details are indented and such.
Overall, very nice models. I look forward to painting a lot more of them.
Shadowclaimer wrote: Started painting my first eternal today, I'm really enjoying the detail on these figs. They're also definitely designed to take full advantage of the citadel "paint recipe" setup and shades with how the details are indented and such.
Overall, very nice models. I look forward to painting a lot more of them.
Indeed, I've now assembled the models in the starter box.
The models are really fantastic.
We will have house rules for playing especially scenarios and balancing.
Rihgu wrote: What I was saying is that running pure White Lions + Lion Chariots in 8th edition was house ruling anyways, it's just now it's been flipped so that points = house rules and take whatever = actual rules.
I don't see what the difference is besides in 8th edition the points were "GW approved", which is ultimately meaningless based on how under/overcosted many units were.
So the options with Age of Sigmar are still the same:
1) Play the "GW approved" way.
2) House rules.
Yes except for the fact GW won't let you play "house rules" in their stores and if it's the only game store you go to (like it is for me) tough f'ing luck to you buddy.
Since RiTides asked nicely here is this is my opinion on the matter:
"If the silly beer hall rules got trimmed off, and points values put in to help balance the lists...maybe AoS wouldn't be too bad. As it stands though I'm sitting here with my High Elves and Skaven trying to figure out how to even build a list of models to TAKE and play a game to even TRY the rules out.
That said, still depressed the Sigmarines thing turned out to be a drake of some sort instead of a giant cat. "
I've never played WHFB but I took a quick look at the story for AoS and all I could think was "why have they made it just like Thor the movie with different realms all fighting each other. Seems a bit of a poor copy to me when they had a pretty stable background for many many years.
Maybe I've missed something but that's how it seems to me.
Somebody on a Warhammer Fantasy Facebook page called me a 'traitor' because I just so happen to like AoS despite the fact that I have great respect and appreciation for oldhammer as well.
Some people take this way to seriously ( Just wait, that high horse their riding will throw them! ) .Age of Sigmar is like any game, subjective and everyone will have their own opinion. However I feel that yes, it has its faults however it is only in its infancy and has the potential to be improved upon at no finacial detriment to us, the players (because the rules are web based and FREE ).I had my first Age of sigmar game on saturday and it was good fun (see my earlier post in this thead).
There is a whole community that can and probably will support the continuance of 8th edition ( pdf copies of Army books, BRB and campaign books etc) as a fan / comminity based project. Not to mention those indipendent stockists that are savy evough to keep hold of their 8th edition stock.
Yes except for the fact GW won't let you play "house rules" in their stores and if it's the only game store you go to (like it is for me) tough f'ing luck to you buddy.
Both GW's where I play at don't care about playing house rules. Hell, I could even play 8th, their motto being "is it a GW game?" I wouldn't write off all of them.
It's true the game is to have a living rulebook, so things certainly can be added, but they can't change the basic rules that are now in place.
The disappointment of AOS is how little GW changed the rules from WHFB/40K when they had the opportunity to completely re-write them. It isn't a terribad game as it stands,m but it could easily have beena lot better with a bit more effort.
One of the slow and clunky things about AOS (as in WHFB and 40K) is the combat resolution system -- To Hit, To Wound, To Save. GW could have streamlined combat by 1/3rd by getting rid of To Wound rolls. That will be an even bigger factor in playing larger battles.
Isn't it possible to incorporate the percentage chance of wounding into the To Hit and To Save rolls by the use of modifiers and factors? They won't do it now, as it would require rewriting all of the war scrolls.
I have never been a fan of the list building strategy for winning games. The war scrolls avoid that by reducing the amount of customisation in terms of wargear and special rules. But the lack of any indication of power level of units is quite an omission.
It also should have been possible to give each war scroll a power rating, so you could select a fairly balanced force by taking up to say 50 'power points' (or "points") worth of figures.
Another improvement that cannot be done now because it would require rewriting all the scrolls.
Kilkrazy wrote: It's true the game is to have a living rulebook, so things certainly can be added, but they can't change the basic rules that are now in place.
The disappointment of AOS is how little GW changed the rules from WHFB/40K when they had the opportunity to completely re-write them. It isn't a terribad game as it stands,m but it could easily have beena lot better with a bit more effort.
One of the slow and clunky things about AOS (as in WHFB and 40K) is the combat resolution system -- To Hit, To Wound, To Save. GW could have streamlined combat by 1/3rd by getting rid of To Wound rolls. That will be an even bigger factor in playing larger battles.
Isn't it possible to incorporate the percentage chance of wounding into the To Hit and To Save rolls by the use of modifiers and factors? They won't do it now, as it would require rewriting all of the war scrolls.
I have never been a fan of the list building strategy for winning games. The war scrolls avoid that by reducing the amount of customisation in terms of wargear and special rules. But the lack of any indication of power level of units is quite an omission.
It also should have been possible to give each war scroll a power rating, so you could select a fairly balanced force by taking up to say 50 'power points' (or "points") worth of figures.
Another improvement that cannot be done now because it would require rewriting all the scrolls.
As for incorporating percentages... well, it can be done, but not with d6 system. You really don't have that much of a room for additional factors. It's ridiculous as it is, when an elf with 2h sword is as strong as an ogre whose arm is as big as said elf. But that works with d20 systems such as WarZone Resurrection and Infinity - you have much more room for tampering with rolls with 1-20 spectrum.
Anyone has any idea how to balance stuff like cavalery or special characters? We had a few more games of AoS this weekend and they seem to dominate other type of units. Also how do people deal with flyers, specialy if their army doesn't have access to cavalery or spear armed models.
I struggled with whether to write this. It seems like a foregone conclusion at this point that “Age of Sigmar” will still be played. There’s probably nothing anyone can say to change that; the hand wringing only serves to promote the Game even more.
The thing exists, after all, purely to make money and engender controversy because it’s making money and then make more money off of the controversy it engendered. It has us cornered. If we complain about it, we’re doing exactly what they want us to do.
It’s not like anyone involved in producing this smoldering pile of gaming sewage would necessarily disagree with the criticisms anyway. They know exactly what they’ve done. It’s not as though they thought the game was remotely fair and balanced. It wasn’t like when a King first learned of Chess, or Go, and knew these were epic games destined to become the greatest gaming achievements of all time.
I imagine whoever first cooked up the idea to make a new Age of Sigmar game release probably didn’t even play it. They kind of got the gist and thought, “eh, it’s garbage but it’ll probably make a billion dollars because we can vomit just about anything into the trough and players will come in droves to devour it.”
So before we even get to the content itself, rancid as it is, we already know that the game is cynical and worthless, and, as I’ve previously discussed, born purely out of a desire to bilk Fan-Boyz out of their disposable income. It has no other purpose. It serves no other function. It is an empty vessel (well, a vessel filled with Majiks and Armor, but empty besides that). It’s not art, and anyone who pays to play it is degrading themselves, and I’m not even talking about cheese, broken, and loopholes yet.
It’s a marketing ploy disguised as a game, which is something you could admittedly say about most Games Workshop Products. The difference is that, whereas something like “X-Wing” is a vapid and silly yet relatively harmless game for Star Wars merchandise, “Age of Sigmar” is anything but harmless. It is actively poisonous. Toxic. A spiritual carcinogen. A putrid lump of nothingness.
The starter set is really of great value.
For somebody who wants get back into the new oldhammer its a good deal.
Actually, its better to have two starter sets which gives you two armies to play with.
Buying a single unit of Liberators (40€) is a no go.
Personally I'm going to be playing this Wednesday at a local stores game night. They are starting a league up for the following weeks. A slow grow which will be pretty awesome.
I'm really excited to be able to field armies I've always wanted to. For example the heart of my dwarvish army has always been ironbreakers. I had 2 units of 24 back in 7th and would have made them my exclusive core units if I could. Well now I'm selling my metal ones and upgrading to the new plastic ones (love the new look and they are slightly upscaled from previous Dwarf models and likely the new scale since they were released so recently) and building an army around Iron Breakers and Iron Drakes. I think painted right they'll look awesome alongside my Eternals I'm getting with the starter.
Basically I'm hopeful. Doesn't hurt that the 60 Iron Breakers/Iron Drakes will double as 5 regiments for KoW when I feel like playing that for my big game fix
::: they didn't retcon peoples minis
::: it looks like "WHFB lite"
::: seems a fairly stable base to build from
THE BAD
::: not having "points" system clearly is a disaster
::: need to have more "rerolls missed saves" type skills, and "TOUGH" units need to have saves that are immune to rend more and have saves tht make them tough - as it is, killing something "tough" is the same as killing something "squishy" a lot of the time..
Honestly I like aos, but I prefer 8th, I miss weapon and ballistics skills and mostly Initiative. It doesn't make sense for a zombie to attack before anything else in my mind. Personally I just wish fantasy was its own thing, and instead of end times we would get the return of Nagash, Glotkin, rise of the eternity king and maybe some of the events of book four and they just left it there. The events generated alot of interest and I think if gw actually advertised it like they are aos or even licensing movies/ more games like total war people would start to get more into fantasy. Personally whfb was my favorite game, full of good characters with good fluff, its sad to see its all pretty much ended just so we can have Sigmar become emperor with his loyal space Marines in fantasy. First thing to draw me to fantasy was there were no space Marines. But sadly that's ended, but ill continue to play 8th and occasionally dip into AoS on occasion. Its not bad, but its not overall for me.
Hulksmash wrote: Basically I'm hopeful. Doesn't hurt that the 60 Iron Breakers/Iron Drakes will double as 5 regiments for KoW when I feel like playing that for my big game fix
That's where I'm at already but fair play to those who want to give AoS a shot!
It's primarily an Epic blog, so have a look around while you are there.
That's a really nice review. Some good thoughts, too. Incidentally, I mentioned a week or so ago that this would attract some people, and I'm glad that I'm not delusional, and that there's at least one such person in the world
The main thing I am excited about is that there is no point system.
...
What has changed is that the jerks will no longer be able to hide behind a “balanced” point system and byzantine, overwrought rules. Gone are the days of “well, hey, it’s in the rules” and “it doesn’t say I can’t” and “yeah, sorry, I know it’s broken, I just like the model so much I wanted 90 of them”. Now everyone will be able to see them exactly for what they are and tell them to go stand in the corner and come back when they’re ready to sit at the adult table.
There is a category of players who say that they seek balance, but love points-based systems because it allows them to gain a significant advantage before the game start. They want to start each game with the biggest advantage allowable under the rules -- one that can predetermine the game outcome in their favor if possible. The only thing balanced is that both players have an opportunity to make very strong or very weak lists; but nothing balances those lists against each other.
I like to theorycraft such lists, but I have little interest in actually playing them, except as an academic exercise, because I think the best games (the ones where I have the most fun) are ones where both sides have a pretty good chance of winning.
Incidentally, a chief complaint in 40k is monobuild armies, and that's a direct result of list optimization. Nobody takes Terminators because something is better for the same number of points. Nobody takes Dreadnoughts for the same reason. Everyone likes Grav weapons. Nobody takes Roughriders. And on and on. Could everything just be balanced by better points lists? A little, but not wholly. Some combos will still be stupidly powerful, and Terminators will either be too cheap, or too expensive, because frankly, their extra durability isn't worth a whole lot, powerfists on very model is a waste of points, and storm bolters are as useless as bolters; it's barely worth losing sweeping advance, and being stuck with 30 year old heavy/special weapons. But in a point-free game, there's plenty of reasons to take them. I know this, because when we design scenarios (which only loosely use points), we often use Terminators to man the defenses or lead a breach. Usually, it's just because we want to play the models
ConanMan wrote: as it is, killing something "tough" is the same as killing something "squishy" a lot of the time..
This is another good point that I've been meaning to bring up, after reading through the free KoW rules on Friday.
Kings of War, and many other games, operate on a similar system in that many stats are simply given as a dice roll, however, whereas AoS gives each unit a stat which dictates what they need to wound the enemy, most other games will have a "defence" stat which dictates what enemy units need to wound them. This I think is an equally simple system but one that avoids the problem of a model being able to wound a dragon just as easily as a goblin. It also doesn't help that - from what I've seen - there seems to be no rules in AoS which make enemy units wound on -1 (and hence make tough units appropriately so), whereas in these other games there are plenty of units which are given +1 to wound (and hence making killing units suitable so). Just another improvement GW could have made to AoS had they thought a bit more about it.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't understand the term 'game mastery design'.
Game mastery is the part of the game where players figure out optimal "builds." Some games are designed to emphasize this aspect of play. Generally speaking, games designed for game mastery play start with the assumption that the players will do anything short of cheating to create the most powerful build (i.e., win); therefore, tightly and clearly written rules are much more important than in games designed without that assumption. Power in turn generally relates not only to inflicting/enduring damage but also doing so reliably (i.e., eliminating chance). Points are extremely valuable to game mastery design because whether units/abilities/upgrades/etc are under- or overcosted is one of the chief factors in determining whether it is optimal or suboptimal. Suboptimal choices are an inherent part of this design schema. For example, how many MtG cards are (literally and figuratively) worthless in a given pack? Hence why competitive players buy singles. But WotC keeps printing and selling (profitably!) packs of cards.
Right, okay, so, the point of the game is partly to figure out the best builds.
It always seemed to me that 40K was not intended to be played like that but it was possible because the way the list and points worked was not balanced.
Kilkrazy wrote: It always seemed to me that 40K was not intended to be played like that
I agree and FWIW I think GW thinks so, too. But lots of people posting on Dakka think 40k and WHFB should be "competitive" games (in the sense of game mastery; not in the simpler sense that each player would like to win the game). In fact, a subset of those people seem to believe that is the only type of game. These posters describe AoS as "incomplete" and needing to be houseruled/"fixed" to be playable.
Kilkrazy wrote: but it was possible because the way the list and points worked was not balanced.
Honestly, the whole rhetoric of "balance" proceeds from the assumption of game mastery.
Kilkrazy wrote: It always seemed to me that 40K was not intended to be played like that
I agree and FWIW I think GW thinks so, too. But lots of people posting on Dakka think 40k and WHFB should be "competitive" games (in the sense of game mastery; not in the simpler sense that each player would like to win the game). In fact, a subset of those people seem to believe that is the only type of game. These posters describe AoS as "incomplete" and needing to be houseruled/"fixed" to be playable.
Kilkrazy wrote: but it was possible because the way the list and points worked was not balanced.
Honestly, the whole rhetoric of "balance" proceeds from the assumption of game mastery.
Completely agreed. Competitive GW gaming reminds me of any number of silly things that one can do, but shouldn't. IMO, more people here need to play something like Richard Garfield's The Great Dalmuti, which is a great silly game, loads of fun. Sure, one can keep score, but that's not really the point.
As a filthy casual, I'm firmly of the belief that GW games are more for the experience, than the result.
rexscarlet wrote: I struggled with whether to write this. It seems like a foregone conclusion at this point that “Age of Sigmar” will still be played. There’s probably nothing anyone can say to change that; the hand wringing only serves to promote the Game even more.
The thing exists, after all, purely to make money and engender controversy because it’s making money and then make more money off of the controversy it engendered. It has us cornered. If we complain about it, we’re doing exactly what they want us to do.
It’s not like anyone involved in producing this smoldering pile of gaming sewage would necessarily disagree with the criticisms anyway. They know exactly what they’ve done. It’s not as though they thought the game was remotely fair and balanced. It wasn’t like when a King first learned of Chess, or Go, and knew these were epic games destined to become the greatest gaming achievements of all time.
I imagine whoever first cooked up the idea to make a new Age of Sigmar game release probably didn’t even play it. They kind of got the gist and thought, “eh, it’s garbage but it’ll probably make a billion dollars because we can vomit just about anything into the trough and players will come in droves to devour it.”
So before we even get to the content itself, rancid as it is, we already know that the game is cynical and worthless, and, as I’ve previously discussed, born purely out of a desire to bilk Fan-Boyz out of their disposable income. It has no other purpose. It serves no other function. It is an empty vessel (well, a vessel filled with Majiks and Armor, but empty besides that). It’s not art, and anyone who pays to play it is degrading themselves, and I’m not even talking about cheese, broken, and loopholes yet.
It’s a marketing ploy disguised as a game, which is something you could admittedly say about most Games Workshop Products. The difference is that, whereas something like “X-Wing” is a vapid and silly yet relatively harmless game for Star Wars merchandise, “Age of Sigmar” is anything but harmless. It is actively poisonous. Toxic. A spiritual carcinogen. A putrid lump of nothingness.
Man, I sure hope you don't have any expectations for Star wars 7 or Batman VS Superman.
GW pretty much killed the 'mutual respect' part of my customer relationship with them years ago. Now, I just buy exactly what I want and use it how I want, and I see nothing degrading or toxic about it. They've done a lot to harm their brand, and maybe I spend less with them than I would with a warmer company, but they aren't exactly collapsing society. Maybe I'm just tainted already; I'll still buy a candy bar every now and then if I really need a fix, even though the internet tells me Nestle kills babies. When GW starts killing actual human babies, then I probably won't be able to justify buying any more Stormcast Eternals Custodes. Or if they raise their prices another 10%.
I just don't understand what's wrong with wanting a points system.
The lore was raped, we got space marines, there are 4 pages of rules in the BRB, things were simplified hard and basically everything any veteran of warhammer fantasy loved about the game was destroyed except the armies. The gameplay is way different.
However despite all this i would play with a points system or some restrictions and somehow you basically imply fans like this are bad?
I'll have you guys know i didn't mind End Times even till the whole world blew up. The game wasn't balanced and was a constant arms race for the best toys (what GW is known for) but there was at least a clue of how many points each thing was.
Now that each army has a book at the same time in a PDF with 'age of sigmar' it'd be good for balance rather than 'power creep'. I just want a points system or restrictions and i don't think asking for such is a big complaint considering all fantasy players had to put up with. It'd be less crazy if you took a game out from the warp than what 'Age of Sigmar' became.
But this is thing: one of the brilliant things about 40k and many other wargames is that you can play it however you want. You can do your best to put together an optimal list and then do intense, competitive battle with other players and their optimal lists to really push yourself; or you can put together a list that comprises of models you like, or fluffy models, or whatever you happen to own, and have a much more laid-back game. That's the beauty of those games.
With AoS though, only the latter is possible, thanks to the lack of points values, decent scenarios and the generally terrible ruleset. So that means that many people will still enjoy playing that game, but unfortunately makes it a whole less appealing to many players.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Now, I just buy exactly what I want and use it how I want, and I see nothing degrading or toxic about it.
I don't quite understand - isn't that how everybody should be relating to GW and other sellers? Buy what you want, and use it as you will? Shouldn't we all be taking control of our own gaming?
I still radically disagree with the idea that points aren't an important part of the game. I have never played in a wargame tournament because I hate the competitive mentality it cultivates. I avoid players who optimize their lists to the point of abuse. I am a casual player by all definitions, yet I would still like the game far, far more if it had a points or equivalent system. Taking a balance scale that went from 1 to 10 and making it go from 1 to 100 is not an improvement. Players who want points are entirely left to their own devices here (or hell, even players who want some semblance of a balanced game). If you don't care for that sort of thing then no one is forcing you to use it if it is there, there is no downside to having a points system.
If you want to play a casual narrative game where each player just puts down what they feel like that's fine and there's nothing wrong with that. What IS wrong is implying that players who do want some structure are somehow wrong for wanting and enjoying that.
And yes, the game does have to be house ruled to be playable. Perhaps those house rules take the form of a gentlemen's agreement not to do certain things, but it is required because otherwise you wind up with a very one-sided battle. Heck, I've already had problems where me and an opponent brought forces we believed were balanced to the table, expecting they were evenly matched for a good battle only to find one side dominated the other and one player had slim chances from the onset. And that is completely unintentional. We laugh it off and adjust things, but at least with a points system there would be somewhere to start.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Now, I just buy exactly what I want and use it how I want, and I see nothing degrading or toxic about it.
I don't quite understand - isn't that how everybody should be relating to GW and other sellers? Buy what you want, and use it as you will? Shouldn't we all be taking control of our own gaming?
I can see you're new to wargaming...
I suppose if I cared about playing the game a lot, and could only play it against other random customers in my local community, I would need to be wary of how the community will respond to each of my purchases. Wouldn't want to be known as a cheesebeard or a mental 12 year old.
On another note, though, I did lose it the second time the AoS rule book hinted that the AoS minis would look really nice in a display case. You know, if you should buy them for some reason other than displaying them and then decide you want to display them. In a display case. Where minis get displayed, as minis do.
Coming soon: Games Workshop Age of Sigmar Display Cases! Collect your minis in our collectible Glass Hammerers of Sigmar transparent sigmarminum Display Case or in our equally collectible Lightcrusher of Khorne crystal skull Display Case. Why not both?
Wanting a balancing mechanic is usually nothing to do with being competitive. I wish people who keep saying this get it into their heads. ALL games have a balancing mechanic: 11 on each side for football, 3 darts each, the same pieces on each side in chess etc. It is not fun to have to do the donkey work yourself. That is what games designers are for. Yes, some people will try and break every system, but the majority of us, it makes it easier to arrange games design our armies and have fun.
Now, I'm not attacking the very idea of a points system, and I have no beef with points players, but I have to nitpick and point out that literally every rumor thread about a new GW release ever has demonstrated the massive downside of having a points system. I'm pretty sure some Dakkaites have lost years off their lives from the swing in blood pressure. And God forbid anyone should want to read about anything other than dozens of pages of rules whining and teeth gnashing. Terms like "nerf", "buff" or "balance" only make sense in a point system, where they also appear to increase the amount of human suffering in the world/internet. But I guess we all enjoy gaming products in our own ways.
So, yeah, I guess points have a lot of positive uses for a lot of people, but sometimes they turn people cruel.
Some great posts there from Ninthmusketeer and dragonelf: a points system doesn't make a game less "fun" nor does it cultivate a WAAC mentality, it just creates at least SOME balance, which is something many, many people want to see in AoS.
Now, I'm not attacking the very idea of a points system, and I have no beef with points players, but I have to nitpick and point out that literally every rumor thread about a new GW release ever has demonstrated the massive downside of having a points system. I'm pretty sure some Dakkaites have lost years off their lives from the swing in blood pressure. And God forbid anyone should want to read about anything other than dozens of pages of rules whining and teeth gnashing. Terms like "nerf", "buff" or "balance" only make sense in a point system, where they also appear to increase the amount of human suffering in the world/internet. But I guess we all enjoy gaming products in our own ways.
So, yeah, I guess points have a lot of positive uses for a lot of people, but sometimes they turn people cruel.
But that's not a problem with points systems - that's a problem with GW being unable to spend the time and effort to properly playtest their game and correct mistakes when they arise.
So, instead of fixing the system that was already in place - which was possible, since you can easily find plenty of wargames that use points and don't have that wailing and gnashing of teeth - they decided to through out the baby with the bathwater, as well as the bath, the sink, the cabinets, the mirror and the family dog for good measure.
And terms like nerf, buff, and balance can still make sense in a system without points. Take model ranges, for example. Two units with equal weapon abilities and ranges are "balanced." Increasing one unit's range by an inch is a "buff," and decreasing the other unit's range by half an inch is a "nerf". Suddenly, imbalance. And no points needed.
A game without a points system is like doing a scientific experiment without a measuring system and just eying it. You have to realize how insane that is? Sure sometimes the points aren't super accurate but it's a simple gauge. The points don't cause the balance issues you talk of they actually decrease them. The bigger issue with nerfing and such is more from having 15 armies that don't all get balanced at the same time. If there is a fix it'll be because armies get consolidated and all the books are simultaneously released and therefore no power creep due to age.
The issue I have with the concept of game mastery in wargames with list building is that too much emphasis is placed on list building, and not enough on predicting, outsmarting, and entrapping your opponent.
This is particularly an issue in when 95% of tournament lists are derivatives of popular Internet theme lists -- meaning, with a small amount of research, not years of play, a player can master a critical element of the game. It also affords an impatient player an insurmountable advantage over a patient one who wishes to just learn the fame and evolve their army organically. In most war games an awesome list in the hands of a mediocre player yields very good results, particularly in the pickup scene. Likewise, just trying things out without the benefit of Internet research will cause an inordinate number of losses.
It's not a problem unique to GW games; people playing WMH have exactly the same issue. You can't just buy models you think look cool that sound like they could mesh together and then expect to win. The AoS solution may be too draconian, because in a way, it removes that whole aspect of the game mastery. Or at least devolves it to just being able to identify such lists prior to play.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Now, I just buy exactly what I want and use it how I want, and I see nothing degrading or toxic about it.
I don't quite understand - isn't that how everybody should be relating to GW and other sellers? Buy what you want, and use it as you will? Shouldn't we all be taking control of our own gaming?
I can see you're new to wargaming...
the AoS rule book hinted that the AoS minis would look really nice in a display case.
I took a 4+ year break from Fantasy after 8th came out, so yeah, this whole "fantasy" thing is kinda new to me. Despite playing a smidge of 5E, a bunch of 6E and some 7E, no I really don't "get" how I'm "supposed" to Warhammer Fantasy.
Of the things that I own (and AoS isn't among them), AoS would be toward the back of the things that I would potentially display in a case. DreamForge Leviathan, Eldar Wraithknight, Kingdom Death : Monster monsters (coming soon!) would all have higher priority. I may well look into cabinets for these large items.
There are a couple of issues that keep coming up in this conversation and I think they merit closer scrutiny.
Firstly, balance and fairness are different. Fairness in gaming broadly means that all players have a reasonable chance at winning, at least as a matter of the rules. Balance by contrast has to do with whether a given play (depending on the type of game, a choice, move, action, etc) can be countered. The obvious example is roshambo. The rule that scissors counter paper counters rock counters scissors has nothing to do with fairness. Similarly, the fact that each player has the same number of chessman has nothing to do with balance. Rather, balance in chess is a matter of how the pieces move. This principle is easier to see with go than chess: balance in go is a matter of where the players place the stones.
Secondly, I think many people understand points based on a misunderstanding of money -- or more precisely, value. The price of an apple is not actually an objective summary of an apple's characteristics. Rather, its price is itself one of the apple's characteristics as it exists in a market. A given apple is of itself the same no matter where it is sold but it sells for different prices in different places and not just because of how much it costs to get an apple to those places but also because people in those places are willing to pay different amounts, for a variety of reasons. Now, imagine that someone could control how much apples cost in order to encourage people to buy more or less of them. This is what game designers do with points. Points are not an objective measurement of a unit's value but rather part of the unit's value. This is why you hear players talk about something being over- or undercosted.
Talys wrote: The issue I have with the concept of game mastery in wargames with list building is that too much emphasis is placed on list building, and not enough on predicting, outsmarting, and entrapping your opponent.
This is entirely a game design issue. If unit A has better rules/stats/abilities/whatever than unit B but both cost the same points then only unit A will see the table in 'competitive' lists, although both would still be used in themed lists etc. If unit A and unit B were still different but properly costed then both would see the table. This obviously requires work and research but it is far from impossible to do.
As AoS doesn't have points values unit B may see the table more often (may) but unit A will still be used more frequently as it is more effective.
Internet lists are a scourge but their cure is designing a good, coherent and well balanced game; not just giving up all pretence of army building and balance.
Sure, games with a focus on narrative purpose rather than mechanics are a real thing: Dungeons and Dragons has done just fine by providing a rough guideline and more or less letting the players do whatever the hell they want.
On the other side of the spectrum, you've got the hyper-tactical competitive puzzle type games, with a strict focus on making competition between players as fair as possible, ostensibly in order to see who is better at that game and it's interdependent systems. Chess is the obvious example - I like to point to Street Fighter and other fighting games too.
I don't think there's an inherently better or worse way to structure your game. It can clearly work either way.
Of course this is a big change - and change is scary, because humans. Was that the right call? I dunno. I really enjoy building lists for 40k, trying to figure out what works and what doesn't, building a cohesive whole that fits together on the page and the tabletop. If that was to go away, I don't think I'd play that new edition personally. I'm clearly not the only one who thinks so.
But perhaps, I'm just the old man grumbling at the kids on the lawn with their legos and their power rangers. Maybe this way IS better, and in ten years we'll be wondering why we ever bothered with crap like lists and points?
TBH I sometimes find listbuilding fun too, even if it's just building themed lists and trying to get everything in at a certain cost. It's still a challenge, and can be fun, even if you are not cranking out a tourney build. But I don't think it is an essential part of games overall, as some folks believe.
Talys wrote: The issue I have with the concept of game mastery in wargames with list building is that too much emphasis is placed on list building, and not enough on predicting, outsmarting, and entrapping your opponent.
...
...
This is the crux of it.
There are well-proven, popular historical competition rulesets that use army lists and points and are regarded as balanced for competition or casual play (WRG). There also are rulesets that use army lists but not points, and are regarded as balanced (DBA).
There are also historical rules that compose your army by rolling it up on statistical tables to get a realistic composition of forces. This of course does not necessarily result in a balanced game, but it is not intended to.
What don't exist are historical sets that let you choose whatever you like, with or without points and/or lists.
40K certainly has a strong tendency to net-lists and so on.
I don't see that AOS gets rid of this by not having lists or points. There still will be weaker and stronger units and people who want to min-max them will find ways to discover and use them.
Kilkrazy wrote: There still will be weaker and stronger units and people who want to min-max them will find ways to discover and use them.
Sure, but what's the point? AOS says that players can keep deploying, so there's nothing really to min-max. It's not like you necessarily run out of points, though you might run out of models.
Kilkrazy wrote: There still will be weaker and stronger units and people who want to min-max them will find ways to discover and use them.
Sure, but what's the point? AOS says that players can keep deploying, so there's nothing really to min-max. It's not like you necessarily run out of points, though you might run out of models.
You can maximize your units in your space provided. Why take up precious space with simple spearmen when you can take elite throat slicers which have 3X the wounds and have the same base size?
Or maybe you want to take up the most spcae with the least amount of models. So you take the best kind of ogres you have and unless your opponent places fewer models than you chances are you have made the best bang for buck given your space.
Table space and models owned are the new points system in this. Unfortunately this worst kind of points system for a game like this.
Min Maxing your armies has never been easier really.
Manchu wrote:TBH I sometimes find listbuilding fun too, even if it's just building themed lists and trying to get everything in at a certain cost. It's still a challenge, and can be fun, even if you are not cranking out a tourney build. But I don't think it is an essential part of games overall, as some folks believe.
Me too! I love building lists of armies, and seeing what I can squeeze into 1850, 2000, 2500, 3000 points. I haven't even played with most of the lists I've made
Kilkrazy wrote:40K certainly has a strong tendency to net-lists and so on.
I don't see that AOS gets rid of this by not having lists or points. There still will be weaker and stronger units and people who want to min-max them will find ways to discover and use them.
I agree completely on both of these points. 40k is a really bad offender because a strong list is astronomically, unbeatably better than a weak one. Points give the illusion of fairness in 40k, and as fun as it is to build lists, it has nothing to do with balance or building a fair fight. I just like building them to see what I can do with some arbitrary numerical constraint.
AoS won't be any different; but what it comes down to is, player Joe and Jim look at each other's lists and go, "Is this a fair fight?" If Joe and Jim are honest about it and / or willing to iterate over a couple of games, the two lists can be synced up. If Joe and Jim just want to win really badly and want to use listbuilding as the means of achieving that, the AoS mechanism breaks down.
In fairness, 40k is the same: you can balance a DraigoStar by simply acknowledging that it's more powerful than Draigo and Grav Centurions taken separately, and let your opponent take something extra to make up for it. But how often does that happen in a pickup?
Silent Puffin? wrote:
Talys wrote: The issue I have with the concept of game mastery in wargames with list building is that too much emphasis is placed on list building, and not enough on predicting, outsmarting, and entrapping your opponent.
This is entirely a game design issue. If unit A has better rules/stats/abilities/whatever than unit B but both cost the same points then only unit A will see the table in 'competitive' lists, although both would still be used in themed lists etc. If unit A and unit B were still different but properly costed then both would see the table. This obviously requires work and research but it is far from impossible to do.
As AoS doesn't have points values unit B may see the table more often (may) but unit A will still be used more frequently as it is more effective.
Internet lists are a scourge but their cure is designing a good, coherent and well balanced game; not just giving up all pretence of army building and balance.
Taking my example above, if Draigo is 2 points and Centurions are 2 points separately, taking them together makes a 12 point unit -- because they'll easily kill 3 times their points in enemy models. In other words, you can't cost things in isolation in a game filled with "special rules". To fix this, you could:
1. Simplify everything and remove special rules that can potentially be used as powerful combinations. Magic is the greatest offender: in medieval warfare, there weren't wizards that could buff archers to let them launch fireballs out of their bows or clerics that could keep heroes alive forever. The problem is, as gamers, we like this stuff because it's cool.
2. Charge more points for powerful combinations, or at least the most egregious ones. There are a finite number of them, so this actually isn't that hard. The problem is, it would be wildly unpopular, because after all, a lot of us enjoy making a list better by squeezing efficiency/value out of points, and we're not just trying to design a fair fight.
A third solution, the road GW has taken in 40k post 2015, is to create formations and superformations that have such great bonuses that the combos that used to be awesome can be matched or exceeded by out of the book bonuses (for example, the Decurion can go head-to-head with anything and not be embarrassed). I actually like this approach, as long as everyone has access to enough of these formations, and as long as there's enough variety in them per faction. Because the formations are generally pretty expensive (points wise), you can't just say, "I'll load up on a whole bunch of the same formation", even if the play group were to allow it.
I don't like this approach for a skirmish game, though; it just doesn't make sense in the context of a small number of models.
Sure, someone could min-max AoS. It's important to realize that is a comment about the player rather than the game. There are games out there, however, that are designed to be min-max'ed.
The point is not to "win" only for the sake of "winning", because "winning" is easy if you just focus on "good" units. That's a degenerated and atrophied thing to do, rather shallow and boring.
The actual point is to play the best game you can with the forces you choose to bring to the table. As a game to play, AoS is a good one.
Hey, thanks a lot for the nice comments on my blog post, Talys. Everyone is making some good points on this thread and it's great that it seems like everyone is keeping things civil.
Talys, I completely agree with you regarding a points system meaning you will never take certain poor value units, except in themed games. And that is definitely one of the things I like about the absence of a point system. Manchu, your points regarding min-maxing and how certain systems are designed for it and even encourage it are very astute.
In any case, I made most of my points in my blog post. My goal really was not try to sell anyone on my point of view or be dismissive of anyone, so I do hope that people read it and maybe come away with a fresh perspective. And enjoy the pics of the battle while you're there.
JohnHwangDD wrote: The point is not to "win" only for the sake of "winning", because "winning" is easy if you just focus on "good" units. That's a degenerated and atrophied thing to do, rather shallow and boring.
The actual point is to play the best game you can with the forces you choose to bring to the table. As a game to play, AoS is a good one.
How is AOS a good game for this? Please explain because what you described is what any good game does but without as many simple options to break it.
I mentioned above that the point is to win and have fun doing it. AOS does not do this at all without planning. Winning in AOS is as easy as taking good units, in most games you take units via whatever selection method and win using the unit rather than having it. Historicals either have points or have historical imbalanced scenarios instead (because war is never balanced, but the goal is not to win but to change history). Other straightforward games (like warhammer for example) rely on points for an even match up, however you can change the matchups (using points) for scenarios if you wish too.
AOS is nothing like the above. Simply put it is a brain dead game where you select units (for whatever reason you selected them) and pit them against someone else s and hope you have models that work.
I mean you just said the point is to do the best (winning, by the way) with the forces you bring. Of course AOS is good for that because I can bring 87 Stegadons based on the smallest base possible. Thats not even a very broken list too compared to many I have seen. But taking that list fits in with your criteria of a fun game. But I know your game would not be fun playing this list... especially if you happen to play a traditional army.
So actually explain how AOS as a ruleset is good and not rubbish? You choosing not to play the rules does not make it good rules.
One of the chief complaints about games that rely on points to create fairness is that the points fail to do that.
Also, historical games are not necessarily played to "change history" (with or without points). In all the scenario-based historical games I have played, the players have always "played to win" even in unwinnable scenarios. For example, we played Berlin 1945 using a scenario rule that destroyed Soviet units could redeploy next turn. When only one side has inexhaustible units, only that side can win (turn limits notwithstanding). And yet the German players still spent every turn doing their best to hold back the red rampage. Everyone had a lot of fun, too!
Manchu wrote: One of the chief complaints about games that rely on points to create fairness is that the points fail to do that.
Also, historical games are not necessarily played to "change history" (with or without points). In all the scenario-based historical games I have played, the players have always "played to win" even in unwinnable scenarios. For example, we played Berlin 1945 using a scenario rule that destroyed Soviet units could redeploy next turn. When only one side has inexhaustible units, only that side can win (turn limits notwithstanding). And yet the German players still spent every turn doing their best to hold back the red rampage. Everyone had a lot of fun, too!
Do points fail to do that? I find they do better than simply having no points or balancing scenarios at all... Unlike most games out there.
Yes but a good winning in a historical game usually inst a complete route of the enemy or destruction of every unit. So the what the scenarios do is pit you in the place of command at the time and you get to do things differently. Can you change the outcome of waterloo? Can you delay the enemy at Iwo Jima? Can you so on. Like all games you play to win, but in the scenario driven historical games you usually play to change the course of history... Unless you are playing a non historical game in a historical setting, then again you are playing to win. Historical games are ultimately down to what ifs.
@Swastakowey - AoS is a much better game with planning than without planning.
If you want to have two strangers meet at a table play against each other with armies of a predetermined size, AoS is the wrong game. You'll hate it.
AoS basically leaves you with planning your game or playing a prewritten scenario, both of which can be made into a fair fight without too much effort, given the intended optimal model counts.
AoS as a ruleset is "good and not rubbish" because some people find it to be fun -- to me that's the only litmus test that matters. Things that make it a decent game are that It's easy and relatively cheap to get into, but has quite a bit of exploration possible by way of legions of units and special rules. In v 1.0, it's not strategically super deep (or doesn't look like it is), but it's still enjoyable, and doesn't feel repetitive, even if you play the same armies in 2-3 games in a row.
Incidentally, "doing your best" and "winning" are not the same thing. When I play golf against.. well, 99% of the people I play golf with, I always do my best, but I have no hope of winning. I do mean, zero. I play with guys that are like, par, and I'm... double par on a good day.
In the context of AoS, and just reading this thread and others, there are a reasonable number of people who want to enjoy playing a game using units other than efficiency, meaning that once they start, they're trying to win, but they don't want to engage in the list-to-win meta-game that occurs in a lot of fantasy wargames. To offset that, they're willing to sit down with their opponent before the game starts and figure out by whatever estimation, that it's going to be an close battle.
I'm not sure that historical and non-historical gaming are really very different for me. Regarding the game playing aspect of the miniatures hobby, it's all about doing the best I can with the forces available to me. Determining what forces are available to me, that is where I prefer the hobby to be about modeling and painting -- i.e., collecting the units that I want rather than the ones that perform best thanks to their rules (including their points cost, which is indeed part of their rules).
JohnHwangDD wrote: The point is not to "win" only for the sake of "winning", because "winning" is easy if you just focus on "good" units. That's a degenerated and atrophied thing to do, rather shallow and boring.
The actual point is to play the best game you can with the forces you choose to bring to the table. As a game to play, AoS is a good one.
How is AOS a good game for this? Please explain because what you described is what any good game does but without as many simple options to break it.
I mentioned above that the point is to win and have fun doing it.
I mean you just said the point is to do the best (winning, by the way) with the forces you bring.
Of course AOS is good for that because I can bring 87 Stegadons based on the smallest base possible. Thats not even a very broken list too compared to many I have seen. But taking that list fits in with your criteria of a fun game. But I know your game would not be fun playing this list... especially if you happen to play a traditional army.
I already covered that.
I already explained that the point is NOT to win, but to play, and you continue to choose not to understand, because you don't have the concept of playing vs winning, process vs outcome. You're still failing to comprehend that the playing is the game, not the winning.
I said the point was to do your best, but I specificially did NOT put "winning" as part of the objective. You added that, because you refuse to imagine a game that can be enjoyed for the experience vs the outcome.
If you feel that you need to bring 87 Stegadons, after I finish deploying what would have been a 1000 pt army, that's fine. I'll choose a Sudden Death victory condition, and we'll see how it goes. If the game becomes a foregone conclusion, I'll simply concede, and you will "win". Presumably, that will make you happy, but you shouldn't be surprised if I choose not to play rather than to play you again.
The problem with you is that you don't understand when it's time to focus on the journey rather than the destination. If you can't do that, then games like AoS simply aren't for you.
I don't think he refuses to see your points. The issue is, this points thing had become really deeply ingrained. There are gamers out there who simply do not know that this is not an essential part of game design.
Talys wrote: Incidentally, "doing your best" and "winning" are not the same thing.
When I play golf against.. well, 99% of the people I play golf with, I always do my best, but I have no hope of winning. I do mean, zero. I play with guys that are like, par, and I'm... double par on a good day.
In the context of AoS, and just reading this thread and others, there are a reasonable number of people who want to enjoy playing a game using units other than efficiency, meaning that once they start, they're trying to win, but they don't want to engage in the list-to-win meta-game that occurs in a lot of fantasy wargames. To offset that, they're willing to sit down with their opponent before the game starts and figure out by whatever estimation, that it's going to be an close battle.
And no, that is definitely not for everyone.
Yeah, there's definitely a "doing your best" vs "winning at all cost" thing going on here.
I golf like you do, but had a lot of trouble getting that I was really playing against myself vs playing against par. Over the past few years, I've started doing yoga, and I'm much better about going with the flow, not having expectations, etc. and just trying to be in the moment and enjoying the little improvements that I find. Life can be good that way.
I'm of a mixed mind about negotiating each game in detail, thinking that recommending flexible ranges (e.g. "6" meaning +/- 50% for 4 to 8) could be a better way of playing. AoS wants to be very flexible and ad hoc.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: I don't think he refuses to see your points.
The issue is, this points thing had become really deeply ingrained. There are gamers out there who simply do not know that this is not an essential part of game design.
That could be, except my writing:
"The actual point is to play the best game you can with the forces you choose to bring to the table."
became:
"I mean you just said the point is to do the best (winning, by the way) with the forces you bring."
He completely changed my focus on playing into "winning" - that's the exact opposite of what I was intending.
I agree that points have become a disease, and one need look no further than the myriad points threads under Proposed Rules to see how far this has permeated things.
JohnHwangDD wrote: The point is not to "win" only for the sake of "winning", because "winning" is easy if you just focus on "good" units. That's a degenerated and atrophied thing to do, rather shallow and boring.
The actual point is to play the best game you can with the forces you choose to bring to the table. As a game to play, AoS is a good one.
How is AOS a good game for this? Please explain because what you described is what any good game does but without as many simple options to break it.
I mentioned above that the point is to win and have fun doing it.
I mean you just said the point is to do the best (winning, by the way) with the forces you bring.
Of course AOS is good for that because I can bring 87 Stegadons based on the smallest base possible. Thats not even a very broken list too compared to many I have seen. But taking that list fits in with your criteria of a fun game. But I know your game would not be fun playing this list... especially if you happen to play a traditional army.
I already covered that.
I already explained that the point is NOT to win, but to play, and you continue to choose not to understand, because you don't have the concept of playing vs winning, process vs outcome. You're still failing to comprehend that the playing is the game, not the winning.
I said the point was to do your best, but I specificially did NOT put "winning" as part of the objective. You added that, because you refuse to imagine a game that can be enjoyed for the experience vs the outcome.
If you feel that you need to bring 87 Stegadons, after I finish deploying what would have been a 1000 pt army, that's fine. I'll choose a Sudden Death victory condition, and we'll see how it goes. If the game becomes a foregone conclusion, I'll simply concede, and you will "win". Presumably, that will make you happy, but you shouldn't be surprised if I choose not to play rather than to play you again.
The problem with you is that you don't understand when it's time to focus on the journey rather than the destination. If you can't do that, then games like AoS simply aren't for you.
Having fun WHILE TRYING TO WIN is not the same as only having fun if I win. Its the trying part that's fun. But when there is no chance, or if it is stupidly easy then whats the point? Winning has nothing to do with the fun but the trying part is important. Leaving out the word winning makes your point still the same as mine. And AOS does not create a good game for that, because you cannot say why it is a good game without ignoring the rules. Everyone else is saying the same thing...
"If you don't follow the rules for deployment and limit yourself then the rules can be fun" but even to do that you have to have a rough idea of the game and know all the armies and units to a degree. Or you will be playing games that are a waste of time (I.E playtesting) until you get a working game. But ultimately GW should have done that. If you enjoy that then fine, but at least say "the rules are fun if we finish them of ourselves". Because that's what people are saying...
I get it, I mean I play 40k and we have a lot of do's and don'ts to make it a little enjoyable, but none of us pretend like its awesome as a rule set... because its not. It is only awesome because we put in time and effort to get there and ultimately thats why we still play it (and some of the models are epic). But 40k still has better rules than AOS. AOS makes it worse for new players trying to get into the game and even the vets are, as we speak (those still playing that is) trying to work out the best way to actually use this ruleset. Those are all signs of a bad ruleset.
AoS do not do anything well, only you the players make it remotely decent but thats not because of the rules. Thats because we all see the rules suck and have to change them. Just for some reason people dont see that changing the rules to make a playable game makes the original game bad.
If thats what you enjoy thats fine, just know it doesnt mean the rules are good. I mean I enjoy eating junk food from time to time, but the food is still pretty bad.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: I don't think he refuses to see your points. The issue is, this points thing had become really deeply ingrained. There are gamers out there who simply do not know that this is not an essential part of game design.
I play games that have no points... but they all have universities worth of background and information for me to play a balanced scenario that works. Fantasy has a crappy picture book of history that is not well thought out and does nothing to help create a balanced game. That is why AOS needs points.
Swastakowey wrote: If you enjoy that then fine, but at least say "the rules are fun if we finish them of ourselves". Because that's what people are saying...
That's not what I have been saying. I think AoS is fine as it is -- to clarify: fine for me and the people I will play it with.
Swastakowey wrote: If you enjoy that then fine, but at least say "the rules are fun if we finish them of ourselves". Because that's what people are saying...
That's not what I have been saying. I think AoS is fine as it is -- to clarify: fine for me and the people I will play it with.
So you have had a reasonable amount of issues (all games have issues) with the game to call it a good ruleset? If so then thats fine, but it seems you are a minority. I wonder... if someone completely new joins your group and brings his collection, would your group say the same things still. Because I suspect that like my group, you rely on discussing before hand the lists and knowing what models everyone owns. But that relies on players personally having access to these things, many people do not.
But that's not a problem with points systems - that's a problem with GW being unable to spend the time and effort to properly playtest their game and correct mistakes when they arise.
I said I was being nitpicky about his comment that points have no drawbacks. Besides, you just made another point--having points in your game means it either has to be completely balanced or it is broken and everyone hates you. KoW just had to do a new edition after 3 years (just as I was building my armies and gaining momentum towards playing) because gamers just had to break it and demand Mantic fix it.
So, instead of fixing the system that was already in place - which was possible, since you can easily find plenty of wargames that use points and don't have that wailing and gnashing of teeth - they decided to through out the baby with the bathwater, as well as the bath, the sink, the cabinets, the mirror and the family dog for good measure.
And terms like nerf, buff, and balance can still make sense in a system without points. Take model ranges, for example. Two units with equal weapon abilities and ranges are "balanced." Increasing one unit's range by an inch is a "buff," and decreasing the other unit's range by half an inch is a "nerf". Suddenly, imbalance. And no points needed.
I think this is a mindset kind of thing. After years in the hobby, I'm just tired of people who worry about that kind of stuff.
But I never claimed AoS was good for pick-up gaming (much less tournaments). I don't think that means it is terrible. Maybe it would help if I said I think AoS is just okay. I don't think it is the best game ever or anything like that.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: Now, I just buy exactly what I want and use it how I want, and I see nothing degrading or toxic about it.
I don't quite understand - isn't that how everybody should be relating to GW and other sellers? Buy what you want, and use it as you will? Shouldn't we all be taking control of our own gaming?
I can see you're new to wargaming...
the AoS rule book hinted that the AoS minis would look really nice in a display case.
I took a 4+ year break from Fantasy after 8th came out, so yeah, this whole "fantasy" thing is kinda new to me. Despite playing a smidge of 5E, a bunch of 6E and some 7E, no I really don't "get" how I'm "supposed" to Warhammer Fantasy.
Of the things that I own (and AoS isn't among them), AoS would be toward the back of the things that I would potentially display in a case. DreamForge Leviathan, Eldar Wraithknight, Kingdom Death : Monster monsters (coming soon!) would all have higher priority. I may well look into cabinets for these large items.
It was a joke, but by your criteria, I'm a permanent noob.
Nothing I have assembled is going into a display case, except maybe for some spaceship kitbashes.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I already explained that the point is NOT to win, but to play, and you continue to choose not to understand, because you don't have the concept of playing vs winning, process vs outcome. You're still failing to comprehend that the playing is the game, not the winning.
I said the point was to do your best, but I specificially did NOT put "winning" as part of the objective. You added that, because you refuse to imagine a game that can be enjoyed for the experience vs the outcome.
If you feel that you need to bring 87 Stegadons, after I finish deploying what would have been a 1000 pt army, that's fine. I'll choose a Sudden Death victory condition, and we'll see how it goes. If the game becomes a foregone conclusion, I'll simply concede, and you will "win". Presumably, that will make you happy, but you shouldn't be surprised if I choose not to play rather than to play you again.
The problem with you is that you don't understand when it's time to focus on the journey rather than the destination. If you can't do that, then games like AoS simply aren't for you.
Having fun WHILE TRYING TO WIN is not the same as only having fun if I win. Its the trying part that's fun. But when there is no chance, or if it is stupidly easy then whats the point? Winning has nothing to do with the fun but the trying part is important. Leaving out the word winning makes your point still the same as mine. And AOS does not create a good game for that, because you cannot say why it is a good game without ignoring the rules. Everyone else is saying the same thing...
"If you don't follow the rules for deployment and limit yourself then the rules can be fun" but even to do that you have to have a rough idea of the game and know all the armies and units to a degree. Or you will be playing games that are a waste of time (I.E playtesting) until you get a working game. But ultimately GW should have done that. If you enjoy that then fine, but at least say "the rules are fun if we finish them of ourselves". Because that's what people are saying...
I get it, I mean I play 40k and we have a lot of do's and don'ts to make it a little enjoyable, but none of us pretend like its awesome as a rule set... because its not. It is only awesome because we put in time and effort to get there and ultimately thats why we still play it (and some of the models are epic). But 40k still has better rules than AOS. AOS makes it worse for new players trying to get into the game and even the vets are, as we speak (those still playing that is) trying to work out the best way to actually use this ruleset. Those are all signs of a bad ruleset.
AoS do not do anything well, only you the players make it remotely decent but thats not because of the rules. Thats because we all see the rules suck and have to change them. Just for some reason people dont see that changing the rules to make a playable game makes the original game bad.
If thats what you enjoy thats fine, just know it doesnt mean the rules are good. I mean I enjoy eating junk food from time to time, but the food is still pretty bad.
Once again, you're still focused on "TRYING TO WIN", so you're still failing to understand the distinction between playing and "winning". And you claiming "leaving out the word winning makes your point still the same as mine" is false and completely misses the point of what I wrote.
Also, I don't agree that AoS isn't a good game, nor do I agree with that block quote you inserted, so your claim of "everyone" is demonstrably false. I'm pretty sure I can play games of AoS with Bob here in SoCal exactly has GW wrote them, and we would both have a really good time.
AoS is fine for new players because they don't come in full of bad habits telling people how to play a different game than what AoS is. I don't think the rules suck or need changes, so again, your claim that "we all see" is demonstrably false.
The worst part is that you guys have backed yourselves so far into a corner, you can't possibly enjoy AoS. Which is too bad, because 8E was gak, and AoS is great.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I already explained that the point is NOT to win, but to play, and you continue to choose not to understand, because you don't have the concept of playing vs winning, process vs outcome. You're still failing to comprehend that the playing is the game, not the winning.
I said the point was to do your best, but I specificially did NOT put "winning" as part of the objective. You added that, because you refuse to imagine a game that can be enjoyed for the experience vs the outcome.
If you feel that you need to bring 87 Stegadons, after I finish deploying what would have been a 1000 pt army, that's fine. I'll choose a Sudden Death victory condition, and we'll see how it goes. If the game becomes a foregone conclusion, I'll simply concede, and you will "win". Presumably, that will make you happy, but you shouldn't be surprised if I choose not to play rather than to play you again.
The problem with you is that you don't understand when it's time to focus on the journey rather than the destination. If you can't do that, then games like AoS simply aren't for you.
Having fun WHILE TRYING TO WIN is not the same as only having fun if I win. Its the trying part that's fun. But when there is no chance, or if it is stupidly easy then whats the point? Winning has nothing to do with the fun but the trying part is important. Leaving out the word winning makes your point still the same as mine. And AOS does not create a good game for that, because you cannot say why it is a good game without ignoring the rules. Everyone else is saying the same thing...
"If you don't follow the rules for deployment and limit yourself then the rules can be fun" but even to do that you have to have a rough idea of the game and know all the armies and units to a degree. Or you will be playing games that are a waste of time (I.E playtesting) until you get a working game. But ultimately GW should have done that. If you enjoy that then fine, but at least say "the rules are fun if we finish them of ourselves". Because that's what people are saying...
I get it, I mean I play 40k and we have a lot of do's and don'ts to make it a little enjoyable, but none of us pretend like its awesome as a rule set... because its not. It is only awesome because we put in time and effort to get there and ultimately thats why we still play it (and some of the models are epic). But 40k still has better rules than AOS. AOS makes it worse for new players trying to get into the game and even the vets are, as we speak (those still playing that is) trying to work out the best way to actually use this ruleset. Those are all signs of a bad ruleset.
AoS do not do anything well, only you the players make it remotely decent but thats not because of the rules. Thats because we all see the rules suck and have to change them. Just for some reason people dont see that changing the rules to make a playable game makes the original game bad.
If thats what you enjoy thats fine, just know it doesnt mean the rules are good. I mean I enjoy eating junk food from time to time, but the food is still pretty bad.
Once again, you're still focused on "TRYING TO WIN", so you're still failing to understand the distinction between playing and "winning". And you claiming "leaving out the word winning makes your point still the same as mine" is false and completely misses the point of what I wrote.
Also, I don't agree that AoS isn't a good game, nor do I agree with that block quote you inserted, so your claim of "everyone" is demonstrably false. I'm pretty sure I can play games of AoS with Bob here in SoCal exactly has GW wrote them, and we would both have a really good time.
AoS is fine for new players because they don't come in full of bad habits telling people how to play a different game than what AoS is. I don't think the rules suck or need changes, so again, your claim that "we all see" is demonstrably false.
The worst part is that you guys have backed yourselves so far into a corner, you can't possibly enjoy AoS. Which is too bad, because 8E was gak, and AoS is great.
Wait a minute...
I play the game to have fun (if you try to win, necessary to play the game, then you are having fun while trying to win.) and part of playing a game is trying to win. Please epxlain how you play a table top wargame without trying to win. Do both players leave their models idle?
Do you move your units to eliminate another unit in order to gain an advantage? Then yes... you are trying to win. Get that? Take my sentence "Have fun while trying to win" and take out win. Have fun while trying. What is the difference? None. You are saying the same thing but trying to play it out like we play games differently or something.
It is not demonstrably false because I grantee if you played a game with a new person, not your mate bob (who you likely know their collection, their habits and playstyle to make a fun game), the game will likely fail as he may have units that completely destroy yours because he doesn't know any better. This is the result of a bad game. Saying you enjoy it with bob because of the reasons above doesn't make it good. You just made it playable by limiting yourself and not following the rules. You even said if someone plays the games following the rules you would likely not play them again (I.E 87 Stegadons) proving to me that you think the rules are bad unless you the player fixes them.
How can rules be good if you yourself are saying you wont play people for following the rules because it would break the game? Sorry but can you be clear? If I play my stegadon dream list (legal, following these "rules" and playing to the rules the whole time, smiling and having fun) and you concede and never look at me when in need for a game again then the rules suck mate. Simply put, you can only have fun if you fix and change the rules yourself not because the rules are great.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I took a 4+ year break from Fantasy after 8th came out, so yeah, this whole "fantasy" thing is kinda new to me. Despite playing a smidge of 5E, a bunch of 6E and some 7E, no I really don't "get" how I'm "supposed" to Warhammer Fantasy.
Of the things that I own (and AoS isn't among them), AoS would be toward the back of the things that I would potentially display in a case. DreamForge Leviathan, Eldar Wraithknight, Kingdom Death : Monster monsters (coming soon!) would all have higher priority. I may well look into cabinets for these large items.
It was a joke, but by your criteria, I'm a permanent noob.
Nothing I have assembled is going into a display case, except maybe for some spaceship kitbashes.
Heh, I'm almost certainly more n00b than you at Fantasy - remember, I haven't played in at least 4 years.
I'm a decent model builder, and the WK built up really nicely (after conversions). I wouldn't be ashamed to let strangers see it, assuming I actually paint the darn thing!
JohnHwangDD wrote: Once again, you're still focused on "TRYING TO WIN", so you're still failing to understand the distinction between playing and "winning". And you claiming "leaving out the word winning makes your point still the same as mine" is false and completely misses the point of what I wrote.
Also, I don't agree that AoS isn't a good game, nor do I agree with that block quote you inserted, so your claim of "everyone" is demonstrably false. I'm pretty sure I can play games of AoS with Bob here in SoCal exactly has GW wrote them, and we would both have a really good time.
AoS is fine for new players because they don't come in full of bad habits telling people how to play a different game than what AoS is. I don't think the rules suck or need changes, so again, your claim that "we all see" is demonstrably false.
The worst part is that you guys have backed yourselves so far into a corner, you can't possibly enjoy AoS. Which is too bad, because 8E was gak, and AoS is great.
Wait a minute...
I play the game to have fun (if you try to win, necessary to play the game, then you are having fun while trying to win.) and part of playing a game is trying to win. Please epxlain how you play a table top wargame without trying to win. Do both players leave their models idle?
You are saying the same thing but trying to play it out like we play games differently or something.
It is not demonstrably false because I grantee if you played a game with a new person, not your mate bob (who you likely know their collection, their habits and playstyle to make a fun game),
You even said if someone plays the games following the rules you would likely not play them again (I.E 87 Stegadons) proving to me that you think the rules are bad unless you the player fixes them.
I already told you, and you quoted it, but it obviously didn't stick: "You do the best you can with the forces you have." That is how you play the game without trying to win.
I am saying something different, and we are playing the games completely differently.
No, you stated something false, because "bob" is BobTheInquisitor, who happens to be here in SoCal, same as me. I don't believe that I've played him, but from what I've read by him on Dakka, I suspect we would be compatible in playing. If I played against him, he would be new to me, and I think we could play the game as is just fine.
I would not play YOU again, because of how you approached the game that we played, not because the game is bad. You're coming in with a notion that the game is bad, that we have to do all of this stuff to change it, etc. and I don't agree with that. I don't believe AoS needs changing at this point in time. I don't believe that it needs "balancing". I believe the game is what it is, and it is great at being AoS. I think it would be a huge mistake to make AoS into 8E.
I play the game to have fun (if you try to win, necessary to play the game, then you are having fun while trying to win.) and part of playing a game is trying to win. Please epxlain how you play a table top wargame without trying to win. Do both players leave their models idle?
Do you move your units to eliminate another unit in order to gain an advantage? Then yes... you are trying to win. Get that? Take my sentence "Have fun while trying to win" and take out win. Have fun while trying. What is the difference? None. You are saying the same thing but trying to play it out like we play games differently or something.
It is not demonstrably false because I grantee if you played a game with a new person, not your mate bob (who you likely know their collection, their habits and playstyle to make a fun game), the game will likely fail as he may have units that completely destroy yours because he doesn't know any better. This is the result of a bad game. Saying you enjoy it with bob because of the reasons above doesn't make it good. You just made it playable by limiting yourself and not following the rules. You even said if someone plays the games following the rules you would likely not play them again (I.E 87 Stegadons) proving to me that you think the rules are bad unless you the player fixes them.
How can rules be good if you yourself are saying you wont play people for following the rules because it would break the game? Sorry but can you be clear? If I play my stegadon dream list (legal, following these "rules" and playing to the rules the whole time, smiling and having fun) and you concede and never look at me when in need for a game again then the rules suck mate. Simply put, you can only have fun if you fix and change the rules yourself not because the rules are great.
New... person?
What is this new person?
They aren't part of my club, they may have... scary different ideas from me.
OH GOD THAT'S SCARY!
But on a more serious note the ignore button is your friend. Just felt like mentioning that, yep... maybe something to do with replying to a self-confessed troll... maybe not...
Swastakowey wrote: I play the game to have fun (if you try to win, necessary to play the game, then you are having fun while trying to win.) and part of playing a game is trying to win. Please epxlain how you play a table top wargame without trying to win. Do both players leave their models idle?
Do you move your units to eliminate another unit in order to gain an advantage? Then yes... you are trying to win. Get that? Take my sentence "Have fun while trying to win" and take out win. Have fun while trying. What is the difference? None. You are saying the same thing but trying to play it out like we play games differently or something.
Let me give you a few actual, non-hypothetical examples of NOT trying to win.
1. It's more important to me that my opponent is having fun than that I'm winning. If I look at my opponent's army, and I think that the game is going to screw them and give them an unpleasant experience, I will adjust my army without them ever saying a word or even knowing that I plan to. To take a 40k example, I won't take flyers if they can't shoot them down. It doesn't matter if it guarantees me victory if I just take a few. I'll remove AV14 if I know their whole army only has 3 models that are S8+. Of course, I might point out, "If I took a land raider, you'd be screwed, you know"
2. If some tactic proves to be just far too devastating and my opponent has no way to counter it, I'll stop, and try to win by some other method.
3. If my opponent does something obviously stupid, or forgets to do something, or forgets to move a unit, I'll point it out. I'll go so far as to say, "You'll be out of cover if I move from this way, and that will pretty much guarantee you'll lose the whole unit.. you sure you wanna do that?".
4. If I just know that I'm more experienced than my opponent, and I KNOW that I can win, I would rather help make them a better player than to just win, because winning is hollow and pointless; and making them a more challenging opponent is better for my own fun in the long run.
Sometimes, sportsmanship or just being social demands that we take actions that harm our own chances of winning, or give something other than winning priority.
Swastakowey wrote: How can rules be good if you yourself are saying you wont play people for following the rules because it would break the game? Sorry but can you be clear? If I play my stegadon dream list (legal, following these "rules" and playing to the rules the whole time, smiling and having fun) and you concede and never look at me when in need for a game again then the rules suck mate. Simply put, you can only have fun if you fix and change the rules yourself not because the rules are great.
This is exactly the kind of painful situation that just isn't fun for a lot of people.
Games aren't broken because the possibility of a lopsided battle exist. That's just people deciding to break a game for their own fun, possibly at the expense of their opponent's. Many Wargames -- not just GW ones -- often allow players to build disproportionately powerful battleforces. Not everyone wants to play with one, or against one, which is the real crux of the issue here. Being able to build a powerful spammy army doesn't make you a clever commander, it just makes you an irritating opponent, if that's not what I want play.
I think it was Manchu who mentioned that he simply wanted to play with the models he wanted to build and collect, not build and collect models just to play a game. For me, I can deal with spammy armies, but I certainly don't want to play against them, *every game*.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Once again, you're still focused on "TRYING TO WIN", so you're still failing to understand the distinction between playing and "winning". And you claiming "leaving out the word winning makes your point still the same as mine" is false and completely misses the point of what I wrote.
Also, I don't agree that AoS isn't a good game, nor do I agree with that block quote you inserted, so your claim of "everyone" is demonstrably false. I'm pretty sure I can play games of AoS with Bob here in SoCal exactly has GW wrote them, and we would both have a really good time.
AoS is fine for new players because they don't come in full of bad habits telling people how to play a different game than what AoS is. I don't think the rules suck or need changes, so again, your claim that "we all see" is demonstrably false.
The worst part is that you guys have backed yourselves so far into a corner, you can't possibly enjoy AoS. Which is too bad, because 8E was gak, and AoS is great.
Wait a minute...
I play the game to have fun (if you try to win, necessary to play the game, then you are having fun while trying to win.) and part of playing a game is trying to win. Please epxlain how you play a table top wargame without trying to win. Do both players leave their models idle?
You are saying the same thing but trying to play it out like we play games differently or something.
It is not demonstrably false because I grantee if you played a game with a new person, not your mate bob (who you likely know their collection, their habits and playstyle to make a fun game),
You even said if someone plays the games following the rules you would likely not play them again (I.E 87 Stegadons) proving to me that you think the rules are bad unless you the player fixes them.
I already told you, and you quoted it, but it obviously didn't stick: "You do the best you can with the forces you have." That is how you play the game without trying to win.
I am saying something different, and we are playing the games completely differently.
No, you stated something false, because "bob" is BobTheInquisitor, who happens to be here in SoCal, same as me. I don't believe that I've played him, but from what I've read by him on Dakka, I suspect we would be compatible in playing. If I played against him, he would be new to me, and I think we could play the game as is just fine.
I would not play YOU again, because of how you approached the game that we played, not because the game is bad. You're coming in with a notion that the game is bad, that we have to do all of this stuff to change it, etc. and I don't agree with that. I don't believe AoS needs changing at this point in time. I don't believe that it needs "balancing". I believe the game is what it is, and it is great at being AoS. I think it would be a huge mistake to make AoS into 8E.
Ok well why are you constantly saying I am playing to win, when doing the best with the forces you have is the same thing. Please EXPLAIN how it is any different? How is playing the best with your army (the best being winning by the way...) any different AT ALL from having fun while trying to win. I do not understand???
I didnt approach the game any differently. Explain how I approached the game differently? Because the only difference between you and me would be the models I use. Did I even mention 8th edition?
Look, you clearly dont seem to be reading what I say. You say "I dont believe the game needs balancing" but then say 'I dont like how you play within the rules so dont play me please" and then say the game is fine. In other words what you are saying is "The game is fine if you play it my way and use my house rules". Which means the game is not fine, your version of the game might be ok but thats not because the rules are any good.
I play the game to have fun (if you try to win, necessary to play the game, then you are having fun while trying to win.) and part of playing a game is trying to win. Please epxlain how you play a table top wargame without trying to win. Do both players leave their models idle?
Do you move your units to eliminate another unit in order to gain an advantage? Then yes... you are trying to win. Get that? Take my sentence "Have fun while trying to win" and take out win. Have fun while trying. What is the difference? None. You are saying the same thing but trying to play it out like we play games differently or something.
It is not demonstrably false because I grantee if you played a game with a new person, not your mate bob (who you likely know their collection, their habits and playstyle to make a fun game), the game will likely fail as he may have units that completely destroy yours because he doesn't know any better. This is the result of a bad game. Saying you enjoy it with bob because of the reasons above doesn't make it good. You just made it playable by limiting yourself and not following the rules. You even said if someone plays the games following the rules you would likely not play them again (I.E 87 Stegadons) proving to me that you think the rules are bad unless you the player fixes them.
How can rules be good if you yourself are saying you wont play people for following the rules because it would break the game? Sorry but can you be clear? If I play my stegadon dream list (legal, following these "rules" and playing to the rules the whole time, smiling and having fun) and you concede and never look at me when in need for a game again then the rules suck mate. Simply put, you can only have fun if you fix and change the rules yourself not because the rules are great.
New... person?
What is this new person?
They aren't part of my club, they may have... scary different ideas from me.
OH GOD THAT'S SCARY!
But on a more serious note the ignore button is your friend. Just felt like mentioning that, yep... maybe something to do with replying to a self-confessed troll... maybe not...
Yea thats how it is looking. But honestly it's a little funny so I try keep my ignore list a bit free.
Swastakowey wrote: I play the game to have fun (if you try to win, necessary to play the game, then you are having fun while trying to win.) and part of playing a game is trying to win. Please epxlain how you play a table top wargame without trying to win. Do both players leave their models idle?
Do you move your units to eliminate another unit in order to gain an advantage? Then yes... you are trying to win. Get that? Take my sentence "Have fun while trying to win" and take out win. Have fun while trying. What is the difference? None. You are saying the same thing but trying to play it out like we play games differently or something.
Let me give you a few actual, non-hypothetical examples of NOT trying to win.
1. It's more important to me that my opponent is having fun than that I'm winning. If I look at my opponent's army, and I think that the game is going to screw them and give them an unpleasant experience, I will adjust my army without them ever saying a word or even knowing that I plan to. To take a 40k example, I won't take flyers if they can't shoot them down. It doesn't matter if it guarantees me victory if I just take a few. I'll remove AV14 if I know their whole army only has 3 models that are S8+. Of course, I might point out, "If I took a land raider, you'd be screwed, you know"
2. If some tactic proves to be just far too devastating and my opponent has no way to counter it, I'll stop, and try to win by some other method.
3. If my opponent does something obviously stupid, or forgets to do something, or forgets to move a unit, I'll point it out. I'll go so far as to say, "You'll be out of cover if I move from this way, and that will pretty much guarantee you'll lose the whole unit.. you sure you wanna do that?".
4. If I just know that I'm more experienced than my opponent, and I KNOW that I can win, I would rather help make them a better player than to just win, because winning is hollow and pointless; and making them a more challenging opponent is better for my own fun in the long run.
Sometimes, sportsmanship or just being social demands that we take actions that harm our own chances of winning, or give something other than winning priority.
Swastakowey wrote: How can rules be good if you yourself are saying you wont play people for following the rules because it would break the game? Sorry but can you be clear? If I play my stegadon dream list (legal, following these "rules" and playing to the rules the whole time, smiling and having fun) and you concede and never look at me when in need for a game again then the rules suck mate. Simply put, you can only have fun if you fix and change the rules yourself not because the rules are great.
This is exactly the kind of painful situation that just isn't fun for a lot of people.
Games aren't broken because the possibility of a lopsided battle exist. That's just people deciding to break a game for their own fun, possibly at the expense of their opponent's. Many Wargames -- not just GW ones -- often allow players to build disproportionately powerful battleforces. Not everyone wants to play with one, or against one, which is the real crux of the issue here. Being able to build a powerful spammy army doesn't make you a clever commander, it just makes you an irritating opponent, if that's not what I want play.
I think it was Manchu who mentioned that he simply wanted to play with the models he wanted to build and collect, not build and collect models just to play a game. For me, I can deal with spammy armies, but I certainly don't want to play against them, *every game*.
Cool so you play the game exactly how I play it... having fun while trying to win. You know having fun includes=
not winning easy people enjoying themselves a fair match or scenario
What does that have to do with anything? I am making a very clear point that I too play for fun but you cannot ignore the fact that someone still needs to win and it be fun. Makes sense eh?
In short, I understand, the misunderstanding is you guys assuming winning is all I care about, which is far from the truth.
How can someone new to this game decide to break it? They know nothing about the game. Is a box of goblins equal to a box of high elves? You would assume so yes? But this is not the case. So bam already we have a problem. The game is broken unless you actively try not to break it. Which means the rules suuuuuuck dude.
As others have noted, playing your best doesn't mean you will win. It also focuses on playing, not "winning" - that is the difference.
You consistently say the game needs changing, and I keep saying it's fine as is. That's a very big change in mindset right there.
Also, stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't say those things, so stop creating quotes out of thin air.
Finally, you seem to confuse my dislike for the players and the game itself. I hate the player (you), not the game (AoS) - again, another key distinction that you fail to make, just as you fail to separate playing from "winning".
At this point, I am going to Ignore you, because this going nowhere when you refuse to understand the words that are coming out of my mouth, and just make stuff up.
4. If I just know that I'm more experienced than my opponent, and I KNOW that I can win, I would rather help make them a better player than to just win, because winning is hollow and pointless; and making them a more challenging opponent is better for my own fun in the long run.
I'm just going to call you out right now and say that your whole "I don't care about winning" philosophy is total crap. It's got nothing at all to do about winning itself, and everything to do with the very elaborate framework you have built around what a "REAL win" looks like. It's just a rather transparent defense mechanism. If you lose, then it's either because you "let them win" by hamstringing yourself in some way, or your opponent "brought a cheesy list" that you purposely avoided giving yourself the tools to play.
But even still, Age of Sigmar isn't the sort of game that is conducive to this sort of gaming. Because there ISN'T EVEN A FRAMEWORK for figuring out what is or isn't fair. Yeah, OFC 12 bloodthirsters is unfair. But what about 2? What about 3? How many plaguebearers is equivalent to a stegadon? How many mages can one take before it's too much?
Unless you're intimately familiar with your opponents' army, and he's intimately familiar with yours, then there's absolutely no way you can figure this out. There are simply too many variables, and no yardstick for comparing one unit against another.
JohnHwangDD wrote: As others have noted, playing your best doesn't mean you will win. It also focuses on playing, not "winning" - that is the difference.
You consistently say the game needs changing, and I keep saying it's fine as is. That's a very big change in mindset right there.
Also, stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't say those things, so stop creating quotes out of thin air.
Finally, you seem to confuse my dislike for the players and the game itself. I hate the player (you), not the game (AoS) - again, another key distinction that you fail to make, just as you fail to separate playing from "winning".
At this point, I am going to Ignore you, because this going nowhere when you refuse to understand the words that are coming out of my mouth, and just make stuff up.
No but playing your best means you are trying to win, please explain how playing your best has nothing to do with winning? Please.
Why? What did I do to the game besides play the game as intended (bring a collection and play it? not that I have even tried to break it or anything...). When have I separated playing from winning sorry? See you don't actually know how I play (I play it exactly like you and that is something I am willing to bet on). What have I made up again. You said if I come to the table with a too powerful army (does it matter if that army is intentional or not?) then you will not play me again. Then instead of blaming the rules for this imbalance you would first blame the player for it. Why?
It seems like what you are doing is exactly what I said. You are not having fun when the rules are played as written, because you have to put players on an ignore list or you wont have fun. You have to work to make the game fun more than what I think is reasonable.
But yea by all means put me on an ignore list because I happen to think a bad game is bad and you think its because I only want to win and won;t have fun otherwise (because that makes sense).
4. If I just know that I'm more experienced than my opponent, and I KNOW that I can win, I would rather help make them a better player than to just win, because winning is hollow and pointless; and making them a more challenging opponent is better for my own fun in the long run.
I'm just going to call you out right now and say that your whole "I don't care about winning" philosophy is total crap. It's got nothing at all to do about winning itself, and everything to do with the very elaborate framework you have built around what a "REAL win" looks like. It's just a rather transparent defense mechanism. If you lose, then it's either because you "let them win" by hamstringing yourself in some way, or your opponent "brought a cheesy list" that you purposely avoided giving yourself the tools to play.
But even still, Age of Sigmar isn't the sort of game that is conducive to this sort of gaming. Because there ISN'T EVEN A FRAMEWORK for figuring out what is or isn't fair. Yeah, OFC 12 bloodthirsters is unfair. But what about 2? What about 3? How many plaguebearers is equivalent to a stegadon? How many mages can one take before it's too much?
Unless you're intimately familiar with your opponents' army, and he's intimately familiar with yours, then there's absolutely no way you can figure this out. There are simply too many variables, and no yardstick for comparing one unit against another.
Unless you're intimately familiar with your opponents' army, and he's intimately familiar with yours, then there's absolutely no way you can figure this out. There are simply too many variables, and no yardstick for comparing one unit against another.
That wording sounds familiar.
Also Swas, don't you know, even if you're the nicest guy ever. Even if you let your opponent redo things and help the underdog with advice when they're clearly over their head.
You're a bad person that must be hated, because you want to play competitively.
Forge the narrative in reality, because grey doesn't exist.
Unless you're intimately familiar with your opponents' army, and he's intimately familiar with yours, then there's absolutely no way you can figure this out. There are simply too many variables, and no yardstick for comparing one unit against another.
That wording sounds familiar.
Also Swas, don't you know, even if you're the nicest guy ever. Even if you let your opponent redo things and help the underdog with advice when they're clearly over their head.
You're a bad person that must be hated, because you want to play competitively.
Forge the narrative in reality, because grey doesn't exist.
Maybe they are right mate. Maybe I need to buy more models and be nice to GW for all the hard work they have done on their 4 page pdf (they gave away for free dont you know!). Then once I have purchased more models I can begin the path to forging the narrative and being nice.
Then maybe I will understand that what GW is doing is gods work. Only then will I see the Age of Sigmar appear in my bubble of reality and undertand that after all these years, it was my bad attitude and lack of spending that was wrong and lead me on the path of attempting to win.
In all seriousness I used to think like that with 40k (not the buying part) and really I wish I could take that time back and focus on worthwhile games. So much money and time wasted really.
The issue is, this points thing had become really deeply ingrained. There are gamers out there who simply do not know that this is not an essential part of game design.
I agree that points have become a disease, and one need look no further than the myriad points threads under Proposed Rules to see how far this has permeated things.
This is the sort of thing that irks me. Why does one way have to be better than the other? Both of these statements (one more than the other) imply that players are somehow wrong for feeling that a point or equivalent system is essential for their gaming fun. Not that there aren't point-liking players saying the same about the other side, but that annoys me just as much.
Responding to Bob, I would still say there is no downside to a points system. The problems you listed are with players, not with points. In AoS such players can still practice the same abuse of the system only to a much, much, greater magnitude (like the example of hundreds of stegadons). The (quite rational) solution given is to simply not play against those people, but you can do that with a points system as well. There is this pervasive idea that AoS somehow allows people to brush off or avoid WAAC-ish players where it wasn't possible before. That is not true. It was absolutely doable before. Abusive optimization of forces isn't a problem unique to a points system, since it is even easier without one, its a problem with players not the game. All of the things people are saying they can now do with AoS they could have done just as easily before. I sense the counter will be "bout you would have had to discuss/house rule this" yet as is you already have to discuss/house rule for any match because otherwise each has no idea what level of optimization the other is playing at.
I'll say it again; going from having a flawed balance system to no balance system at all is not an improvement. I'd rather have a leaky roof than no roof at all, and either way I'm going to get wet if I choose to be in that building when it rains.
People who like the game better without a points system are quite happy with AoS, and I am glad they are. There is nothing wrong with playing the game that way. Thing is, not all players prefer that (in fact, as we can see, a significant portion of them don't), and having a points system there for players who want it does not invalidate the preferences of players who want to play without it, they can just ignore that section of the rules. Not having any balance method at all, on the other hand, only favors one side rather than both. Game design and winning/funning philosophy aside, it was certainly a poor business decision not to include it.
Though, poor business decisions are kinda GW's hobby these days so I shouldn't be surprised.
4. If I just know that I'm more experienced than my opponent, and I KNOW that I can win, I would rather help make them a better player than to just win, because winning is hollow and pointless; and making them a more challenging opponent is better for my own fun in the long run.
I'm just going to call you out right now and say that your whole "I don't care about winning" philosophy is total crap. It's got nothing at all to do about winning itself, and everything to do with the very elaborate framework you have built around what a "REAL win" looks like. It's just a rather transparent defense mechanism. If you lose, then it's either because you "let them win" by hamstringing yourself in some way, or your opponent "brought a cheesy list" that you purposely avoided giving yourself the tools to play.
But even still, Age of Sigmar isn't the sort of game that is conducive to this sort of gaming. Because there ISN'T EVEN A FRAMEWORK for figuring out what is or isn't fair. Yeah, OFC 12 bloodthirsters is unfair. But what about 2? What about 3? How many plaguebearers is equivalent to a stegadon? How many mages can one take before it's too much?
Unless you're intimately familiar with your opponents' army, and he's intimately familiar with yours, then there's absolutely no way you can figure this out. There are simply too many variables, and no yardstick for comparing one unit against another.
No, it's not crap. You just can't comprehend how someone can enjoy themselves playing a game without worrying about winning, and I feel sorry for you.
With respect to what I said in point 4, unless there's a prize, winning is meaningless unless it was a fair fight. It doesn't matter if it's tennis, Magic, or AoS, and like it or not, experience is a factor just as list-building. Have you ever played a FPS with an 8-year old nephew? Do you desire to pummel them and show them what a n00b they are? Does that make you feel superior? Or do you let them win, because winning is more important to them and will make them feel great?
1 Bloodthirster is unfair if my opponent can't hurt it. I would never field one if it would predetermine the outcome of the game, or if I thought it would make the game really unbalanced. I'm pretty good at guessing these things.
I know almost nothing about Fantasy, but in 40k I can tell you in 30seconds of looking at a list if the forces are seriously disproportionate, or would result in a stupid game. I have no desire to play a stupid game, no matter if I would win or lose it.
You feel free to play the game the way you like. But at 40+ years of age and 25+ years of gaming, my priorities are different, and on a scale of 1 to 10, winning ranks about 4, maybe less. Models and miniature awesomeness ranks around 9, and enjoying myself and social gaming about 10.
Hell, I rank the pizza between games more important than winning the game.
I'm with you on gaming philosophy Talys. The point of the game isn't to win, it's to have fun. Losing a game and enjoying it aren't mutually exclusive.
NinthMusketeer wrote: I'm with you on gaming philosophy Talys. The point of the game isn't to win, it's to have fun. Losing a game and enjoying it aren't mutually exclusive.
Very True.
One of my Favorite scenarios I came up with involves 4 Mechs trying to slow down 12 other Mechs long enough for for the rest of his units get off the planet.
I can play that game scenario over and over again.
I posted this over on Warseer, I thought it might be appropriate for this thread as well =)
So a friend of mine and I decided to split the AoS starter set to see what the hub bub was all about. We played the first four campaigns in the starter set and I thought I'd offer my thoughts on the game! This thread seemed as good as any to post in
smile emoticon
A little about my gaming background - right now I'm primarily playing Warmachine/Hordes. I've been playing that for about three years now or so and have been fairly active in the local tournament meta. Before that I played 40k (primarily Orks and Necrons) and never really got into Fantasy. Loved the setting but maybe ever played one, two games tops.
From what I've read the battlebox and AoS are aimed generally at more casual or less experienced players than I suppose I am so my friend and I were trying to play the game mainly at face value. I chose the Khorne portion of the box and he picked up the Sigmahreens. We ended up getting through the first four scenarios in about two and a half, three hours or so and ended up having a pretty fun time of it! Even with the limited ruleset there were some things we forgot (one terrain rule in the book and we forgot to apply Cover to anything . . .) or there were some rules that were a little ambiguous (re-rolls, do you re-roll once? Continually re-roll?) but didn't really take away from the experience at all. It was fun at one point throwing 26 models down against his 8 and thinking to ourselves "it's like GW finally gets to put the fluff of a small handful of Space Marines against hordes of dudes on the tabletop! Except in the wrong setting". The scenarios were probably the most fun bit of the experience. We didn't have to worry about the lack of point values for models - we had our objectives, the scenario dictated how we deployed and what was deployed. Battle shock really helped balance that out for my opponent too. It really did kind of emphasize the fact that if you want to take cheap dudes you'd better take them in a block of 20+ models otherwise you're going to have a bad time. I also really do like the fact that other than saving throws all of the stats are available on your end of the Battle Scrolls. It doesn't matter what my guys are fighting, it doesn't matter if they're fighting two different units at a time, I'm almost always going to need X to hit and Y to damage. WS, BS and T values from Fantasy/40k are aspects of the games I was never super fond of for whatever reason and this takes any aversion to those stats that I used to have right out of the equation.
There were a few negative aspects though that I took away from the afternoon and AoS. While I've never played Fantasy, I know that if Privateer Press did this kind of total revamp of the rules in Warmachine from points based lists and a really tight ruleset to "bring what you want, here's 4 pages of rules!" I would be furious. I can totally, 100% understand why Fantasy players hate this from the outside looking in. If you're a 40k player however I imagine you'll probably like AoS; to me it felt like I was playing a stripped down fantasy version of 40k the entire time. While I like the battle system of you and your opponent each getting a battle phase, the random variable of who goes first in a round makes keeping track of who's turn it actually is confusing at times. We actually wanted to start using a counter or some other kind of token so for future games we would know who's turn it was when we were at the top or bottom of various rounds.
The biggest negative factor for me however is outside of the battlebox or specific scenarios where army lists are pre-determined I don't see myself ever actually playing pick up games of AoS. If a player from any of the old world factions were to come up to me and ask me for a game I would tell them no because neither of us have any way of knowing if we'll be playing balanced matchups. For the scenario games my friend and I were able to give the matchups the benefit of the doubt and trust that the scenario we were playing would balance out the two forces. In a generic pickup game unless my opponent and I are both using warbands or whatever the formation rules are in AoS I can't trust that we're actually playing a fair matchup. I know there are Sudden Death victory clauses and whatever but even with those in play I don't think I'd be able to get over the thought of whether I was cheesing my opponent with my list or if my opponent was cheesing me with his. I've never been a fan of the unbound rules or game type in Warmachine, I enjoy working within specific variables for army composition. If the scenario isn't going to be the balancing factor in a game then the list composition has to be IMO.
Having said all of this I did enjoy my afternoon of AoS. The models themselves are AMAZING (and reminding me once again of why I was hesitant to get into Warmachine in the first place . . . oh look this unit of 10 guys has 10 unique sculpts in AoS! My 10 man unit in Warmachine has 4.) and assemble in a really creative way. With the number of models in the starter I could see army lists sicking that size in terms of model count or slightly higher. The possibility of playing of a 4x4 as opposed to a 6x4 is appealing to me as well (How do you not waste like half the board playing on a 6x4 with the starter contents?!). I'm willing to give the game the benefit of the doubt for the time being and I'm looking forward to getting some more games in against the Sigmarites! Long term however it really is going to boil down to how list construction is going to be handled as the main determining factor for whether or not I end up sticking with the hobby or selling off my half of the starter set. To me the game also seems like it's going to be balanced based off of future releases rather than the previous releases, so maybe for future models something like using wound count to make up army lists will make more sense as opposed to the argument now that I see where not all wounds are valued equally.
I don't think the two "sides" are quite so opposed as they may themselves think.
I play to win -- once I am playing. That means, I try my best to use the forces I have in an effective manner. Although every once in a while, I will try something just for the sake of it being cool or simply memorable. I think that qualifies me as competitive at least in the barest technical sense.
What is mostly boring to me, however, is optimizing builds or breaking games. Nothing makes me roll my eyes quite like another gamer telling me how he capitalized on some issue with wording in the rule set to gain an advantage. Then again, I don't think that is what anybody posting ITT is advocating.
No, it's not crap. You just can't comprehend how someone can enjoy themselves playing a game without worrying about winning, and I feel sorry for you.
Of course it's crap. Absolutely everything you've referred to is tied to various factors that determine who is the "winner."
You can lie to yourself, but I've been in this hobby near as long as you and am fully aware of the sort of mental gymnastics your sort of player will jump through to convince yourselves that you are somehow "morally superior" to the rest of us "gamers who only care about winning."
With respect to what I said in point 4, unless there's a prize, winning is meaningless unless it was a fair fight. It doesn't matter if it's tennis, Magic, or AoS, and like it or not, experience is a factor just as list-building. Have you ever played a FPS with an 8-year old nephew? Do you desire to pummel them and show them what a n00b they are? Does that make you feel superior? Or do you let them win, because winning is more important to them and will make them feel great?
Case in point, that you have built up this image of "competitive gamers" in your head as folks that would gleefully stomp all over a new player just to experience the "thrill of winning."
Which really couldn't be further from the truth. It isn't "winning" that the competitive gamer truly enjoys, but the **PURSUIT** of winning. Exactly the same thing that you purport to enjoy, though you have couched it in different terms so that you can maintain your constructed sense of superiority.
Talys wrote: 1 Bloodthirster is unfair if my opponent can't hurt it. I would never field one if it would predetermine the outcome of the game, or if I thought it would make the game really unbalanced. I'm pretty good at guessing these things.
Perhaps the first time it is unfair, when you come up against an opponent who has never faced a Bloodthirster before and doesn't know how to respond. However this is an armybuilding game, and if you can't come up with a response to your opponents' threats - given time and resources to prepare - then that is YOUR fault, not your opponents.
Now of course, that doesn't apply when a certain choice is objectively undercosted (meaning that it inherently puts you at a disadvantage), or where it exploits a weakness inherent in an army itself (for instance, TK's historical inability to deal with lots of armour). But most of the time it is fully within the realm of possibility for a player to adapt their strategies in response.
And that right there is what drives me so crazy about your type of player. You refuse to adapt. Instead you simply declare things "cheesy" so that you can reposition the goal posts, protecting you from the unpleasant experience of ever having to learn or adapt. The game changes you but you remain the same, ever redefining what a "true" victory is so that you never have to actually think or grow as a player.
Talys wrote: I know almost nothing about Fantasy...
Obviously.
Talys wrote: ...but in 40k I can tell you in 30seconds of looking at a list if the forces are seriously disproportionate, or would result in a stupid game. I have no desire to play a stupid game, no matter if I would win or lose it.
Welcome to "intimately familiar with your army and your opponent's army." Age of Sigmar is a brand new game, and nobody yet has that familiarity. Further, it should not be EXPECTED that players have a decade of exposure to a game before they can even begin to comprehend how one might set up a reasonably even or enjoyable game.
Bylak wrote: I posted this over on Warseer, I thought it might be appropriate for this thread as well =)
So a friend of mine and I decided to split the AoS starter set to see what the hub bub was all about. We played the first four campaigns in the starter set and I thought I'd offer my thoughts on the game! This thread seemed as good as any to post in
smile emoticon
A little about my gaming background - right now I'm primarily playing Warmachine/Hordes. I've been playing that for about three years now or so and have been fairly active in the local tournament meta. Before that I played 40k (primarily Orks and Necrons) and never really got into Fantasy. Loved the setting but maybe ever played one, two games tops.
From what I've read the battlebox and AoS are aimed generally at more casual or less experienced players than I suppose I am so my friend and I were trying to play the game mainly at face value. I chose the Khorne portion of the box and he picked up the Sigmahreens. We ended up getting through the first four scenarios in about two and a half, three hours or so and ended up having a pretty fun time of it! Even with the limited ruleset there were some things we forgot (one terrain rule in the book and we forgot to apply Cover to anything . . .) or there were some rules that were a little ambiguous (re-rolls, do you re-roll once? Continually re-roll?) but didn't really take away from the experience at all. It was fun at one point throwing 26 models down against his 8 and thinking to ourselves "it's like GW finally gets to put the fluff of a small handful of Space Marines against hordes of dudes on the tabletop! Except in the wrong setting". The scenarios were probably the most fun bit of the experience. We didn't have to worry about the lack of point values for models - we had our objectives, the scenario dictated how we deployed and what was deployed. Battle shock really helped balance that out for my opponent too. It really did kind of emphasize the fact that if you want to take cheap dudes you'd better take them in a block of 20+ models otherwise you're going to have a bad time. I also really do like the fact that other than saving throws all of the stats are available on your end of the Battle Scrolls. It doesn't matter what my guys are fighting, it doesn't matter if they're fighting two different units at a time, I'm almost always going to need X to hit and Y to damage. WS, BS and T values from Fantasy/40k are aspects of the games I was never super fond of for whatever reason and this takes any aversion to those stats that I used to have right out of the equation.
There were a few negative aspects though that I took away from the afternoon and AoS. While I've never played Fantasy, I know that if Privateer Press did this kind of total revamp of the rules in Warmachine from points based lists and a really tight ruleset to "bring what you want, here's 4 pages of rules!" I would be furious. I can totally, 100% understand why Fantasy players hate this from the outside looking in. If you're a 40k player however I imagine you'll probably like AoS; to me it felt like I was playing a stripped down fantasy version of 40k the entire time. While I like the battle system of you and your opponent each getting a battle phase, the random variable of who goes first in a round makes keeping track of who's turn it actually is confusing at times. We actually wanted to start using a counter or some other kind of token so for future games we would know who's turn it was when we were at the top or bottom of various rounds.
The biggest negative factor for me however is outside of the battlebox or specific scenarios where army lists are pre-determined I don't see myself ever actually playing pick up games of AoS. If a player from any of the old world factions were to come up to me and ask me for a game I would tell them no because neither of us have any way of knowing if we'll be playing balanced matchups. For the scenario games my friend and I were able to give the matchups the benefit of the doubt and trust that the scenario we were playing would balance out the two forces. In a generic pickup game unless my opponent and I are both using warbands or whatever the formation rules are in AoS I can't trust that we're actually playing a fair matchup. I know there are Sudden Death victory clauses and whatever but even with those in play I don't think I'd be able to get over the thought of whether I was cheesing my opponent with my list or if my opponent was cheesing me with his. I've never been a fan of the unbound rules or game type in Warmachine, I enjoy working within specific variables for army composition. If the scenario isn't going to be the balancing factor in a game then the list composition has to be IMO.
Having said all of this I did enjoy my afternoon of AoS. The models themselves are AMAZING (and reminding me once again of why I was hesitant to get into Warmachine in the first place . . . oh look this unit of 10 guys has 10 unique sculpts in AoS! My 10 man unit in Warmachine has 4.) and assemble in a really creative way. With the number of models in the starter I could see army lists sicking that size in terms of model count or slightly higher. The possibility of playing of a 4x4 as opposed to a 6x4 is appealing to me as well (How do you not waste like half the board playing on a 6x4 with the starter contents?!). I'm willing to give the game the benefit of the doubt for the time being and I'm looking forward to getting some more games in against the Sigmarites! Long term however it really is going to boil down to how list construction is going to be handled as the main determining factor for whether or not I end up sticking with the hobby or selling off my half of the starter set. To me the game also seems like it's going to be balanced based off of future releases rather than the previous releases, so maybe for future models something like using wound count to make up army lists will make more sense as opposed to the argument now that I see where not all wounds are valued equally.
Huh. I haven't heard an opinion on this from a player who primarily does Warmahordes so thank you for this. I agree with you on the lack of a balancing factor, so I find your enjoyment of the starter box scenarios particularly relevant. I have yet to get in a balanced game of AoS but I'll have to try out the starter scenarios to get a fresh perspective as I really want to like AoS. Plus, as you said, the models look gorgeous (though aside from frankenskulls I think there is a pretty strong consensus on that).
Talys wrote: Have you ever played a FPS with an 8-year old nephew? Do you desire to pummel them and show them what a n00b they are? Does that make you feel superior? Or do you let them win, because winning is more important to them and will make them feel great?
You feel free to play the game the way you like. But at 40+ years of age and 25+ years of gaming, my priorities are different, and on a scale of 1 to 10, winning ranks about 4, maybe less. Models and miniature awesomeness ranks around 9, and enjoying myself and social gaming about 10. Hell, I rank the pizza between games more important than winning the game.
I did a bunch Skylanders Battle Arena fights with my then 5-year-old boy. And I'm not gonna lie, because there were times that I just pounded him into the ground. There were also times that I played punching bag and let him totally slaughter me. Some times, I beat him fair and square, and some times, I took it super easy. And some times, I took "weak" Skylanders to goof around with and explore the move set. Why? Because I wanted to teach him good sportsmanship, which includes both gracious winning and gracious losing, which is a very tough thing for a 5-year-old boy; however, he now knows to congratulate the winner, even if he loses. Eventually, he started winning games fair-and-square, and I congratulated him on those wins. Now, did he know I was doing this? Probably not. But we had fun playing together, and that was the best part of all.
I like how you rank things, and I'm generally similar:
1. social group
2. food & drinks
3. playing the game
4. cool models
5. "winning"
Also, pizza? We're more of a take-out or barbecue group.
Thing I don't get about AOS is that I love making the army lists. I don't think I know anybody that dislikes it. Same with other games like Magic, it's so much fun to design the deck. To me it shows how out of touch GW is.
It's the same with the crappy terrain that does stuff. Like I don't want a magical building that buffs my units, I just want a regular building. I know I'm not the only one who hates mysterious objectives in 40k and do you remember the forests that did random stuff in the previous edition? Like nobody likes this stuff. Even Miniwargamer on YouTube refuse to use mysterious objectives.
Some seriously bazaar game design decisions. Why doesn't GW hire some designers with a pedigree for making good games? Like ex wizards of the coast employees or something. They keep getting their authors to write rules and game systems......but they should stick to making books. I figure any gamer on Dhaka forums could come up with a better game system than AOS.
AOS Bobby Edition:
- points costs and army building
- restrictions on summoning
- attacks of opportunity against models that "flee" from combat range
- measurement from the base and not the model...square or round.
- bonuses for charging
- dynamic spells to cast (league of legends Type of stuff) teleport a friendly unit or push back an enemy. Turn a dragon into a sheep!
- then have the heroes gain in strength with everything they kill....just like monsters getting weaker when they take wounds.
- yes to alternating combats but no to randomising turn order!
- have actual missions with objectives
- more rock-paper-scissors elements in general. Zombies are weak to fire...blah blah you get it.
Bam, there you go. 10x better than AOS in 5 mins. Free of charge GW.
I hate making army lists. To me, that's the equivalent to the pre game setup for a Fantasy Flight Game. WHFB game outcomes seemed to be determined in the list-writing phase, which makes WHFB less a contest of tactical skill or adaptive thinking so much as a contest of who wastes more free time on that particular part of the hobby. You can have that win every time.
For me, the hobby is all about the models and the fluff. Maybe I'll be generous and including thinking about how I might want to paint my minis, too. I read the rules to get a better idea of the authors' intent for the characteristics of various heroes and creatures in the Old World, and how they compare in terms of might, speed, morale and so on. I only remember special rules if they give a being a unique flavor, attitude or ability. I couldn't tell you how many points anything is because I just don't care. The game gives me something social I can do with my minis, and that is the only reason I care about it at all.
Back in the day, I played a lot of Bttlefleet Gothic. I played with family and friends, so long as they were likeminded about what is fun. (For example, two of my friends are so competitive that any game at all becomes a joyless struggle for victory at any cost. I don't play games with them any more.). We would put out fleets based on what felt right, or what Babylon 5/Star Wars/Star Trek battle we were ripping off. The tactics we employed were various and complicated, not to bring about victory, but to be entertaining...and often to give us an excuse to quote The Last Starfighter. What we remember are the times we pulled off some incredible feat or spectacular failure, not who won or lost.
Honestly, I think I would be a terrible WHFB player. I don't play to win. I don't even do my best with what I have. If someone put down 12 Bloodthirsters, I would find it hilarious and spend the entire game running away because Holy crap! Twelve Bloodthirsters!.
All I'm trying to say is that a game does not need to be fair or balanced for tournament play. It doesn't need to be competitive or even a contest of skill. Many gamers expect that, and freak out when their expectations are defied. Chess does that kind of thing just fine for me. I want to unwind and have fun with my minis. Maybe if I knew more people who aren't secret d-bags, I could appreciate some of the competitive nature of a war game, but as it is I'm done playing to win.
So, JohnHwangDD, if you're still interested we should game sometime.
Taking my example above, if Draigo is 2 points and Centurions are 2 points separately, taking them together makes a 12 point unit -- because they'll easily kill 3 times their points in enemy models. In other words, you can't cost things in isolation in a game filled with "special rules". To fix this, you could.................
Of course you can't cost things in isolation nor do you necessarily need to remove special rules and the like. What you need to do though is extensively playtest and have a single unifying design concept and points forumlae. Infinity is far more complex than 40k yet it manages to be very well balanced and it still uses points values.
Talys wrote: Have you ever played a FPS with an 8-year old nephew? Do you desire to pummel them and show them what a n00b they are? Does that make you feel superior? Or do you let them win, because winning is more important to them and will make them feel great?
You feel free to play the game the way you like. But at 40+ years of age and 25+ years of gaming, my priorities are different, and on a scale of 1 to 10, winning ranks about 4, maybe less. Models and miniature awesomeness ranks around 9, and enjoying myself and social gaming about 10. Hell, I rank the pizza between games more important than winning the game.
I did a bunch Skylanders Battle Arena fights with my then 5-year-old boy. And I'm not gonna lie, because there were times that I just pounded him into the ground. There were also times that I played punching bag and let him totally slaughter me. Some times, I beat him fair and square, and some times, I took it super easy. And some times, I took "weak" Skylanders to goof around with and explore the move set. Why? Because I wanted to teach him good sportsmanship, which includes both gracious winning and gracious losing, which is a very tough thing for a 5-year-old boy; however, he now knows to congratulate the winner, even if he loses. Eventually, he started winning games fair-and-square, and I congratulated him on those wins. Now, did he know I was doing this? Probably not. But we had fun playing together, and that was the best part of all.
I like how you rank things, and I'm generally similar:
1. social group
2. food & drinks
3. playing the game
4. cool models
5. "winning"
Also, pizza? We're more of a take-out or barbecue group.
Rawr, BBQ! In the summer/spring, we'll flip some patties or steaks on the BBQ. But in our neck of the woods, 7 months of the year there's more rain here than 6e Wave Serpents.
Yeah, for sure, you don't just roll over every game to Junior. It's important for them to taste both sides of the coin and give them a good challenge. Indeed, we have pretty similar values in terms of what we look for in the hobby
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I hate making army lists. To me, that's the equivalent to the pre game setup for a Fantasy Flight Game. WHFB game outcomes seemed to be determined in the list-writing phase, which makes WHFB less a contest of tactical skill or adaptive thinking so much as a contest of who wastes more free time on that particular part of the hobby. You can have that win every time.
For me, the hobby is all about the models and the fluff. Maybe I'll be generous and including thinking about how I might want to paint my minis, too. I read the rules to get a better idea of the authors' intent for the characteristics of various heroes and creatures in the Old World, and how they compare in terms of might, speed, morale and so on. I only remember special rules if they give a being a unique flavor, attitude or ability. I couldn't tell you how many points anything is because I just don't care. The game gives me something social I can do with my minis, and that is the only reason I care about it at all.
Back in the day, I played a lot of Battlefleet Gothic. I played with family and friends, so long as they were likeminded about what is fun. (For example, two of my friends are so competitive that any game at all becomes a joyless struggle for victory at any cost. I don't play games with them any more.). We would put out fleets based on what felt right, or what Babylon 5/Star Wars/Star Trek battle we were ripping off. The tactics we employed were various and complicated, not to bring about victory, but to be entertaining...and often to give us an excuse to quote The Last Starfighter. What we remember are the times we pulled off some incredible feat or spectacular failure, not who won or lost.
Honestly, I think I would be a terrible WHFB player. I don't play to win. I don't even do my best with what I have. If someone put down 12 Bloodthirsters, I would find it hilarious and spend the entire game running away because Holy crap! Twelve Bloodthirsters!.
All I'm trying to say is that a game does not need to be fair or balanced for tournament play. It doesn't need to be competitive or even a contest of skill. Many gamers expect that, and freak out when their expectations are defied. Chess does that kind of thing just fine for me. I want to unwind and have fun with my minis. Maybe if I knew more people who aren't secret d-bags, I could appreciate some of the competitive nature of a war game, but as it is I'm done playing to win.
So, JohnHwangDD, if you're still interested we should game sometime.
We should game, definitely!
I'm OK at listbuilding, started with Car Wars, then Magic, then GW games. Back when I was doing competitive gaming, I took and played strong lists; now, it's not as important.
For me, the hobby is really a reason to get together.
I also played a lot of BFG, and still have my Imperial and Chaos fleets. At some point, I'll revisit that Eldar fleet I started a long time ago.
I was OK at WFB, but it didn't catch my fancy the way that 40k did. AoS is a better match for me. I'm not worried about the Bloodthirsters as none of my friends plays that way, and I don't see AoS being a tournament game.
Speaking of Chess, have you picked up Nightmare Chess? It's back in print.
I'm well past the competitive phase, but I can usually put a decent game together.
JohnHwangDD wrote: I did a bunch Skylanders Battle Arena fights with my then 5-year-old boy. And I'm not gonna lie, because there were times that I just pounded him into the ground. There were also times that I played punching bag and let him totally slaughter me. Some times, I beat him fair and square, and some times, I took it super easy. And some times, I took "weak" Skylanders to goof around with and explore the move set. Why? Because I wanted to teach him good sportsmanship, which includes both gracious winning and gracious losing, which is a very tough thing for a 5-year-old boy; however, he now knows to congratulate the winner, even if he loses. Eventually, he started winning games fair-and-square, and I congratulated him on those wins. Now, did he know I was doing this? Probably not. But we had fun playing together, and that was the best part of all.
I like how you rank things, and I'm generally similar:
1. social group
2. food & drinks
3. playing the game
4. cool models
5. "winning"
Also, pizza? We're more of a take-out or barbecue group.
Rawr, BBQ! In the summer/spring, we'll flip some patties or steaks on the BBQ. But in our neck of the woods, 7 months of the year there's more rain here than 6e Wave Serpents.
Yeah, for sure, you don't just roll over every game to Junior. It's important for them to taste both sides of the coin and give them a good challenge. Indeed, we have pretty similar values in terms of what we look for in the hobby
Before I moved to SoCal, I lived in Michigan. And before that, upstate New York, so I get the rain/snow thing. I'm thinking you're more Vancouver than Toronto, tho. I moved south for a reason!
At some point, he's going to start crushing me at video games, what with those shorter neural paths and all... And that'll be OK. Hopefully, I'll have taught him not to gloat over the old man.
Taking my example above, if Draigo is 2 points and Centurions are 2 points separately, taking them together makes a 12 point unit -- because they'll easily kill 3 times their points in enemy models. In other words, you can't cost things in isolation in a game filled with "special rules". To fix this, you could.................
Of course you can't cost things in isolation nor do you necessarily need to remove special rules and the like. What you need to do though is extensively playtest and have a single unifying design concept and points forumlae. Infinity is far more complex than 40k yet it manages to be very well balanced and it still uses points values.
I don't want to end up talking about 40k and Infinity on an AoS thread But anyhow, the more models and types of models you have, the harder it is to balance a game. Whether it's huge Titans and grots in the same game, or the God of Death and peasant conscripts, the more unit variety you have, the harder it becomes to balance.
When I started wargaming, Warhammer Fantasy Battle -- at least as viewed through my 15 yr old lens -- was like taking the English, French, Germans, Spanish, Monguls, Saracens, and just converting them into fantasy races. Sure, there was a little magic, but mostly, it was about regimented combat of foot soldiers, cavalry, and archers.
Over the years, Fantasy Battle seemed to get a lot more fantasy into it, from griffons and gaints to huge models like dragons, Nagash, and Treeman. I didn't really follow Fantasy Battle, so pardon me if I get the times and types of models wrong. Just my observation from flipping through the Fantasy battle sections of White Dwarf through the years.
Are introducing such models good for the game? Certainly, they're what a lot of players want, as evidenced by terrific sales of models like Imperial Knight, Baneblade, Wraithknight, Riptide, et cetera. Almost as certainly, they are really rough for game balance. Magic, too. Personally, the models and "wow factor" are more just important to me than game balance, but this isn't for everyone.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
JohnHwangDD wrote: Before I moved to SoCal, I lived in Michigan. And before that, upstate New York, so I get the rain/snow thing. I'm thinking you're more Vancouver than Toronto, tho. I moved south for a reason!
At some point, he's going to start crushing me at video games, what with those shorter neural paths and all... And that'll be OK. Hopefully, I'll have taught him not to gloat over the old man.
Vancouver We don't see much snow, but we all freak out like it's the apocalypse when there's a quarter inch of it (because we all run around in summer tires, and there's like 8 snow plows for a city of 2 million).
It won't take long, LOL. But it is good when the young Padawan bests the Jedi!
Swatakowey wrote:I have no idea how to balance this game.
Manchu wrote:What exactly do you mean by "balance"? Do you just mean, you have no idea what would be fair against what?
Not quite, the person said that having no knowledge about each army, unit and rule means the game will be hard. Someone then said that is not true and that AOS some how gets rid of TFG's. I said it is a very good point and explained the difficulty of 2 new people to wargaming will have playing this game without any knowledge besides what can be found on the free PDFs. I then asked him...
How does one play a fair game without knowing each of the units in another persons force? Because according to him it is easy and anyone who doesn't is a TFG who can't hide behind the points excuse, he then logged off.
So can without knowledge of the game create two roughly equal armies? Of course not. Which is the biggest flaw of this game. It is very adverse to new players.
Strikes me as pretty odd to call this game beginner-adverse. I should think two people new to war gaming will likely play AoS right out of the starter box, in which case they will not need to think at all about fairness because the forces seem pretty evenly matched. Even if they did decide to expand their collections from there using older models, I doubt they will have too difficult a time. After all, they will know how to read a warscroll and roughly size up a unit's potential just from their experience with the starter box. I reckon that the greatest stumbling block on that score is being a bit stuck in the "points & builds" mindset, which hardly applies to new players.
If someone understands what a unit's stats mean, s/he should have a pretty good idea about how powerful/useful it is. It is on this basis, after all, that people have posted on Dakka for years that X or Y unit is over/undercosted. Indeed, in light of all those complaints and their basis (theory and practice!), one wonders what use points really have in the first place as a matter of ensuring the sides are fairly matched. (It's almost like that's not the real point at all!) If points in WHFB have only ever given a rough sense of fairness, then surely an understanding based on warscroll stats will serve much the same role.
bob82ca wrote: Thing I don't get about AOS is that I love making the army lists. I don't think I know anybody that dislikes it. Same with other games like Magic, it's so much fun to design the deck. To me it shows how out of touch GW is.
...
...
You are making the assumption that the purpose of army lists is to create an important strategic game play function for people to write army lists to maximise their chance of winning the game.
The original purpose of army lists was to ensure that the armies deployed on table top were realistic in composition and gave a fair fight. The purpose was not to find exploits that made one list stronger than another. This concept came into GW games because GW proved incapable of maintaining balance in their lists.
However for many people, writing a list is a chore that you do because you want to deploy a fair army, or because it saves time not to have to do the historical research to find out the composition of forces. In many games the lists are pre-selected, or rolled up from tables, avoiding any idea of optimising your list.
At any rate, AOS is not the game for players whose focus is list-building.
If you like list building games, MTG is largely a pre-selection list building game. There are also many 'deck building' card games, such as Dominion, in which the entire game is effectively building your army list (deck).
Very good point there, KK. I came to wargaming through GW. So when I cracked open my first historical games, imagine my confusion at how the term "army list" was used in that context!
For a miniatures game that very heavily emphasizes list building, try WM/H.
Hmm, I'm not entirely sure there won't be any army list in AoS. I suspect it will appear in scenarios or campaigns, with very restricted list of units you may take.
Just like in historical games, litteraly.
What is sure, however, is that the game is not thought for competitive gameplay. I believe it's more like a "return to the historical base" for GW...when they created scenarios for RPG games and it was unbelievable to build a list without having a background behind it.
this discussion seems to have been lost in pointless debate about what is fun, is the game about winning etc. This is irrelevant. The game should allow you to have fun in whatever way you and your gaming group do it. If you are hypercompetitive then that is up to you and if you are about the fluff and models and casual gaming, then the game should cater for that too. No one is right in this arguement, it is down to personal preference.
The problem with AoS is that it takes none of this into account. The lack of a current balance mechanic is not strictly true because the starter box by all accounts contains two balanced forces. There are more scenarios with pre-determined armies coming in the new book.
So GW intends to balance the game by telling you what to take in your army and you just play it out with your friend. Much like buying a box of backgammon. This may be fine for some people, but it clearly disregards those people who enjoy army buidling/design and theming their own armies, or anything that allows them control of what they buy and put on the battlefield. GW gives no structure or rules for designing your own battles which I think is a serious problem. If I want to face my friends duardins with my seraphons, unless there's a pre made scenario containing those two armies, we have to work out the balance ourselves and will likely fail until we playtest it several times.
I simply don't want to do that. It is not what I consider to be my job or any fun for me and my friend.
It is impossible to ignore this serious omission from the AoS game.
AOS can be considered as a sandbox game. It gives you a minimal set of rules and you can make of them what you like.
Yes, GW will publish scenarios and balanced forces (hopefully!) with which to play them, but at the same time, all the existing WHFB armies have been published in war scrolls, enabling people to make up their own scenarios and campaigns from a large library of existing units. You don't need the starte set. If you want to play with round bases, Litko Aero will whip up suitable discs with square holes in them quickly enough.
To be fair you can of course use any more fully fleshed game as a sandbox. Take a game like WRG Ancients 7th edition and make up scenarios -- you don't have to use the set army lists and historical battles.
But, any way, GW have published AOS and it is what it is.
Kilkrazy wrote: I don't understand the term 'game mastery design'.
It means "Don't make an army of uncontrollable berserkers and catapults."
Every unit should have a place in a top-tier army, but that does not mean every unit should have a place in every top-tier army. If you do something stupid - like build an army that wants to fling big rocks at people, but also bubble-wraps your opponent's army with half-naked squishy humans - you deserve to lose.
I'm tired of this WAAC vs. Casual debate. I really am. I feel like especially the "casual" side uses WAAC as a sort of straw man that shapeshifts to fit the needs of the situation.
Wanting a balancing mechanism does not make you WAAC. Playing to win does not make you WAAC.
I play wargames in a variety of ways (though for the last few years my life circumstances have forced me into only one mode of play). I enjoy doing themed campaigns and scenarios with my friends. We will often swap sides after a campaign and play it again, and this is very satisfying.
I also play in tournaments. When planning a tournament list, I often come up with a background or model based concept for my army, and then build it as well as I can within that context. All mounted Warriors of Chaos, or Mercenary Dwarves, whatever it is that tickles my fancy. I will then go to the tournament and try my best to win every game without cheating and while being fair and polite to my opponent - my aim is to win, but also to be happy at the end of my game to buy my opponent a drink. A close fought game where I felt I gave it my all is the pinnacle of the tournament experience. I can lose the game and still walk away happy if a game was closely fought (winning it is obviously better, though!). I can also walk away from a loss if it taught me a lesson. I dislike losing due to obvious list imbalances however, as it teaches me nothing except "Chaos Daemons are unbalanced in 7th edition" for example. Over the course of the tournament I will be constructing a narrative for my dudes in my head, and I do this all the time for all my armies. They might end up with a grudge against a certain foe, or their fortunes might turn a certain way. I enjoy this narrative aspect of play whether it is in a tournament or a casual game or a campaign game- it all gets incorporated into the saga.
Finally, I play pick up games against strangers. Surely the least optimal gaming environment, because you never know what to expect, but sadly the main way I play when I do get a chance to at the moment because of moving country a couple of times and not being fluent enough in the language or having the free time to join a club or the like. In a pick up game I'm mostly looking to toss dice, get to know people, and see how things are in the locality. I do like to win, too, but I wouldn't be as focused on that and would be more likely to take a less powerful list or wacky units.
So. Point of that long monologue? Previous editions of Warhammer Fantasy catered to ALL of those styles of play. I could do narrative campaigns on Wednesday, go to a tournament on the weekend and play pick up games on the Monday, if I so desired. Age of Sigmar allows me to only participate in ONE aspect of the game- narrative gaming with friends. So I say, fair enough, and move on to other systems that allow me to use my miniatures in all the ways that I enjoy.
People make the argument that Warhammer Fantasy has always been somewhat imbalanced. Well, I'd make the counter argument that that does not mean points are always wildly imbalanced and should be done away with. Warmachine and Hordes are very complex games with bajillions of units and factions, and they manage to keep things balanced within a fairly narrow range of parameters (there are weaker lists, but nothing so severe as Warhammer Fantasy). When a game is balanced, you take the stress out of army building because people feel freer to take whatever they like. It is not impossible to build a balanced game, but GW have decided for whatever reason that they don't want to.
Perhaps I am projecting, but I can't help but feel that the Studio feel that people like me who enjoy tournaments are "the wrong sort" and that this is an attempt to push us out or re-educate us into the right way of doing things. This seems crazy to me. I've started more than one gaming club in my time and have introduced countless people into the hobby, as well as running tournaments that attracted people from all over my home country. I'm not really the sort of person they want to make an advocate for their competition.
Kilkrazy wrote: But, any way, GW have published AOS and it is what it is.
Given GW don't tell us anything more than a few days in advance, goodness knows "what it is" until they're done with it.
But mostly, "what it is" looks grim to me
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Da Boss wrote: I'm tired of this WAAC vs. Casual debate. I really am.
+1. I'm incredibly sick of it, and it gets discussed in such black and whites when in reality most people lie somewhere in between. Things that particularly get on my nerves.
"it's about having fun not being competitive" as if they are mutually exclusive. I have fun BECAUSE I am playing a competitive game, not in spite of it!!!!!
"It's not about whether you win or lose it's about having fun" as if this has anything to do with the price of fish in China. Just because I'm playing competitively doesn't mean I break down and cry when I lose, am TFG when I win or that any of that has an impact on how much I'm enjoying the game.
"As long as you play with reasonable people it's fine" Yeah, because it's sooo unreasonable to want well written and balanced rules
"it's fine if you just play casually instead of competitive" as if these mutually exclusive Personally I'd say I'm an incredibly "casual" player, I don't enter tournaments, I don't keep any tally of my wins or losses, I don't care whether I win or lose, I play for the sake of meeting up with friends more than anything.... but I still want to be somewhat competitive and have some structure to what I'm doing otherwise I might as well just be sitting in a bar chewing on nachos with mates or shooting spitballs at a wall.
"It's about narrative so these things don't matter" as if forging a narrative was independent of a solid rules base or indeed as if GW wrote narrative rules in the first place!. Fact is, I like narrative gaming, but I still like to use a solid rules base to start from and a proper points system to try and arrange the scenarios, otherwise it's just meaningless "pew-pew-pew"-ing to me.
"It's fine if you're willing to adapt the rules" as if it wouldn't be better if you didn't have to bend rules to make a workable game. I'd say I'm a very adaptable player, but I still like to have a set of clear and concise rules as my base so that when I'm adapting rules it's not just to fix blatant oversights of the writers but it's actually to forge new and interesting narratives! If you first have to fix the damned rules then it just takes me one step further away from forging a good narrative game.
......the more unit variety you have, the harder it becomes to balance.
Yes but harder doesn't mean impossible and it certainly doesn't mean that it shouldn't even be attempted. Removing points values doesn't in any way make the game more balanced and I fail to see how it can be more enjoyable.
Competent games design allows for a wide variety of unit types and play styles while creating a balanced metagame.
The only games which work with no points values are either preset scenario driven games or true narrative games.
The former requires a lot of research by the players and rules/scenario designers and can only really be used in one off games or ideally campaigns. The latter only works with rulesets with enough depth and flexibility to allow the degree of player agency that this sort of game demands.
AoS could be used for the former (although I would argue that WHFB, or any wargame for that matter, would be at least as suitable) but it is unsuited for the latter.
With AoS how do you even decide what size of game that you want to play?
I always play to win, it is after all wargaming but it would be hard to get further from a WAAC gamer than me. I generally only use themed lists (and those themes tend to be what would the standard army of X look like rather than how many broken units can I cram into 2000 points) I pick a concept that appeals to me and then I will run with it, irrespective of its ingame effectiveness. I haven't been to a tournament in well over a decade and I am more than happy to be flexible with the rules with regards to things like allowing people to do things out of sequence if they forgot to move etc.
Your primary balancing factor will be table size. You are limited in your army size by the size of your deployment zone. A 3'x3' table will give you a maximum 3'x6" area to fill with soldiers. You don't want them too bunched up because of breath weapons, movement limitations, and the ability to pile into units that weren't originally locked in combat. Then there is the fact that whoever finishes deployment first gets to choose first turn. If you outnumber me by too much, I will choose assassinate and pound whatever hero or monster you choose with my artillery in two turns maximum. So don't load up too much unless you want to lose in the 2nd round of the game.
The boys are really enjoying it, so much so I just ordered a second box to boost their armies... although as the Khorne side has an obvious disadvantage.. I got a box of Blooodletters, Skar Bloowrath and a box of the Wrathmongers to bolster them.
I'm also liking how the game flows, especially in combat.. so will be very likely joining them down the road, but will be waiting to see what GW does to the other races first.
In the mean time I'm happy to use one force or the other to challenge the boys.
Silent Puffin? wrote: The only games which work with no points values are either preset scenario driven games or true narrative games.
The former requires a lot of research by the players and rules/scenario designers and can only really be used in one off games or ideally campaigns. The latter only works with rulesets with enough depth and flexibility to allow the degree of player agency that this sort of game demands.
AoS could be used for the former (although I would argue that WHFB, or any wargame for that matter, would be at least as suitable) but it is unsuited for the latter.
AoS strives to be a scenario based game, and will feature campaigns in the coming months and years. I think enough people who enjoy this sort of thing exist for AoS to carve out a niche specifically for this market, and some people will use either official or unofficial competitive rules for tournament/competitive play.
With AoS how do you even decide what size of game that you want to play?
If you gave the game a shot, you'd figure that out pretty quickly. Basically, WMH sized armies. It gets cumbersome and slow at large army sizes; anything from 20-40 models will work pretty well. There could be exceptions, of course.
I always play to win, it is after all wargaming but it would be hard to get further from a WAAC gamer than me.
Actually, Age of Sigmar is self-described as Tabletop Gaming. Nowhere has Games Workshop ever described AoS as a wargame -- I think purposely so. If you take a look at the leaked Competitive Play rules and the armybuilding system there, you might be happy with it. It uses a combination of wounds, warscrolls, and keywords to place restrictions on the armies based on ratios -- so for example, out of 25 counted wounds, only 5 may be from models with the keyword Warmachine; only so many Heroes, etc..
I don't know if you'd be happy with the 'tactical depth' but most people won't be able to answer this without actually trying it. Many people get stuck on the rules being 4 pages, but actually, it's not 4 pages. It's 4 pages to describe basic mechanics, plus 300+ pages of special rules on warscrolls, plus a couple of formations/batallions (the number will surely grow) with more special rules.
The biggest problem with these rules is that you're back to square 1 in terms of "balance" -- there will be warscrolls you might as well put through the paper shredder, because per wound, they're not as good as some other warscroll in the faction. The whole idea of making it point-less was that it would be possible for the players to look at some models and go, "yes, these are weak models, and therefore should be balanced in our game as such".
Da Boss wrote: I'm tired of this WAAC vs. Casual debate. I really am.
+1. I'm incredibly sick of it, and it gets discussed in such black and whites when in reality most people lie somewhere in between. Things that particularly get on my nerves.
"it's about having fun not being competitive" as if they are mutually exclusive. I have fun BECAUSE I am playing a competitive game, not in spite of it!!!!!
"It's not about whether you win or lose it's about having fun" as if this has anything to do with the price of fish in China. Just because I'm playing competitively doesn't mean I break down and cry when I lose, am TFG when I win or that any of that has an impact on how much I'm enjoying the game.
"As long as you play with reasonable people it's fine" Yeah, because it's sooo unreasonable to want well written and balanced rules
"it's fine if you just play casually instead of competitive" as if these mutually exclusive Personally I'd say I'm an incredibly "casual" player, I don't enter tournaments, I don't keep any tally of my wins or losses, I don't care whether I win or lose, I play for the sake of meeting up with friends more than anything.... but I still want to be somewhat competitive and have some structure to what I'm doing otherwise I might as well just be sitting in a bar chewing on nachos with mates or shooting spitballs at a wall.
"It's about narrative so these things don't matter" as if forging a narrative was independent of a solid rules base or indeed as if GW wrote narrative rules in the first place!. Fact is, I like narrative gaming, but I still like to use a solid rules base to start from and a proper points system to try and arrange the scenarios, otherwise it's just meaningless "pew-pew-pew"-ing to me.
"It's fine if you're willing to adapt the rules" as if it wouldn't be better if you didn't have to bend rules to make a workable game. I'd say I'm a very adaptable player, but I still like to have a set of clear and concise rules as my base so that when I'm adapting rules it's not just to fix blatant oversights of the writers but it's actually to forge new and interesting narratives! If you first have to fix the damned rules then it just takes me one step further away from forging a good narrative game.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Tabling is the default win condition, which makes sense, as GW is a minis game - no minis, you lose.
And there are also Sudden Death conditions as a sort of balance against number of models.
But the PRIMARY win condition should be defined on a per-scenario basis.
Yes, I agree I like objective-based games better than tabling or the sudden-death, too. If the leaked file is to be believed (and the source, Lady Atia, has been very good), the objectives-based scenarios look pretty interesting. We may even give them a whirl next time we get together and chip away at some more 40k time
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tydrace wrote: This talk about 12 Bloodthirsters displeases the Blood God. Can't we use something more appropriate, like 16?
The Blood God would be very pleased if you would field 66.
JohnHwangDD wrote: Tabling is the default win condition, which makes sense, as GW is a minis game - no minis, you lose.
And there are also Sudden Death conditions as a sort of balance against number of models.
But the PRIMARY win condition should be defined on a per-scenario basis.
Yes, I agree I like objective-based games better than tabling or the sudden-death, too. If the leaked file is to be believed (and the source, Lady Atia, has been very good), the objectives-based scenarios look pretty interesting. We may even give them a whirl next time we get together and chip away at some more 40k time
Automatically Appended Next Post:
tydrace wrote: This talk about 12 Bloodthirsters displeases the Blood God. Can't we use something more appropriate, like 16?
The Blood God would be very pleased if you would field 66.
I can't wait to see the scenarios.
66? Not really. 66 = 6 (Slaanesh) x 11 (Malal) -- *I* would be happy with that, though, having 66 Bloodthirsters slaved to Slaanesh and/or Malal.
AoS strives to be a scenario based game, and will feature campaigns in the coming months and years. I think enough people who enjoy this sort of thing exist for AoS to carve out a niche specifically for this market, and some people will use either official or unofficial competitive rules for tournament/competitive play.
A scenario based game that describes the exact forces used by each side?
I don't know if you'd be happy with the 'tactical depth' but most people won't be able to answer this without actually trying it.
I'm not going to be trying it as it would be hard for me to find opponents given its reception at my club and there are much better games that I would rather play anyway.
We've got a slow grow league starting in August a culminating in December with 25 wounds per month increase. We've got about 15 people in our group signed up for it. We'll see how it goes. I like it because I can paint a small force of Dwarves one month, elves the next, eternals the next, and round the previous three out in the last month.
Hulksmash wrote: I like it because I can paint a small force of Dwarves one month, elves the next, eternals the next, and round the previous three out in the last month.
Yeah, should be good to paint pretty much whatever you like from across the armies.
Manchu wrote: Nope. Is MtG a wargame? Settlers of Catan? D&D?
Card game, boardgame, RPG.
Although as MTG and D&D involve combat they could be classed as wargames as easily as they could be classed as tabletop games. I have also played both of them over the internet so......
So highly restrictive then and a lot of work to incorporate all the various races and factions.
Sure, they can be. A scenario is often a way to represent a pre-existing event or story. A friend of mine recently used the LotR rules to run a scenario right out of the Felix and Gotrek novels, for example.
@Silent Puffin - Manchu replied to most of your points better than I could
WMH = Warmachines / Hordes, the very popular Privateer Press skirmish games.
I can't answer in the form of goblins and ogres. Like Sigmar, you have little troops, bigger troops, special units, and heroes. Unlike AoS, the warcaster (who represents the player) plays a pivotal role, and you've pretty much lost if the warcaster dies. The warcaster can do more interesting things than AoS heroes.
There are models as small as a goblin, and models as large as an Imperial Knight. Mostly, the models are metal and/or resin, with a few plastic kits. Very few are configurable or posable in any way, none in the GW sense (which is ok from a gaming perspective, because models have no equip options in the game anyhow). The aesthetic is fantasy steampunk, and subjectively (ie in my opinion), the models are decent, with a small number being exceptional.
If you haven't heard of WMH and you like fantasy skirmishers, you should check it out. A lot of people like it quite a bit.
It's weird to me that anyone would assume miniatures war games are the only kinds of table top games. I mean, haven't they ever heard of D&D ... or at least Monopoly?
Miniatures war gaming is fairly new to the USA. Wargaming over here, during the 60s up through the 80s (maybe even 90s really), was dominated by hex maps and chits. Even now, when miniatures gaming has become fairly popular (as niches go) in the States, a lot of stuff still comes to us from the UK.
In any case, Talys seemed to be making a point about how GW is marketing AoS rather than saying AoS is not a war game.
It wasn't common where I am from to call RPGs or board games "table top games". It's not a commonly used phrase at all. So that could be the source of confusion?
TBH the first time I heard the phrase "table top games" was in the context of marketing the resurgence in board game popularity over the last decade. I think card games, RPGs, and miniatures games got roped in by association.
Manchu wrote: It's weird to me that anyone would assume miniatures war games are the only kinds of table top games. I mean, haven't they ever heard of D&D ... or at least Monopoly?
Miniatures war gaming is fairly new to the USA. Wargaming over here, during the 60s up through the 80s (maybe even 90s really), was dominated by hex maps and chits. Even now, when miniatures gaming has become fairly popular (as niches go) in the States, a lot of stuff still comes to us from the UK.
In any case, Talys seemed to be making a point about how GW is marketing AoS rather than saying AoS is not a war game.
Oh no I agree, not all tabletop games are wargames.
I don't necessarily agree that AoS is not a wargame, though.
I'm just pointing out that their are certain people in the community that would argue with you if your opinion was more negative towards GW.
Also thing about marketing is if GW isn't convincing people that the game isn't a wargame... well they're going to keep thinking it is a wargame.
Remember how terrible of a failure "Forge the Narrative" was?
If you can't convince your customers, it doesn't matter. Before you even up bring up the "but logic, but they're saying", it's irrelevant, the customer's perception of your product matters more than reality. Marketing 101 stuff.
Well, to get back to (my understanding of) Talys's point, I think GW is going for the widest possible market -- hence using the term "tabletop game," which I believe simply indicates a sort of marketing reminder that not all games are played on electronic devices.
Manchu wrote: It's weird to me that anyone would assume miniatures war games are the only kinds of table top games. I mean, haven't they ever heard of D&D ... or at least Monopoly?
Miniatures war gaming is fairly new to the USA. Wargaming over here, during the 60s up through the 80s (maybe even 90s really), was dominated by hex maps and chits. Even now, when miniatures gaming has become fairly popular (as niches go) in the States, a lot of stuff still comes to us from the UK.
In any case, Talys seemed to be making a point about how GW is marketing AoS rather than saying AoS is not a war game.
You will be surprised that miniature wargames have a longer, stronger history in the US than you knew. E.g.
Warmachine has, or at least had, around 20-25 models a side in a standard game. Are you seriously telling me that is all that you would need to play AoS in a typical game? If you are that puts AoS very much in skirmish game territory yet for a skirmish game AoS rules are extremely shallow.
Just because GW calls its games tabletop games (which they have done for a very long time by the way) means absolutely nothing.
Providing specific scenarios for AoS has absolutely no bearing on how I am going to find, for example, a fair pick up game nor will it provide any real guidance to gauge how an army containing X, Y and Z will fare against an army that contains X, B and C. Specific scenarios are great and have been at the foundation of wargaming but there needs to be some kind of structure to create armies.
Back on topic, in the good old days of Dark Future and Adeptus Teenytechnicus, all new GW tabletop games were proudly emblazoned 3D Role-Play Game, to try and hit as many bases as possible.
But call it what you like, Age Of Sigmar is a game of tactical warfare. It is impossible not to class it as a wargame.
Kilkrazy wrote: You will be surprised that miniature wargames have a longer, stronger history in the US than you knew.
TBH I'm not actually surprised at all, thanks to Jon Peterson's tremendous book on the gaming culture in the USA leading up to the advent of D&D and TSR. It's called "Playing at the World" and I'd highly recommend it!
Silent Puffin? wrote: Just because GW calls its games tabletop games (which they have done for a very long time by the way) means absolutely nothing.
Well it might mean something to customers who have spent a lot less time thinking about wargaming than you or I, ones for whom the phrase "wargame" means essentially nothing or, at worst, a game that is boring, expensive, and difficult to get into. (All of which can certainly be hallmarks of wargaming, from certain perspectives.)
Honestly 'Age of Sigmar' is more along the lines of a board game at best in my opinion. It's more like one of those specialist games you play for fun that dies off within a year and maybe resurfaces again at some point like 'Space Hulk'.
Warmachine has, or at least had, around 20-25 models a side in a standard game. Are you seriously telling me that is all that you would need to play AoS in a typical game? If you are that puts AoS very much in skirmish game territory yet for a skirmish game AoS rules are extremely shallow.
Add in the fact that WMH is frankly NOT swords and sorcery fantasy. I was looking forward to see what AoS brought as I needed to go back to WHFB (or something of the same genre) as a kind of palate cleanser from WMH.
Grimtuff, have you considered the upcoming Frostgrave skirmishy-RPGy-Morheimy miniatures game from Osprey? I am not too fond of Northstar's corresponding line of wizard miniatures but am thinking of using WHFB/AoS stuff in its place. It has a high fantasy feel to it, unlike the steampunkish WM/H or pseudo-historical grim fantasy of traditional WHFB.
Manchu wrote: Grimtuff, have you considered the upcoming Frostgrave skirmishy-RPGy-Morheimy miniatures game from Osprey? I am not too fond of Northstar's corresponding line of wizard miniatures but am thinking of using WHFB/AoS stuff in its place. It has a high fantasy feel to it, unlike the steampunkish WM/H or pseudo-historical grim fantasy of traditional WHFB.
I've peeked at it and was not thrilled with the minis, so I dismissed it. Might have to give it a second look.
"Welcome to Warhammer Age of Sigmar, a fantastical hobby of collecting, painting and tabletop wargaming like no other."
Introduction (pg. 3) of the Warhammer Age of Sigmar Primer
i think we can put this debate to rest now...
how each individual chooses to see the new system is up to them...
if you don't like the concept of no points, and are unwilling to adapt to the Warscroll format, that is your choice...
GW is trying something radically different, which has not been completely fleshed out yet...
one can choose to embrace the new system, or not...
one thing that i find interesting is all of the talk of pick-up games as if those are always played with strangers...
in my experience, as an outside observer of the gaming side of the hobby, i see a clique in every shop i visit...
i have been traveling the world for 25 years, and it takes all of two visits to a shop to realize that you see the same group of people hanging out, and about three visits to be considered a local...
i mean, how often do you guys play with complete strangers in your local shop???
Pretty often, actually. As in, that's the only way I wargame at the moment, as I am stuck between like three cities generally. The only other way I would get games in, if I had time, would be by travelling to tournaments, but currently I can't manage that.
Feel free to ignore my experience to defend AOS though.
There's also a transport issue, I guess, if you have a really big collection. Because AoS is made to be played from collections rather than predetermined armies. So is everyone supposed to haul a sizable chunk of their miniatures collection to the LGS or their club? Or even their friend's place?
Don't get me wrong. I don't like WMH either, though I have 3 WMH armies (mostly for painting/collecting purposes). I was just pointing out that other people do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
jah-joshua wrote: "Welcome to Warhammer Age of Sigmar, a fantastical hobby of collecting, painting and tabletop wargaming like no other."
Introduction (pg. 3) of the Warhammer Age of Sigmar Primer
I stand corrected
I was going by what I'd generally read in White Dwarf, as well as the AoS "leaked" competitive addition still open on my screen, which reads, "Although Age of Sigmar has taken a unique
approach to Tabletop Gaming, this document represents a completely unofficial way to modify the rules into ones more conducive to competitive play."
Obviously, my memory is not very good
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote: There's also a transport issue, I guess, if you have a really big collection. Because AoS is made to be played from collections rather than predetermined armies. So is everyone supposed to haul a sizable chunk of their miniatures collection to the LGS or their club? Or even their friend's place?
This is actually why our group mostly plays 40k at my home in the basement. There is a HUGE transport issue once you have Knights and other large models. Some of them are very delicate (at least, in transportation terms), and you can spend 2 hours choosing, packing, and unpacking your models. Then showing up at a destination, and finding that you forgot X model.
This isn't a common problem for "casual" players, but for people with large collections, it's infuriating to appear at a friend's house 20 minutes away to discover that you forgot a hero model that was on a list for this week.
How we do it is, everyone who games at my place can store stuff in either display cases or storage cases (safely, since it's always the same group, and we've known each other forever); people leave their large, difficult to transport units, and maybe some of their common units that they'll never use elsewhere anyways, and just take their characters and easily packable stuff that comprise their "common core".
Then when everyone is gone I secretly play with all those Riptides. Bwahahahahahah! (joking )
one thing that i find interesting is all of the talk of pick-up games as if those are always played with strangers...
in my experience, as an outside observer of the gaming side of the hobby, i see a clique in every shop i visit...
i have been traveling the world for 25 years, and it takes all of two visits to a shop to realize that you see the same group of people hanging out, and about three visits to be considered a local...
i mean, how often do you guys play with complete strangers in your local shop???
When I was a teenager, we'd all go on game nights with whatever armies we had, and piece together players for 2 v2 or 2 v 1 or 1v1 by adding up points (approximately) for 40k. It wasn't a science, and the points were never precisely a match anyways. I know there are still groups like this, and most stores host some kind of game nights where folks are likely to meet strangers or regulars who like playing wargames.
But outside of that, I think pick-up games (where you go on a random day and just wait for someone else to bring an army) of 100+ model games are a myth in most independent stores. They're like Sasquatch sightings. I have seen, occasionally, people that always take a set of models in their car, and if they happen to bump into someone in a store who's done the same thing they might say, "do you want to play a game?". I don't like this idea at all, though, because of car break-ins.
flamingkillamajig wrote: Honestly 'Age of Sigmar' is more along the lines of a board game at best in my opinion. It's more like one of those specialist games you play for fun that dies off within a year and maybe resurfaces again at some point like 'Space Hulk'.
See, that's what I like about it.
I would consider it a scenario game more than a wargame, never intended to be a fair match of skill. In order for pick up games to work, players would need to communicate enough to find out if they have compatible degrees of "feth it" attitude. It doesn't work on the norms of yesterday, the assumptions of real wargames. It's something of an outside context tabletop game.
Or you can use wounds plus attacks divided by movement or something if you need points to play happy. Nothing wrong with that, except that it isn't supported by the game.
@Da Boss: why would i ignore your experience???
i was asking an honest question...
i am curious how often people play with complete strangers, because i have always seen that hobby shops seem to have tight sets of locals...
@Silent Puffin: fair enough, as FoW has points...
now you can play by using Warscrolls if you choose to jump into AoS...
if not, then i guess you will get a lot more games of FoW in...
personally, i think a lot of the doom and gloom TFG scenarios are a kneejerk reaction...
i have seen way less bad behavior in 30 years of being in this hobby than i could read in one day here...
that is not to say that bad behavior doesn't exist, or that anyone choosing not to jump into AoS is wrong...
saying this move by GW is objectively bad is a bit of a stretch, though, as it seems like a good amount of people are able to enjoy it so far...
i have a feeling that the world, the game, and the minis will be in a better place in a year, once we have seen how GW's future releases are going to shake out...
i like what i am seeing, so far, and it is exciting to have a new world to explore...
Exactly, I can organise virtually any game with just a sentence and be relatively sure that I will have an equal game. With AoS on the other hand..........
Manchu wrote: There's also a transport issue, I guess, if you have a really big collection. Because AoS is made to be played from collections rather than predetermined armies. So is everyone supposed to haul a sizable chunk of their miniatures collection to the LGS or their club? Or even their friend's place?
When my friend and I were going to play, it went like this:
Him "Want to try AoS"
Me "Sure, how about saturday at 11"
Him "Sure"
That was the extent of the pre-planning. I grabbed a handful of my Brets - unit of knights (6), unit of errants (6), 20 archers, 16 M&A, standard bearer, general, paladin on foot, 5 mounted yeomen. Hardly my full collection, but a solid army as I used to play it.
When I showed up, he had a force of orks on the table - arrer boyz, huge unit of boys, 3 chariots, an ork boss, amd a giant (I migt be missing something else). He looked at our armies the felt his might be too strong because of the giant.
We played anyway, and had a blast. It worked well, there was enough rules crunch in the scrolls to make things a little different, the tactics were inteesting, the initiative threw a wrench in well prepared plans, etc. We hadn't played WHFB in 2 editions, so it wasn't like we were regulars at it. But it wasn't hard to "balance it by eye".
We 're also historicals players and most of our games don't have points values, or rely on historical OOBs for our forces.
Regardless, it has rekindled out interest in playing (15+ years with GW games, plus too many others), we're setting up a campaign, and going to play it regularly.
Oh, and I tried and dislike both Kings of War, and Warmachine. Just for completeness.
Also, as a last thought, AoS will allow us to pull out all of our old models, and play whatever we like, since we have all the warscrolls we need. If GW moves away from the aesthetic, won't bother us in the least. But we will be very interested in the campaign and scenario stuff that GW puts out.
re: Frostgrave, the minis are not required. You can use any mini for the game. Don't let that stop you. I'll probably get it, because I'm a rules junky, but it won't scratch my fantasy battles itch. AoS will. IMHO.
Manchu wrote: There's also a transport issue, I guess, if you have a really big collection. Because AoS is made to be played from collections rather than predetermined armies. So is everyone supposed to haul a sizable chunk of their miniatures collection to the LGS or their club? Or even their friend's place?
I do this today. I have my minis hardcased in Chessex storage, which stack into a gym bag along with my dice and rules. I could bring 400-500 infantry this way, a couple dozen Giants, or some mix in between. As it happens, this is the entirety of my Fantasy collection (200+ infantry + Monsters & cavalry) is portable this way.
However, really huge models like Wraithknights are a challenge, and I tend to bring only 1 or two of those at a time. For something vast like my Eldar or IoM forces, I might only bring whatever fraction of my collection piques my fancy.
In response to the question about how often people play with strangers, in my experience at least, it depends how you define the word "stranger".
If you mean someone who I have literally never met before, then I don't play them all that often, but enough for it to not be considered negligible. There are people who come in rarely and hence I normally miss and people who are new to the club and/or the area and hence, the first time I play them, they're strangers, even if they do go on to become regulars. In these not-that-rare situations, the ability to be able to say "let's have a game of X points" as per the rules, is very useful.
However, even if the people I play most often are people who are regulars (or at least people who have been to the club/GW several times in the past), they're still not the type of person who I would sit down with and come up with some long-winded set of house rules to try and balance AoS. Outside of game time, I don't often speak to these people. Sure, we'd talk as we were watching another game or whilst we were packing up, but we certainly wouldn't go for a coffee to discuss potentially balancing methods for AoS, or even do the same sat painting at the club. Such activities I think are really reserved for close friends or family - of which I have precious few who are interested in wargaming, let alone AoS.
So what I'm saying is, even though I don't play with a complete stranger every time I play a game, I very rarely play with someone who I feel I could sit down with and come up with a set of house rules for a game.
Exactly, I can organise virtually any game with just a sentence and be relatively sure that I will have an equal game. With AoS on the other hand..........
There is, however, no guarantee that a game will be fair or fun.
Flames of War is much easier to balance than a game like Age of Sigmar, or Warhammer 40k. Imagine in FoW, if you introduced Martian units with lasers, and the Germans had dirigibles that could drop concussion bombs and the Brits built giant robots that dwarfed the L'Arc de Triomphe you were trying to protect. Imagine if the largest model is literally so big that an infantry unit can climb through the visor (actually, one sits inside, in the model) --
Spoiler:
Now obviously, the warlord titans aren't going to be common But smaller titans -- everything up to Castigators and Revenants -- are very common in 40k, and everything up to the size of Dragons and Nagash or Glotkin are quite common in Fantasy.
The difference is that some people look at the dragons and manifestations of deities on the same field of battle as peasants and goblins and go, "well, that's dumb, what's the point of a game like that?" while others, say, "OMG. That is so awesome. GIMME!"
Bring more models than you plan on using, decide on table size (4x4 is a good spot) from there you should be good to go. Remember, there is a chance your opponent will get two turns in a row without you getting to shoot or declare assaults. They could very well score any of the "kill something" sudden death objectives in that time. You do not want to try and overwhelm people with models, it can backfire HARD.
jah-joshua wrote: "Welcome to Warhammer Age of Sigmar, a fantastical hobby of collecting, painting and tabletop wargaming like no other."
Introduction (pg. 3) of the Warhammer Age of Sigmar Primer
Page 3... the intro... doesn't say this bro.
So anyways. My brother got me to try this with him... we've got a funny family. He loves GW stuff, I despise the company. I think Age of Sigmar is ridiculous, and the whole premise of the game is stupid. I played Chaos, he played Sigmar. The game play wasn't horrible, so I have to admit I've played worse. But it wasn't anything great, either.
Whatever you want to call it, it isn't a wargame. Not even close. You can't play out some vignette of a war... It's just a bunch of godly superheroes biffing it out and using magical powers.
But my brother has now convinced me that Age of Sigmar is a GOOD thing. One thing I despise about so-called "casual" players is that there is endless whining if they lose to "TFG" or whatever. Like, they refuse to learn to play the f***ing game, and then want to rage quit when they lose. So now at last there's a game for them, and they can leave serious wargamers to other games. It's great: anyone who likes Age of Sigmar I'll know I never want to play with. "Do you like Sigmar?" "Yes" (scratch off of list). That simple.
Yes, everyone is entitled to play their game, however dumb it might be.
But WARGAMING is a serious thing. A wargame REQUIRES competitive play (playing to win) and should involve it in every step from preparation to victory or defeat. If you can't prepare your army right, you deserve to LOSE. I don't play to make my opponent feel good... I think this is a ridiculous concept, but ok, if that's your thing, go for it. I want them to run away with their tail tucked between their legs because they got butthurt so bad... then come again another day to have another go at me. I feel great when I smash someone to bits and table them. I love when they feel hopelessness and despair. I feel angry with myself for being an idiot if I get tabled, but I focus that on being constructive and figure out what I need to do to win the next round.
So anyways good on GW for making a game for the people that I didn't want to play with anyways.
For me i'm just insulted there are no points values. It's like instead of weighing something on a scale you guess somebody's weight or same goes for somebody's age. Sure you might get an estimate but it's not always accurate esp. for really big things. I mean imagine if people were like, "Instead of carbon dating this we're just gonna eyeball it and guess how old this fossilized tree is."
For me i'm just insulted there are no points values. It's like instead of weighing something on a scale you guess somebody's weight or same goes for somebody's age. Sure you might get an estimate but it's not always accurate esp. for really big things. I mean imagine if people were like, "Instead of carbon dating this we're just gonna eyeball it and guess how old this fossilized tree is."
To be fair, GW's points were never really more of an eye ball anyways
For me i'm just insulted there are no points values. It's like instead of weighing something on a scale you guess somebody's weight or same goes for somebody's age. Sure you might get an estimate but it's not always accurate esp. for really big things. I mean imagine if people were like, "Instead of carbon dating this we're just gonna eyeball it and guess how old this fossilized tree is."
To be fair, GW's points were never really more of an eye ball anyways
Yes, but it at least made for a baseline that everyone could use for pick-up games and organized play. Part of the value many people were getting from the miniatures came with the game built around them. Kudos to GW for making the rules free, it's just the loss of points eliminates the ability to have that baseline. It doesn't stop friend groups from doing as they like...but then, they never needed help in the first place- they can do whatever they want! It's the game's ubiquity that is coming under threat from the lack of balance.
I've been giving WH-AOS some thought and review over the last week. I think the miniatures are great as GW miniatures tend to be, and the box set is a reasonable/good price. The future releases look like they might be plenty expensive, so I'll wait to see if GW actually learned their lesson or just came in with the boxset-bait on this one. The lore I've actually come to terms with- I like the idea of fighting on the Chaotic plains and the overall worsened nature of things. Sigmarines are something I'm getting used to- I just read that the game is going to become overly reliant on the power armor faction, and we'll see five variants of the same damn army.
The biggest issue I have obviously is the lack of points. Perhaps GW will hear the protests of their customers and actually do something helpful for once, but I'm not holding my breath. My original hope was that they'd try something in the vein of Blizzard and adjust points every six months or so in a living rule book.
So far I give it a B-. Has some good concepts, was a significant change, but still seems to have the same issues GW has been lugging around these past ten years, albeit in a smaller package.
(One or two have dropped off that list in the meantime, but heck, another's 
perhaps a bit much there.
". This game has tons of out-of-the box decisions that no other publisher would think to make, because they are not the "good" kind of lateral thinking.
