I've been looking to get into a fantasy game and I was wondering about these two systems.
Obviously the huge controversy when AoS came out with people burning their armies on YouTube (literally), tons of people vowing to never support GW again and jumping ship to Mantic KoW. Then people saying they are actually HAVING FUN with AoS and that the bitter old-schoolers were good riddance.
From you AoS players have you played both systems?
I tried playing AOS. Definitely not for me. I personally see nothing in this game that other games offer plus more.
However, I also did not like Warhammer Fantasy either.
Kings of War has been great fun and honestly is very easy to get into. Since both a free, and both are compatible with your models, I suggest giving them both a try. I suspect most people will find Kings of War to be the better game.
AOS tried to be a simple and easy to get into game, and to an extent does this, but Kings of War does this as well but with the added benefit of structure and so on.
But yea, definitely give them a try. KOW is a lot of fun, we actually had totally new people come to the club after hearing about AOS just to see if how bad it is was is true. 3 as of the other night, and they are all playing Kings of War now. I think we even have a tournament in November with prizes and everything. AOS was laughed at even by the 11 year old group.
Anecdotal, but in my experience Kings of War smashes AOS out of the water.
I think whats worse for AOS is at our club we have poor, young, old and so on. Heaps of different people, and some of those people (especially the kids) spent a looong time building up their warhammer armies only for them to have a completely new and sub par system replace it. While yes they can keep playing it kinda sucks for them I think. Kings of War is obviously the better alternative especially for these people who have all this hard work thrown down the drain by AOS. One of my mates only recently painted his whole Wood Elf army and then to hear about AOS and see the rules and the game being played etc just killed off his joy for the army until we tried KOW.
I suspect if AOS did not replace Warhammer, then AOS would be ignored like all of GW other mini games.
Blocks vs skirmish, take your pick... The thing I do not get is why did ye olde players not play KoW before AoS... KoW is clearly better than WHFB so why did they not just play that instead of "jumping ship"
AoS is all about skirmish, small-scale battles with loose formations while KoW is basically WFB 2.0 - blocks of infantry and supposedly done better than WFB.
It's all just about your preferences, but remember that even if you play KoW, you can later use the same models to play AoS skirmishes with them - the rules are free and they're still there, so nothing stops you from playing both at the same time!
I'd personally recommend you going the KoW route and later trying AoS when you have your models for KoW - it's not that I don't recommend AoS, I just think that if you're having a hard time deciding, you can just go for the bigger game and then be able to use miniatures in the smaller one, rather than trying AoS and then, if you don't like it, having to expand your army as you want to check KoW out.
bitethythumb wrote: Blocks vs skirmish, take your pick... The thing I do not get is why did ye olde players not play KoW before AoS... KoW is clearly better than WHFB so why did they not just play that instead of "jumping ship"
Why did GW not keep their 30 years of fluff/experience and go old school and build 9th edition and make AOS on the side?
Your comment can be like "The thing i do not get is why ye olde Star Wars fans do not watch Battlestar Galactica ... it is better than Star Wars so why did they just not play that instead of "jumping Ship," when they changed Star Wars into Star Trek?....
Why did GW not keep their 30 years of fluff/experience and go old school and build 9th edition and make AOS on the side?
We don't know. GW knows. But it is generally assumed that people would just ignore AoS if WFB was still around.
Also finally progressing story. End Times came, there was a huge campaign, people died, people performed miraculous feats, world got destroyed, Chaos won, story goes on. As I said before in another thread - it's sad to watch the world I grew up with go away, but if GW decided to go forward with the story and not keep it for another 30 years at 11:59, then I'm okay with that. The new world can, with time, be just as good as the old one (just remember that it will be different, don't expect this to be Old World 2.0) when it gets developed. And if it doesn't, then, oh well, there are other games, I'm already past the age when I would get my knickers in a twist over that despite having thousands of points of models on my shelves. If I don't end up using them for, say, KoW, they'll still serve as a nice reminder of my childhood. Anything goes, try not to get too attached to something that is being sold. At some point it will stop and you will have to move on and grow up.
As others have said both have free rules and you can use your minis for both, so try it and see which you like.
Both have streamlined rules, but my perception is each has the following strengths:
KOW: super tight ruleset that can be played very competitively. If you enjoy the competitive aspect the most, play this.
AoS: 100% freedom in force selection. Play whatever you want. If you want to build a specific army with a theme and enjoy the narrative aspect of gaming, AoS does it best.
Bottle wrote: As others have said both have free rules and you can use your minis for both, so try it and see which you like.
Both have streamlined rules, but my perception is each has the following strengths:
KOW: super tight ruleset that can be played very competitively. If you enjoy the competitive aspect the most, play this.
AoS: 100% freedom in force selection. Play whatever you want. If you want to build a specific army with a theme and enjoy the narrative aspect of gaming, AoS does it best.
How... in Kings of war, with one simple sentence I can do the same as you claim AOS is best for (there are very few themes you cant do anyway) and that is "lets ignore the lose restrictions eh?"
Kings of war is no more or less narrative than AOS...
The decision is simple, less rules or more rules with the option to remove some.
Bottle wrote: As others have said both have free rules and you can use your minis for both, so try it and see which you like.
Both have streamlined rules, but my perception is each has the following strengths:
KOW: super tight ruleset that can be played very competitively. If you enjoy the competitive aspect the most, play this.
AoS: 100% freedom in force selection. Play whatever you want. If you want to build a specific army with a theme and enjoy the narrative aspect of gaming, AoS does it best.
How... in Kings of war, with one simple sentence I can do the same as you claim AOS is best for (there are very few themes you cant do anyway) and that is "lets ignore the lose restrictions eh?"
Kings of war is no more or less narrative than AOS...
can I take 1 unit from each race in KoW and make it into one single faction? AoS allows me to REALLY make thematic armies of ANY kind I want.... for example, I can take a full sylvaneth force (trees) but I want to add more wild life, so I add a chimera, a cockatrice, a couple of lizard (big ones), some rat swarms (garden mice?) and even add spirit hosts from vampire counts (wilderness sprites?) and bamf I got myself a wild army with no humanoids and mostly trees and animals and forest spirits... this allows for greater narrative as people can create what they want to suit the story... or the army they want... another one is taking an all engineering force by taking empire warmachine and using them in a dwarf army (for added warmachiness) :/ a dwarven steam tank is pretty cool and suits them more than empire imo
The decision is simple, less rules or more rules with the option to remove some.
or add them? I do not get this point... I can just as easily add rules into AoS as you can remove them from KoW
for example
units must face the same direction they attack/move/aim, they can turn to face any direction in ANY phase but remove 1" from their movement during their next movement phase
if you attack the sides of any unit you gain +1 to hit roll and +2 if you hit them from the back
there, I just added extra movement rules, facing rules and flanking ... took me 30s to do that :/
AoS is a terribly balanced, bare-bones ruleset with little to no development time. It is aimed at young players / players with little or no tabletop experience and requires you to know your opponent beforehand or, alternatively, carry your entire Warhammer collection around. It's good for quick, fun games on a skirmish level and rocks if you play with friends.
KoW is a well-balanced ruleset that recently got a new edition. It has been extensively playtested and re-balanced according to it. KoW is what WHFB wanted to be, a large scale, competitive fantasy tabletop game that also allows you to use your entire WHFB army collection in games. Games usually tend to take around 1-2 hours.
Bottle wrote: As others have said both have free rules and you can use your minis for both, so try it and see which you like.
Both have streamlined rules, but my perception is each has the following strengths:
KOW: super tight ruleset that can be played very competitively. If you enjoy the competitive aspect the most, play this.
AoS: 100% freedom in force selection. Play whatever you want. If you want to build a specific army with a theme and enjoy the narrative aspect of gaming, AoS does it best.
How... in Kings of war, with one simple sentence I can do the same as you claim AOS is best for (there are very few themes you cant do anyway) and that is "lets ignore the lose restrictions eh?"
Kings of war is no more or less narrative than AOS...
can I take 1 unit from each race in KoW and make it into one single faction? AoS allows me to REALLY make thematic armies of ANY kind I want.... for example, I can take a full sylvaneth force (trees) but I want to add more wild life, so I add a chimera, a cockatrice, a couple of lizard (big ones), some rat swarms (garden mice?) and even add spirit hosts from vampire counts (wilderness sprites?) and bamf I got myself a wild army with no humanoids and mostly trees and animals and forest spirits... this allows for greater narrative as people can create what they want to suit the story... or the army they want... another one is taking an all engineering force by taking empire warmachine and using them in a dwarf army (for added warmachiness) :/ a dwarven steam tank is pretty cool and suits them more than empire imo
The decision is simple, less rules or more rules with the option to remove some.
or add them? I do not get this point... I can just as easily add rules into AoS as you can remove them from KoW
for example
units must face the same direction they attack/move/aim, they can turn to face any direction in ANY phase but remove 1" from their movement during their next movement phase
if you attack the sides of any unit you gain +1 to hit roll and +2 if you hit them from the back
there, I just added extra movement rules, facing rules and flanking ... took me 30s to do that :/
Can you take a unit from any faction and play it? Yes by merely saying "lets ignore list requirements for this cool theme." Done. Easy. I was doing it for my Lizardmen until the rules came out yesterday. It also comes with a better ruleset.
Can you easily add points to AOS? Come on genius, add points to AOS for me, I am willing to bet I can remove points, army restrictions or any rule in Kings of war faster than you can do the opposite of what I remove for AOS. This is not a hard concept to grasp. The examples you gave are already present in Kings of war, I could have removed them in less than 30s if I wanted. Much faster than adding those rules yes?
HiveFleetPlastic wrote: Why not try both? Have they added a Definitely-not-Sigmarines faction to Kings of War yet?
The rules to both are free, as far as I know, so you might as well just give them both a try.
This is the best answer. Both rulesets are free (well, aKoW requires you to buy a £10 rulebook for a few units, but all the basics are free), so only cost you a few MB of storage space and however long it takes to download. If you're building an army for KoW you'll have models to use in AoS and vice versa, and thanks to both games having basing rules that make using the minis interchangeable, you'll have no trouble with that. AoS essentially ignores bases and KoW uses fixed size movement trays, where the number of minis doesn't matter!
KoW isma great game, fast, deep and with plenty of tactical elements that are akin to something like chess; sacrificing, planning ahead, setting up moves are all key parts of the game. For bigger games, there's nothing better!
AoS on the other hand doesn't quite have the same depth, and is definitely something you play for the fun of the game itself rather than the end result, but that doesn't mean it's a poor game. It requires a little more pre-game legwork than KoW, but that's part and parcel of GW games these days, and as far as I'm concerned, not detrimental. It also handles smaller/shorter games well, whereas with KoW you really do need big armies on a 6x4 table to get the most from it.
Try both, and don't fall into the trap of thinking you can only play one game! The more variety and options you have, the better!
Bottle wrote: As others have said both have free rules and you can use your minis for both, so try it and see which you like.
Both have streamlined rules, but my perception is each has the following strengths:
KOW: super tight ruleset that can be played very competitively. If you enjoy the competitive aspect the most, play this.
AoS: 100% freedom in force selection. Play whatever you want. If you want to build a specific army with a theme and enjoy the narrative aspect of gaming, AoS does it best.
How... in Kings of war, with one simple sentence I can do the same as you claim AOS is best for (there are very few themes you cant do anyway) and that is "lets ignore the lose restrictions eh?"
Kings of war is no more or less narrative than AOS...
The decision is simple, less rules or more rules with the option to remove some.
I presumed we were comparing them off the shelf. Not with House Rules.
Can you take a unit from any faction and play it? Yes by merely saying "lets ignore list requirements for this cool theme." Done. Easy. I was doing it for my Lizardmen until the rules came out yesterday. It also comes with a better ruleset.
you will be ignoring a lot more than list requirements.. for example, the games balance that the "points" make will be broken INSTANTLY
Can you easily add points to AOS? Come on genius
do you have to be rude with your replies? or is that just your personality and yes you can.. its called WOUNDS count, people have been using that for ages now...
add points to AOS for me, I am willing to bet I can remove points, army restrictions or any rule in Kings of war faster than you can do the opposite of what I remove for AOS. This is not a hard concept to grasp. The examples you gave are already present in Kings of war, I could have removed them in less than 30s if I wanted. Much faster than adding those rules yes?
no..
firstly, we were discussing the normal out of the box rules that make the game, AoS is designed to be a narrative SKIRMISH focused game where the freedom of thematic armies is PART OF THE GAMES CONCEPT, KoW is not... you are the one who said the only difference is that "you can remove rules from KoW" BUT that is basically IGNORING KoW rules.. .whats the point of KoW without playing by its rules? and as soon as you remove the rules KoW becomes just as broken and unbalanced as you claim AoS to be and therefore you are saying that you CAN make KoW thematic but you will make it a broken, unbalanced game... well done :/
Secondly, AoS is designed to not have points, points are a KoW thing (and a whfb) and there have been PLENTY of "alternative" points things like using "wounds" (total wounds) that more or less work... (its not as balanced as a GAME DESIGNED FOR POINTS but that is besides the point) so to say "add points" is wrong, tell me if you remove list requirements/points from KoW how do the points work? will they be balanced? I THINK NOT... so as soon as you said "I can remove KoW points/list requirments" you have already made KoW a broken, unbalanced, pointless game that does not work as it is intended... adding points or "wounds" to AoS harms it in EXACTLY the same way(or maybe even makes it more balanced) ... so YES I can add points, its called wound count and took people 1 day to figure out :/
--- seriously why are you so defensive to my comment, you more or less said that "its easier to remove rules to add them" when that is just not the case as in both scenarios (adding points/removing points) makes the games equally broken... you are clearly just biased towards AoS :/
AoS is a terribly balanced, bare-bones ruleset with little to no development time. It is aimed at young players / players with little or no tabletop experience and requires you to know your opponent beforehand or, alternatively, carry your entire Warhammer collection around. It's good for quick, fun games on a skirmish level and rocks if you play with friends.
KoW is a well-balanced ruleset that recently got a new edition. It has been extensively playtested and re-balanced according to it. KoW is what WHFB wanted to be, a large scale, competitive fantasy tabletop game that also allows you to use your entire WHFB army collection in games. Games usually tend to take around 1-2 hours.
what an unbiased opinion... hows about
AoS is a narrative, scenario, skirmish based game that focuses on the player interacting with each others and talking out the game as it moves along in a friendly none competitive environment, suitable for all ages, very simplified and easy to learn rules for the benefit of being able to pick up and play the game as quickly as possible and the freedom to create any theme you wish for your army, your imagination being your only obstacle, its good for long term scenario styled games where you create a story instead of enemies
KoW is a rule based, competitive game that focuses on win at all costs army list building, heavily restricted in army creation and limited to "best build" scenarios where the games can last 1-3 hours at a time where most of it is arguing about the angle your troops are facing and limited in thematic creation where your imagination does not matter as much as your calculator skills, its good for a lengthy game that focuses on playing with strangers for the glory of being better than them.
see how I can twist it around?
---
by the way, that is not my opinion on KoW, I am just pointing out that you can make any game "look" bad with the right wording... AoS and KoW are both designed for children, this is a children's hobby... and both are as balanced as intended... if you play the "scenarios" in the books GW provides, games are very balanced.
Bottle wrote: As others have said both have free rules and you can use your minis for both, so try it and see which you like.
Both have streamlined rules, but my perception is each has the following strengths:
KOW: super tight ruleset that can be played very competitively. If you enjoy the competitive aspect the most, play this.
AoS: 100% freedom in force selection. Play whatever you want. If you want to build a specific army with a theme and enjoy the narrative aspect of gaming, AoS does it best.
How... in Kings of war, with one simple sentence I can do the same as you claim AOS is best for (there are very few themes you cant do anyway) and that is "lets ignore the lose restrictions eh?"
Kings of war is no more or less narrative than AOS...
The decision is simple, less rules or more rules with the option to remove some.
I presumed we were comparing them off the shelf. Not with House Rules.
Well off the shelf you have to house rule AOS so... KOW wins off the shelf then too.
I was merely mentioning that AOS does nothing you can't do with Kings of War with a few seconds of house ruling, which I think is important to note since why play AOS when you can do something similar and superior with another ruleset?
Bottle wrote: As others have said both have free rules and you can use your minis for both, so try it and see which you like.
Both have streamlined rules, but my perception is each has the following strengths:
KOW: super tight ruleset that can be played very competitively. If you enjoy the competitive aspect the most, play this.
AoS: 100% freedom in force selection. Play whatever you want. If you want to build a specific army with a theme and enjoy the narrative aspect of gaming, AoS does it best.
How... in Kings of war, with one simple sentence I can do the same as you claim AOS is best for (there are very few themes you cant do anyway) and that is "lets ignore the lose restrictions eh?"
Kings of war is no more or less narrative than AOS...
The decision is simple, less rules or more rules with the option to remove some.
I presumed we were comparing them off the shelf. Not with House Rules.
Well off the shelf you have to house rule AOS so... KOW wins off the shelf then too.
I was merely mentioning that AOS does nothing you can't do with Kings of War with a few seconds of house ruling, which I think is important to note since why play AOS when you can do something similar and superior with another ruleset?
If you want Sigmar house rules feel free to use the same ones I do;
There's a difference between representing with a bias and outright lying.
AoS is not "narrative" by any means. 'tis pure GW propaganda / kool aid. AoS is as narrative as 40k, KoW, WM/H, FoW and pretty much every other game out there. AoS has nothing to do with narrative elements whatsoever. There are scenarios added to the basic ruleset - pretty clear-cut scenarios that aren't innovative by any means either. Slapping on scenarios does not change the basic set of rules. You could do the very same with KoW - add a scenario, there, the game suddenly is "narrative". The availability of scenarios doesn't make it "scenario-driven" either. Unless we agree on this term meaning that you need scenarios in order to get balanced....ish matchups.
"Freedom to create any theme" isn't exclusive to AoS either. You can do the very same with any other taletop out there. If you never played a "no points" WHFB game or 40k Apocalypse match, then you, as a player, are to blame, not being able to do anything outside of GW holding your hand and telling you that it's okay to use no points.
The main difference between our posts is that I seem to have played both games.
Play both. Since footprint matters for KoW and bases don't matter for AoS, base them however you want and use trays for KoW. Determine what you and your community like and play it.
There seems to be some confusion regarding the Ally rules for Kings of War, so I figured I'd summarize them here.
You can use any number and combination of factions in your army. It is recommended that you do not mix Good and Evil factions, but this is just a suggestion based on fluff.
If you mix factions, you need to pick one faction that is your main one. You can take any number of units for this faction. For all other factions, they are limited to being at most 25% of your point value.
Unlocking special units are done on a faction basis.
So if you want to combine a big group of paladins, angels and nuns with a small group of demons or beastmen, that's already supported by the rule book.
If you want to add house rules to this, you can skip the 25% limit. Which would make it identical to AoS in terms of allying. If you also house rule away slot unlocking, you would make it identical to AoS in terms of the whole army selection process.
Just because I'm curious, does KoW have any structure such as the old Lords/Heroes 50% Core 25%+ etc, or can you take an army of heroes or an army of cannons like you can in AoS?
There's a difference between representing with a bias and outright lying.
AoS is not "narrative" by any means. 'tis pure GW propaganda / kool aid. AoS is as narrative as 40k, KoW, WM/H, FoW and pretty much every other game out there. AoS has nothing to do with narrative elements whatsoever. There are scenarios added to the basic ruleset - pretty clear-cut scenarios that aren't innovative by any means either. Slapping on scenarios does not change the basic set of rules. You could do the very same with KoW - add a scenario, there, the game suddenly is "narrative". The availability of scenarios doesn't make it "scenario-driven" either. Unless we agree on this term meaning that you need scenarios in order to get balanced....ish matchups.
"Freedom to create any theme" isn't exclusive to AoS either. You can do the very same with any other taletop out there. If you never played a "no points" WHFB game or 40k Apocalypse match, then you, as a player, are to blame, not being able to do anything outside of GW holding your hand and telling you that it's okay to use no points.
The main difference between our posts is that I seem to have played both games.
There's a difference between representing with a bias and outright lying.
AoS is not "narrative" by any means. 'tis pure GW propaganda / kool aid. AoS is as narrative as 40k, KoW, WM/H, FoW and pretty much every other game out there. AoS has nothing to do with narrative elements whatsoever. There are scenarios added to the basic ruleset - pretty clear-cut scenarios that aren't innovative by any means either. Slapping on scenarios does not change the basic set of rules. You could do the very same with KoW - add a scenario, there, the game suddenly is "narrative". The availability of scenarios doesn't make it "scenario-driven" either. Unless we agree on this term meaning that you need scenarios in order to get balanced....ish matchups.
"Freedom to create any theme" isn't exclusive to AoS either. You can do the very same with any other taletop out there. If you never played a "no points" WHFB game or 40k Apocalypse match, then you, as a player, are to blame, not being able to do anything outside of GW holding your hand and telling you that it's okay to use no points.
The main difference between our posts is that I seem to have played both games.
Bottle wrote: Just because I'm curious, does KoW have any structure such as the old Lords/Heroes 50% Core 25%+ etc, or can you take an army of heroes or an army of cannons like you can in AoS?
Not including house rules, of course.
You get a regiment or horde and they unlock a bunch of troops and slots. SO without house rules you get 20 men and then allows you to get up to 3 troops of 10 and 1 warmachine, hero, monster. Horde (40) does 6 I think troops and 1 of each monster, hero, warmachine.
To get allies you must get a regiment or horde from another faction then pick things based on the above from the regiments faction.
This is without houserules. Simple and easy.
The formations or Regiments can be from anything, so a regiment of horsemen unloocks the same as a regiment of spearmen etc. I think even things like Lizard Ogres still unlock slots etc.
Plumbumbarum wrote: Yes you can. You can drop all restrictions on army building including points and play what you want using the rest of the rules.
@bitethythumb, yes it's basicaly ignoring KoW rules but balancing AoS with wounds is basicaly ignoring AoS rules. Fail to see the difference tbh.
that is exactly the point :/ there is no difference... the tone of the other users posts make it out to be that "adding" rules is bad but taking them away is somehow "ok" I was simply pointing that doing both makes the game have no difference (in that certain aspect)l... if I have to add rules to enjoy AoS then by taking away rules from KoW to enjoy it makes them "equal"
the user I talked with more or less said that "its better to take away rules" :/ and I am saying "its the same as adding"...
I have also started to look into KoW and in all honesty its not as "awesome" as people make it out to be, the simple "unit" damage alone breaks immersion (apparently units do not get weaker if they take damage and function just as good until they are removed) which is weird, at the same time I do not see a point of painting models individually or even playing with 28mm sized models (which is the KoW standard) surely smaller models would make more sense and having them on one large base is better then individually... now I would be like a lot of users and go into the KoW forums and critique it but that would be counterproductive to the whole hobby.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
sarcastro01 wrote: But can I field 5 copies of Nagash in KoW like I can in AoS? My super creative narrative depends on it and it' not broken at all!
if you own only 5 nagash models and want to use them I say GO FOR IT... there is a really good scenario for one player you could play in the corner of your club whilst everyone else plays against someone else.
Obviously it's better to take away rules than add them because it's easier and faster.
I was answering the part where you claimed that taking away points is somehow against the game concept of KoW and there's no point. Balancing AoS seems to go against the concept of AoS so it's the same in that context.
Plumbumbarum wrote: Yes you can. You can drop all restrictions on army building including points and play what you want using the rest of the rules.
@bitethythumb, yes it's basicaly ignoring KoW rules but balancing AoS with wounds is basicaly ignoring AoS rules. Fail to see the difference tbh.
that is exactly the point :/ there is no difference... the tone of the other users posts make it out to be that "adding" rules is bad but taking them away is somehow "ok" I was simply pointing that doing both makes the game have no difference (in that certain aspect)l... if I have to add rules to enjoy AoS then by taking away rules from KoW to enjoy it makes them "equal"
the user I talked with more or less said that "its better to take away rules" :/ and I am saying "its the same as adding"...
I have also started to look into KoW and in all honesty its not as "awesome" as people make it out to be, the simple "unit" damage alone breaks immersion (apparently units do not get weaker if they take damage and function just as good until they are removed) which is weird, at the same time I do not see a point of painting models individually or even playing with 28mm sized models (which is the KoW standard) surely smaller models would make more sense and having them on one large base is better then individually... now I would be like a lot of users and go into the KoW forums and critique it but that would be counterproductive to the whole hobby.
Honestly dude, this concept is incredibly basic, yet you seem to be trying so hard to be contrarian that you refuse to listen. It's like talking to someone playing the fool.
A simple question for someone who thinks removing rules is easier then adding them. Take a game with a points system and structure system. Now time yourself how long it takes to remove them (if it takes longer than 10 seconds im gonna assume you are lying), Now take AOS and add a points system and structure system and time yourself. Write it all out and have it readable for anyone who wants to play with points. I bet the time ti takes will be huge.
A wounds cap is not a points system, the equivalent of adding a wound cap would be adding a nerve cap in KOW. Likewise the equivalence of removing points from KOW is adding points to AOS.
"there is no difference"
As for KOW, damage is more often than not fatigue and break down of discipline like in real life. Yes a few die here and there but the dying historically doesn't start until until a unit breaks and gets cut down by the other side. It only breaks your immersion if you think of them as killing each other the whole time, which to me would be immersion breaking. Makes complete sense. As for the basing, nobody at my club plays KOW with individual bases, we have one base for whole groups of soldiers, which Mantic does as well. They have a tutorial for doing so. You can also play it in smaller scale (I do). Nothing here is a critique but simply weird judgement and a little ignorance to warfare of the period.
You missed your chance to critique KOW when it was being Beta Tested... how it is now is largely because the players made it that way. It is in no way counter productive.
Have you played KOW? If not, go play it. It is free. Then you can critique all you want.
sarcastro01 wrote: But can I field 5 copies of Nagash in KoW like I can in AoS? My super creative narrative depends on it and it' not broken at all!
if you own only 5 nagash models and want to use them I say GO FOR IT... there is a really good scenario for one player you could play in the corner of your club whilst everyone else plays against someone else.
This kind of mentality seems to be what led us to AoS in the first place.
I call it the 'no one be a d*ck' mentality.
And I consider it absolutely ing toxic for a game.
The idea is the game isn't in charge of keeping things fair, you and your opponent are. If you feel your opponent does something unfair then the rules don't help you, you simply don't play that person. And that is ing stupid as people WILL be d*cks. It leaves you having a bad time and killing enthusiasm for the game.
It also encourages a bunch of really horrible situations, like when you don't get a game because the only other guy at the club/store looking for a game is someone you don't want to play. What if you don't think bringing a pair of bloodthirsters is wrong but your opponent sees you put them on the table and decides you aren't playing fair and decides he doesn't want to play you.
That kind of gak is how you get poor communities where people are excluded or chased off by people who should be excluded. Alternatively you can have the game rules do their job and keep things fair so that when a d*ck does show up he can't ruin everyone else's fun.
bitethythumb wrote: Blocks vs skirmish, take your pick... The thing I do not get is why did ye olde players not play KoW before AoS... KoW is clearly better than WHFB so why did they not just play that instead of "jumping ship"
Because 1st edition KOW was just ok. 2nd edition was improved drastically and is really well thought out. Also, because of the GW name. Lots of warhammer players have a hard time giving up GW. They've been described as abused wives who loyaly return to their husbands (GW) no matter how much GW fuks them over. Its the same reason why people even gave AOS a look and constantly make exscuses for it. Truth is, If the AOS rules were written by any other company, no one would give 2 gaks about it. But times are slowly changing, the GW name is becoming more and more tarnished. Not only are there better and cheaper games available, more and more LGS are dropping their line because of GW's insane and ridiculous trade agreements.
the simple "unit" damage alone breaks immersion (apparently units do not get weaker if they take damage and function just as good until they are removed) which is weird,
It is the same like in Warhammer
A unit of 20 needs 11 "wounds" until it loose 1 attack.
A KoW Regiment with 11 wounds would be already destroyed (average role of 7 with nerv 14)
So in Warhammer, removing models has the same effect like adding wound markers in KoW. It just reduces the passive boni (Nerv = Leadership + rank bonus)
Leaving the rules apart, I don't really see where is the trouble here.
The two games have different viewpoints on how to play your models. It has nothing to do with "narrative" or "competition" plays, those are players' preferences.
KoW considers everything from the unit. Individual models aren't the centerpiece, units are. They are formed, move and die as formations. Individual models are just here to tell how big is the unit and the number inside isn't really important - you could use awesome dioramas inside if you want.
AoS may be using units, but treat them as a number of set individual models. Losing or adding one makes a difference - and of course, formations are very loose and not so strict.
So, if you like to move big blocks of units that move/play as a single entity, KoW is best. If you would rather be free to move/play each model individually, AoS is better suited.
Each can be played from a competitive or narrative viewpoint (though for AoS, you will need to agree with your opponent about a way to balance each of your armies).
Well this started off calmly and very quickly derailed into pro-AoS vs anti-AoS...
Go with what the calm people are saying. Try both, and reserve your opinions until you have. As you can see from the heated discussion some people like one and dislike the other, you won't know for sure until you try.
I think asking for advice on two very separate styles of game on the internet is quite brave!
Two of my friends became disillusioned with WFB over the last couple of years, so they moved onto KoW for a few games.
They liked it, but it didn't hold their interest for more than a month or so.
One is now massively into AoS, the other has pretty much hung up his movement trays for good.
Try both, but be prepared for the possibilities of 'both' and 'neither' as answers to the question.
They are both games where you spend money on toy soldiers which you have to paint yourself. You find an opponent then move your toy soldiers around a tabletop and roll some dice to decide who's the winner.
You can "Forge a narrative" identically with both. ie. Make up stories for you tabletop battle as you roll dice and push your toy soldiers around.
Differences:
KoW has a more rigid rules structure, but is certainly nothing like WFB used to be in max/min'ing and net lists.
AoS has/will have regular releases if you like to keep updating your army in an attempt to stay up to date / competitive
KoW allows you to use figures from any manufacturer.
AoS denies the existence of figures from any other manufacturer.
KoW is a game based on moving rectangular units of troops around. Such as multi-based (on a diaorama), or like WFB on a movement tray
AoS is about moving individual models around. ie. A skirmish
If you spend an identical amount of money on each, you will get a lot more toy soldiers to paint if you are a KoW player.
Which is best? Well, having played both, I'd personally recommend choosing the one that most of your mates play.
You might decide otherwise but if you pick a game no-one you know plays, you're in for a dull time.
For me? No-one I know irl would touch AoS as a serious game with a bargepole so they play KoW and love it.
AoS is a terribly balanced, bare-bones ruleset with little to no development time. It is aimed at young players / players with little or no tabletop experience and requires you to know your opponent beforehand or, alternatively, carry your entire Warhammer collection around. It's good for quick, fun games on a skirmish level and rocks if you play with friends.
KoW is a well-balanced ruleset that recently got a new edition. It has been extensively playtested and re-balanced according to it. KoW is what WHFB wanted to be, a large scale, competitive fantasy tabletop game that also allows you to use your entire WHFB army collection in games. Games usually tend to take around 1-2 hours.
bitethythumb wrote: Blocks vs skirmish, take your pick... The thing I do not get is why did ye olde players not play KoW before AoS... KoW is clearly better than WHFB so why did they not just play that instead of "jumping ship"
Flame bait.
KoW has external balance. It achieves this by being dull as gak with 5 spells, no interactive rolling or phase decisions on the opponents turn, and no unique army wide special rules for each faction to make them feel unique.
I will sacrifice a bit of balance for a game that isn't so standard and homogenized any day.
bitethythumb wrote: Blocks vs skirmish, take your pick... The thing I do not get is why did ye olde players not play KoW before AoS... KoW is clearly better than WHFB so why did they not just play that instead of "jumping ship"
Flame bait.
KoW has external balance. It achieves this by being dull as gak with 5 spells, no interactive rolling or phase decisions on the opponents turn, and no unique army wide special rules for each faction to make them feel unique.
I will sacrifice a bit of balance for a game that isn't so standard and homogenized any day.
Have fun casting Zap.
Calls something flame bait and proceeds to do the same. Classic. I mean in turn I could point out how grossly overpowered certain spells were in Fantasy or how the game favoured them and made large areas of the game infinitely inferior : ^ )
I think the biggest kek of this whole discussion is the term "WAAC". Fantasy was a game incredibly open to abuse by WAAC types, while Age of Sigmar is much the same.
Another great kek is how people claim they can't have their "unique" army in Kings of War, despite the fact the game gives you literally dozens of basically "blank slate". I'm sorry that some people need specially created profiles for specific units to construct their own, precious personal narrative.
Another thread in danger of being locked because people are behaving like idiots. Ah well.
My opinion:
There's is a strong element of personal taste here. I gave up on warhammer fantasy from 8th edition because I didn't like the way the game went. When AOS got released, my interest in fantasy returned.
I looked at KOW and I think the rules are well thought out, it is tight, and makes sense, but to me is just a bit soul-less. It doesn't feel like a living breathing world, the models arent as vibrant the imagery not evocative. Now it is true you can use your GW fantasy models playing this game and that to me is part of why it loses something in its brand. It feels like a catch all for disgruntled GW players. The game seems to have been designed to please people who are unhappy with warhammer fantasy, it contains the same races, and recently released the ratmen which is cynically trying to capture skaven players. For this reason it doesn't feel authentic.
AOS for all its faults, feels like a game where the models belong, and the imagery fits (whether you like the new mythologuy or not). It is not a perfect ruleset and if you play it in your gaming group, you will have to house rule it or use one of the many comp systems out there, azyr, clash, etc.
But you get to field ogre thundertusks, screaming bells, dwarf slayers and others in the environment where they belong and have the rules that fit them. You may say this is fluffy rubbish, but as a player I have to connect with the battlefield and my models. It isn't just about pushing models and rolling dice.
AOS is a more fluid system that needs work but to me has much more potential. It has a much more interesting mechanic with warscrolls and their synergies.
KoW has external balance. It achieves this by being dull as gak with 5 spells, no interactive rolling or phase decisions on the opponents turn, and no unique army wide special rules for each faction to make them feel unique.
I will sacrifice a bit of balance for a game that isn't so standard and homogenized any day.
And when I compare gameplay, 2 different dwarf lists in KoW behave more different on the table than all Warhammer armys together.
So the number of special rules and magic spells gives no info about how unique each faction is.....
Why would you butn your armies and all that nonsense? You can use them and play with them? They have rules out for every model they put out. Its really hard to see what all the complaining is about. They obviously had to try something new.
TBH, I have never really liked KoW all that much. It feels extremely bland and oversimplified. It may be good for competitive gaming, but I found it hard to set up interesting and varied games for a narrative campaign with it. I like Warhammer 8th much better, which is still fully playable. AoS is also a huge lot of fun, but not really comparable to KoW or Warhammer as it feels very different. Of the two, I'd go for AoS though.
They are both games where you spend money on toy soldiers which you have to paint yourself. You find an opponent then move your toy soldiers around a tabletop and roll some dice to decide who's the winner.
You can "Forge a narrative" identically with both. ie. Make up stories for you tabletop battle as you roll dice and push your toy soldiers around.
Differences:
KoW has a more rigid rules structure, but is certainly nothing like WFB used to be in max/min'ing and net lists.
AoS has/will have regular releases if you like to keep updating your army in an attempt to stay up to date / competitive
KoW allows you to use figures from any manufacturer.
AoS denies the existence of figures from any other manufacturer.
KoW is a game based on moving rectangular units of troops around. Such as multi-based (on a diaorama), or like WFB on a movement tray
AoS is about moving individual models around. ie. A skirmish
If you spend an identical amount of money on each, you will get a lot more toy soldiers to paint if you are a KoW player.
Which is best? Well, having played both, I'd personally recommend choosing the one that most of your mates play.
You might decide otherwise but if you pick a game no-one you know plays, you're in for a dull time.
For me? No-one I know irl would touch AoS as a serious game with a bargepole so they play KoW and love it.
The one about AoS denying the existence of other miniatures is a lie, AoS has nothing to do with GW store rules... Its clear your list is biased and likely anti GW because a lot of the things you associate a lot of negatives with AoS but most are not actually based on AoS rather the company GW.. Like having to update your army to be competitive is irrelevant as AoS has no army structure and is mainly scenario based, no need for competitive lists or spending equal amounts of money on both armies, you would have more to paint but KoW minis look rather bad compared to GW productions... So quality over quantity.
Put them on square bases and play both. Figure out for yourself with game you like better. They both have free rules so no excuse for trying them both out. Also find out what's played in your area, hard to play a game when you have no opponents. If neither game is played in your area trying starting a group using the free rules of both games then take a vote of which game the group preferred. Find out what game your FLGS supports, are they going to be holding game night or tournaments?
Things In common: They are both games where you spend money on toy soldiers which you have to paint yourself. You find an opponent then move your toy soldiers around a tabletop and roll some dice to decide who's the winner.
You can "Forge a narrative" identically with both. ie. Make up stories for you tabletop battle as you roll dice and push your toy soldiers around.
Differences: KoW has a more rigid rules structure, but is certainly nothing like WFB used to be in max/min'ing and net lists.
AoS has/will have regular releases if you like to keep updating your army in an attempt to stay up to date / competitive
KoW allows you to use figures from any manufacturer.
AoS denies the existence of figures from any other manufacturer.
KoW is a game based on moving rectangular units of troops around. Such as multi-based (on a diaorama), or like WFB on a movement tray
AoS is about moving individual models around. ie. A skirmish
If you spend an identical amount of money on each, you will get a lot more toy soldiers to paint if you are a KoW player.
Which is best? Well, having played both, I'd personally recommend choosing the one that most of your mates play.
You might decide otherwise but if you pick a game no-one you know plays, you're in for a dull time.
For me? No-one I know irl would touch AoS as a serious game with a bargepole so they play KoW and love it.
The one about AoS denying the existence of other miniatures is a lie, AoS has nothing to do with GW store rules... Its clear your list is biased and likely anti GW because a lot of the things you associate a lot of negatives with AoS but most are not actually based on AoS rather the company GW.. Like having to update your army to be competitive is irrelevant as AoS has no army structure and is mainly scenario based, no need for competitive lists or spending equal amounts of money on both armies, you would have more to paint but KoW minis look rather bad compared to GW productions... So quality over quantity.
I wrote that list while on my mobile. I have sausage fingers and wanted to keep things short and easy to spot the main differences.
My points might not all have been as clear as your posts, but I think most Dakka posters understand my point about AoS denying the existence of other minis. We all know if I go to a KoW tournament - even at Mantic HQ - I'll be ok using my GW figures. Can I do the same at a GW store / tournament / HQ? You know the answer. So my post was pretty clear.
As for you saying my list is anti-GW? I'm sure my final verdict said:
Gimgamgoo wrote:
Which is best? Well, having played both, I'd personally recommend choosing the one that most of your mates play.
You might decide otherwise but if you pick a game no-one you know plays, you're in for a dull time.
Which tells the user that the best game to play and enjoy is the one all their mates are currently playing, GW or KoW.
Don't jump to conclusions about me in your holier than thou defense of GW. I'm a teacher, I've run a Warhammer/40K club at the school I teach in for nearly 20 years now. As GW prices have scaled higher, I've seen the club decimated, but still continue it. In fact last July I had a potential new player asking about it. We chatted all lunch and I allowed him to borrow my 40k hardback to take home for the summer holidays. He came back today to see me all excited and telling me what army he now has and arranged a game for next Wednesday lunch. Anti-GW. Yeah, sure I am.
As I stated, I play KoW now rather than WFB, however, my last few units for my KoW Orc army have been GW Orc chariots and GW Black Orcs. Anti-GW? Obviously. /sigh
I also bought an Ophidian Archway whilst spending a pleasant afternoon in a GW store this summer holiday. It'll make a good addition to my Frostgrave scenery.
Do I dislike AoS?
I think it's a good business decision by GW to be able to bring in younger players. However, the miniature scale creep is setting in again making figure sizes less compatible with other manufacturers. Which means maybe less people will purchase GW products for other games. That's GW's loss of sales. I do see it as an attempt with the synergies/buffs etc to try to mix a kind of MtG idea into their gameplay. I don't like it myself, but who am I to say what other people will like, I'll just offer my opinion and try to state facts. I'm not bashing AoS or anyone that plays it in the way some GW players seem to do with their fear of KoW as it's stealing away GWers.
And speaking of jumping to conclusions, I find it a little coincidental that you created this account on the exact day that AoS was announced officially in WD and all the negative flak started in these forums
All you have seem to have done since, is jump down the throat of anyone disliking AoS and defending the game yourself, putting down anything else on the way. I know there's others that do the same. Talys and Jah could paint twice as much as they do if they weren't defending GW on this forum - but they do it eloquently and factually. I have a great deal of respect for those 2 users, despite not always agreeing with what they say. I'm not so sure with your rantings.
"AoS denies the existence of figures from any other manufacturer."
Ah, lets see... the rules and warscrolls for age of sigmar are free as well (that was a bonus point for kow in your post). I can use any minis/proxy them with my free warscrolls just as you can with the free rules for kow. The last two games I played my opponent used other minis to represent gw stuff from the lizardmen.
Really the only 'unboased' differences are the following:
AOS is a Skirmish game, KOW is a unit block based game
And
Personal preference for fluff, asthetics, play style
jonolikespie wrote: So you're all saying I can bring my KoW models to play AoS at an official GW event in a GW store?
nope... Gw has strict preference on using's its own models, as the leading manufacturers in miniatures and the only company with world wide stores it needs to maintain its upper hand in the market, its very stupid as a business model to let you use models from other competitors... Unless you play at a none gw store tournament in a nine gw store where they so not care... But this has nothing to do with AoS and everything to do with GW
jonolikespie wrote: So you're all saying I can bring my KoW models to play AoS at an official GW event in a GW store?
nope... Gw has strict preference on using's its own models, as the leading manufacturers in miniatures and the only company with world wide stores it needs to maintain its upper hand in the market, its very stupid as a business model to let you use models from other competitors... Unless you play at a none gw store tournament in a nine gw store where they so not care... But this has nothing to do with AoS and everything to do with GW
None of that matters to me, the consumer.
KoW allowing other companies models does open up options, regardless of personal opinion on which models are better.
It is a point for KoW/against AoS that you can use other companies models.
Going off on a tangent too, are GW the leading miniature manufacturer? I'd have thought it would be someone like Reaper, Bandai or Tamiya. And the point about GW having worldwide stores is hilarious, as those stores are costing more than half their yearly revenue to keep open. Other companies are simply working with FLGSs, which helps small businesses and the local communities. That is good for the customers.
jonolikespie wrote: So you're all saying I can bring my KoW models to play AoS at an official GW event in a GW store?
nope... Gw has strict preference on using's its own models, as the leading manufacturers in miniatures and the only company with world wide stores it needs to maintain its upper hand in the market, its very stupid as a business model to let you use models from other competitors... Unless you play at a none gw store tournament in a nine gw store where they so not care... But this has nothing to do with AoS and everything to do with GW
None of that matters to me, the consumer.
KoW allowing other companies models does open up options, regardless of personal opinion on which models are better.
It is a point for KoW/against AoS that you can use other companies models.
Going off on a tangent too, are GW the leading miniature manufacturer? I'd have thought it would be someone like Reaper, Bandai or Tamiya. And the point about GW having worldwide stores is hilarious, as those stores are costing more than half their yearly revenue to keep open. Other companies are simply working with FLGSs, which helps small businesses and the local communities. That is good for the customers.
While there are A LOT of manufacturers that are way ahead of GW in miniature production I know for sure Gundam model company had like 600 million dollars profit or something recently. So that is one company way ahead of GW already but there are plenty more, especially for the historical market.
A quick google suggested Tamiya only made 80 million Euro in 2014, so definitely lagging behind GW there but they have been around since 1946 according to Wikipedia and you can by their stuff in a lot of toy stores, giving them a much broader distribution network than GW.
Sorry that's probably really off topic, but I adamantly stand by my point that GWs reasoning for doing something (like banning 3rd party models) is completely irrelevant if that thing potentially detracts from someone's hobby experience (like banning 3rd party models).
And that it being GWs policy does impact AoS, since any GW policy is enforced on any GW game in a GW controlled environment regardless of if it is an AoS policy or not..
That was an attack on aos players... otherwise you wouldn't have had to post that. People enjoy this game and im not sure why people cant leave those people be. There is not one completely positive thread on dakka for aos because pf the naysayers - many of which never played the game or only played once.
You know what they say
"If you have nothing good to say, don't say anything at...."
Automatically Appended Next Post: Jonolikespie,
Most people play in flgs tournaments or with their personal group. You can play any models for aos at these events. Yes at gencon or warhammer world you cannot, but 95% of consumers and gamers don't make those conventions or major tournaments anyway.
455_PWR wrote: There is not one completely positive thread on dakka for aos because of the naysayers
I know right, it's almost like people have opinions and are entitled to share them here on Dakka. As I said above, it was a joke, I'm sorry if you took offence at it.
And irrelevant of how many people play in their FLGS it is still official GW policy not to use 3rd party minis. There are a great deal of people this rule will not effect, but there are some it will and it is a point against AoS because of that.
jonolikespie wrote: So you're all saying I can bring my KoW models to play AoS at an official GW event in a GW store?
nope... Gw has strict preference on using's its own models, as the leading manufacturers in miniatures and the only company with world wide stores it needs to maintain its upper hand in the market, its very stupid as a business model to let you use models from other competitors... Unless you play at a none gw store tournament in a nine gw store where they so not care... But this has nothing to do with AoS and everything to do with GW
None of that matters to me, the consumer.
KoW allowing other companies models does open up options, regardless of personal opinion on which models are better.
It is a point for KoW/against AoS that you can use other companies models.
Going off on a tangent too, are GW the leading miniature manufacturer? I'd have thought it would be someone like Reaper, Bandai or Tamiya. And the point about GW having worldwide stores is hilarious, as those stores are costing more than half their yearly revenue to keep open. Other companies are simply working with FLGSs, which helps small businesses and the local communities. That is good for the customers.
While there are A LOT of manufacturers that are way ahead of GW in miniature production I know for sure Gundam model company had like 600 million dollars profit or something recently. So that is one company way ahead of GW already but there are plenty more, especially for the historical market.
Gundam are not produced for tabletop wargaming, and GW does not do historicals, so neither of those examples really hold water...
Gundam produce everything from toy keychain fobs, to hyper-detailed scale model kits, so of course they are going to have a broader appeal, and thus more sales than GW...
none of which has anything to do with the topic at hand...
we are talking about two Fantasy 28mm wargames...
which Gundam models fit that category???
as for historical, which historical wargame miniature company brought in £120 million last year???
the only historical 28mm wargaming miniatures who's plastics are equal to GW's plastic quality is Perry Miniatures...
i highly doubt they did £120m in sales last year...
quality-wise, they are great, but every other company's plastic models pale in comparison, from what i've seen...
just take a look at Mantic's own Kingdom of Men minis:(...
as far as i'm concerned, the only company that can be compared to GW for plastics is Wyrd who have high enough production numbers, a game, a setting that is close enough to Fantasy, and quality plastics that rival GW...
personally, i don't think that their plastics are appreciably better, but they are more true-scale, which some people will prefer to GW's heroic-scale style, but i would say that they are on equal ground for quality...
@jonolikespie: i highly doubt that Reaper came close to GW's numbers last year, even with bringing in a few miliion on each Bones Kickstarter...
just the fact that they had to run Kickstarters shows that they can't compete with GW sales-wise...
both companies get huge marks against them for the choice to use Bones and Finecast, though...
where GW wins out is with their plastics...
i have a ton of Reaper metal minis, and there is not a single one that i would rather paint instead of a GW mini, which is why there is not a single Reaper mini in my gallery...
there are smaller companies doing Fantasy minis that appeal to me way more than Reaper, like Freebooter...
personally, i think that KoW allowing any manufacturers models is a smart move, but then they don't have to worry about in-store play, since they don't have any stores...
i think KoW would be dead in the water if they only allowed their minis in the game...
they still haven't produced a single mini that has made me reach for my wallet, and i buy a lot of different manufacturers' minis...
i can easily understand why GW would not allow non-GW minis for play in their stores, since the painted minis on the table are part of what promotes sales...
you may say it's a point against AoS, but promoting Reaper minis in a GW store wouldn't make sense...
why send people off to buy your competitor's minis???
at the end of the day, if you are going to play in a GW store, you use GW minis...
if you play at a club, you have the freedom to use whatever you please...
seems fair to me...
jonolikespie wrote: Again, you can give a perfectly good explanation as to why GW have that policy in place, but it is still a policy that is bad for us, the customers.
not in my opinion, it isn't...
if it is for you, fair enough...
i happen to prefer the minis to be used as intended, and as fits the fluff...
the whole point of a mini, to me, is to evoke the setting that they belong in...
different strokes for different folks, and all that...
personally, i wouldn't try to shoehorn a Reaper mini into the AoS setting, just as i wouldn't try and shoehorn a GW mini into the Warlord setting...
for me, aesthetic is everything, but i do realize that i am probably in the minority there...
jonolikespie wrote: Again, you can give a perfectly good explanation as to why GW have that policy in place, but it is still a policy that is bad for us, the customers.
not in my opinion, it isn't... if it is for you, fair enough... i happen to prefer the minis to be used as intended, and as fits the fluff... the whole point of a mini, to me, is to evoke the setting that they belong in... different strokes for different folks, and all that...
personally, i wouldn't try to shoehorn a Reaper mini into the AoS setting, just as i wouldn't try and shoehorn a GW mini into the Warlord setting... for me, aesthetic is everything, but i do realize that i am probably in the minority there...
cheers jah
That argument falls apart with the Orks having literally junk for vehicles and GW only supplying a few variants, or the Imperial Guard having untold amounts of soldiers from Cave Men with clubs to Cadians etc. GW do not have the models to make most Guard and Ork armies only giving a us a minor selection.
Are there any survivors of Nippon in AOS? Model wise no but that does not mean they do not exist. Already I can see a reason to use Samurai models in an AOS human army and it's perfectly fluffy.
There are a lot of situations where you can use other companies models and be well with the fluff.
Also Mantic does not produce kingdom of man models.
@Swastakowey: sorry about that, i meant Basileans from KoW, but they are not really historicals anyway...
one thing to keep in mind, is that i was not presenting an argument in that bit you quoted, but an opinion...
i am a purist, plain and simple...
i have zero desire to mix manufacturers...
GW make enough Guard models to satisfy me, especially since FW is a part of GW...
i have no desire to model caveman Guard, but am a huge fan of Elysians, and Cadian upgrade packs...
Edit: the caveman Guard, and the other regiments that have only had a single drawing each, do not have fluff for me to try and evoke a moment from with my miniatures...
Orks are the scratch builder's dream, but which vehicles have rules without models these days???
GW used to make Nippon models, but have never expanded upon that area in the fluff...
the closest that they got was a Tzeentch story set in the Celestial Kingdom years ago...
for all intents and purposes, Nippon is not a part of the fluff, but simply a name on the map, which doesn't exist anymore...
one thing that i have noticed in your collection is that you use a lot of proxies, which automatically puts you at odds with GW's "use our models" policy...
your big gripe about being able to see pikes behind a hill, and thus have them targeted for shooting is one obvious example...
you are using Pike & Shot models, which the AoS rules are not written for...
there are not even any pike armed models in the game, let alone any marching with raised pikes, so i can see why you would run into issues with the line of sight rules...
it is a bit much to expect GW to have rules that take into account another manufacturer's models, when that is contrary to their design philosophy...
if you want to shoehorn your proxy models into the game, you have to expect a bit of hassle rule-wise...
"officially" there are no Samurai in AoS, so that is not really fluffy, but if you wanted to make it up, that is your prerogative...
it is just a stretch to expect to be able to use your Samurai in a GW store or event, when they don't exist in the setting according to GW...
at this point, Empire and Brettonians are the only old human regions represented by rules, and Legacy rules at that...
we don't know much about what is happening with regular humans yet...
As has been stated repeatedly, GW view themselves as a miniature company, so the official policy on using GW minis isn't exactly surprising. You wouldn't buy a McD's and try to sit in a KFC to eat it!
I would argue Mantic don't allow you to use other minis - they actually require it. They have army lists for forces they have produced zero minis for. Some of their sci-fi stuff is pretty good, but their fantasy range - with the singular exception of zombies - is absolutely atrocious. Yes, GW stuff is more expensive than most, but as far as tabletop miniatures are concerned, they are a premium brand. Mantic's plastics wouldn't look anachronistic on a Heroquest board.
But as the GW mini policy effectively only applies at Warhammer World and in GW stores which are the minority of places where gaming takes place, I fail to see how this is somehow either anti-GW or pro-mantic or 'bad for the consumer' when it come to deciding between the two systems.
jonolikespie wrote: Quality of the models themselves is a purely subjective thing. Personally I think a lot of Mantic's range looks a lot better than the Sigmarines.
You mean aesthetic quality, I meant technical quality. One is subjective, the other not so much.
Whether you love/hate the style of GW minis, you really cannot argue the quality of the product. PP are the closest competitors on that front but they still aren't there yet. (Corvus Belli don't use anything other than cast metal so I'm not including them here!)
A lot of new Mantic stuff would have been considered amateurish a decade ago.
If you're using minis as a factor between the two games, then GW 'wins'.
Because if you really care about being able to play a tournament or whatever from either system in an official setting, Mantic don't care and GW do - so logically using GW minis is the better option as it doesn't restrict you in any way, whereas using someone else's could.
It's a bit like dating. Looks (minis and what the game looks like) are usually the first point of attraction, but the important thing is compatibility (rules/enjoyment)m in the long term.
And getting along with their friends (other people who like the game).
Playing KoW with Mantic minis is my idea of hobby hell, but I have no idea what the OP wants out of a game or the hobby in general, so to recommend anything other than giving both systems a fair crack of the whip would be disingenuous.
bitethythumb wrote: Blocks vs skirmish, take your pick... The thing I do not get is why did ye olde players not play KoW before AoS... KoW is clearly better than WHFB so why did they not just play that instead of "jumping ship"
Well whfb while bloated and unbalanceed was still acceptable and had an advantage of representing warhammer fluff. AoS on the other hand is too bad rules wise for me to accept and the fluff is some cartooony warcraftish yo magical oruks and ogores joke of a setting. Now both AoS and KoW are simple but KoW has 100x more depth and balance while AoS is "fix it yourself" trash, no brainer imo.
I'm working with the IoB Elves, and added 10 White Lions.
Could I play a reasonable game of KoW with this as an army?
Mage
Prince on Griffon(can this even be used?)
10 Seaguard
10 Swordmasters
10 White Lions
5 Reavers
And unit wise, would units such as sword masters and white lions pretty much count as the same model block? ie: elves w/ handweapons, or are there different strength/specialty elf units in KoW?
Seaguard start at 20 man in KoW, but using them as spearmen they are 170 points.
Swordmasters and white lions kinda fill the same role and would both be counted as palace guard, at 105 points each.
The 5 reavers are 145.
The mage starts at 75 but has extra spells that can be bought, for +45, +30, +10 and +15.
Griffons don't appear to be a thing but you can use the dragon rules for them easy enough so that's 310.
All up that's a 1000 point list if you add an item or two to the lord and a spell or two to the mage. The game supposedly doesn't work the best under 1000, but 1000-2000 is a solid, if on the smaller side, game.
I'd say jump over the the KoW forum for that question, but the short version is "no", because KoW requires balanced composition of army lists: a regiment unlocks smaller "troop" sized units as well as a hero/monster/or warmachine.
You'd need to buff at least two of those units to 20-man regiments to unlock the ability to use those heroes.
judgedoug wrote: I'd say jump over the the KoW forum for that question, but the short version is "no", because KoW requires balanced composition of army lists: a regiment unlocks smaller "troop" sized units as well as a hero/monster/or warmachine.
You'd need to buff at least two of those units to 20-man regiments to unlock the ability to use those heroes.
Although you can have 10 men on a 20 man base if you do it nicely. It's doable but you are better having at least more than half required.
Remember the new v2 rule book suggests allowing use of troops without the need to "unlock" them with regiments/hordes for smaller games around 750 points.
My wife and I had loads of great games of v1 kow with 1250 points or lower when there was no "unlocking" of troops. Most of our units were blocks of 10 infantry and 5 cavalry. So much more fun with more units and a varied selection imo.
I would say with the way they play, do both, they are not mutually exclusive games. I do not believe AoS is a "skirmish" game, I have yet to play or see a game that hasn't had as many or more models than we used in WHFB. with 1" separation you aren't far from being a block of some sort anyhow. That being said, they are both free rules, use extremely similar (or the exact same) models and are really nothing alike in the itches they scratch. Neither is really better in the "fluff" category, but I would give the nod to KoW (but then the #1 thing I hate about AoS is the IMO obscenely terrible fluff) mechanically I found that AoS plays "faster" but only when playing with friends and then after already deciding how we are handling certain issues. The best part of this is that it really is not an either/or question, If you didnt like WHFB there is a good chance you probably wont much like KoW. Our group has that dynamic, the ones that didnt like WHFB dont like KoW (though for full disclosure those same 4 utterly despise everything about AoS) They do have some different asthetics, but I would strongly recommend playing both.
jonolikespie wrote: Quality of the models themselves is a purely subjective thing. Personally I think a lot of Mantic's range looks a lot better than the Sigmarines.
Regardless, if you prefer GW minis then you are entirely welcome to use them in KoW. The opposite is not true.
I find it amazing how some people still fail to see this as a point against AoS. It's so, so simple...
jonolikespie wrote: Quality of the models themselves is a purely subjective thing. Personally I think a lot of Mantic's range looks a lot better than the Sigmarines.
Regardless, if you prefer GW minis then you are entirely welcome to use them in KoW. The opposite is not true.
I find it amazing how some people still fail to see this as a point against AoS. It's so, so simple...
Unless you're playing in a GW store, you can use whatever models you want in whatever game you want. I really don't see why you can't use a Tonka truck as Nagash if you choose to do so. Or a penny as a Dryad. If you're playing in a GW store, it's only fair that you're playing GW games/models anyhow: I mean, how else do you want them to pay their bills?
Since both games have free rules, just download the rules and try out the games with counters. If you're into models, look at which models suit your tastes more, because one man's awesome is another's awful. If you're into fluff and campaigns, read the wikis on the storylines and see which style of story you enjoy more. And look at what other people that are in your area play and enjoy, because at the end of the day, these aren't single player games.
jonolikespie wrote: Quality of the models themselves is a purely subjective thing. Personally I think a lot of Mantic's range looks a lot better than the Sigmarines.
Regardless, if you prefer GW minis then you are entirely welcome to use them in KoW. The opposite is not true.
I find it amazing how some people still fail to see this as a point against AoS. It's so, so simple...
jonolikespie wrote: Quality of the models themselves is a purely subjective thing. Personally I think a lot of Mantic's range looks a lot better than the Sigmarines.
Regardless, if you prefer GW minis then you are entirely welcome to use them in KoW. The opposite is not true.
I find it amazing how some people still fail to see this as a point against AoS. It's so, so simple...
Unless you're playing in a GW store, you can use whatever models you want in whatever game you want. I really don't see why you can't use a Tonka truck as Nagash if you choose to do so. Or a penny as a Dryad. If you're playing in a GW store, it's only fair that you're playing GW games/models anyhow: I mean, how else do you want them to pay their bills?
Since both games have free rules, just download the rules and try out the games with counters. If you're into models, look at which models suit your tastes more, because one man's awesome is another's awful. If you're into fluff and campaigns, read the wikis on the storylines and see which style of story you enjoy more. And look at what other people that are in your area play and enjoy, because at the end of the day, these aren't single player games.
Very well said, but unfortunately that doesn't quite address what was mentioned. Of course you can defend that GW is a miniature company and that they must defend and promote their models if they are all that they have (which imo, it is, at least fantasy-wise) but then should we start addressing Mantic as a rules company?
The point being addressed is a difference in attitude (philosophy, perhaps?) between both companies that flows through to their respective games inside their stores.
I thought it addressed what was mentioned. Aos is more of a casual game. There are very few gw only stores, and almost every flgs or private group here in wisconsin will let you proxy minis. I know people who have proxied stuff in 40k tournaments (flgs tournaments)to learn how units play before spending their money on official minis.
So basically the gw minis only comment is moot... unless you only play at a gw store or grand tournaments (which most kow and aos players don't). Im not sure why this argument continues...
Yeah, I don't play at a GW store as there isn't one anywhere remotely close enough to conveniently drive to on a regular basis. I am free to proxy whatever models I want when I play AoS with friends or at every local FLGS I've been to. In that respect, AoS is no different from Kings of War.
Requiring GW models to play GW games is only a requirement if you're playing on a GW owned and operated gaming table (such as in a GW retail store) OR if you're playing at a tournament that has instituted similar requirements. The Warhammer 40k rules "assume" you're using Citadel Miniatures, but don't require that you do so. The Age of Sigmar rules are basically the same. Games Workshop retail stores and official events, on the other hand, DO require GW Miniatures.
The point being addressed is a difference in attitude (philosophy, perhaps?) between both companies that flows through to their respective games inside their stores.
Except Mantic have no retail premises. Nobody other than GW does.
So they aren't in a position to enforce any kind of retail premise rules like that even if they wanted to - but Mantic (and PP) do enforce an in-house minis rule at their official events.
Although current event packs for KoWdon't have this requirement.
Which probably has absolutely nothing to do with 9 KoW army lists for which they produce no models.
The point being addressed is a difference in attitude (philosophy, perhaps?) between both companies that flows through to their respective games inside their stores.
Except Mantic have no retail premises. Nobody other than GW does.
So they aren't in a position to enforce any kind of retail premise rules like that even if they wanted to - but Mantic (and PP) do enforce an in-house minis rule at their official events.
Although current event packs for KoWdon't have this requirement.
Which probably has absolutely nothing to do with 9 KoW army lists for which they produce no models.
Mantic have said they will never produce Kingdom of Man models since they would rather people be creative and build what they want for all the various humans cultures it's supposed to represent. Unless this changes they will never enforce models. Even flames of war allows you to use 50% other manufacturers models in their tournaments. Mantic does not care (source, our club is having a sponsored tournament end of the year and their current pack says all models are allowed). To top it off GW is the only company that tries to make it a rule to use their models (in my 7th edition book they have a little rule at the beginning about citadel models or something).
Anyway, mantic will not be making a kingdom of man army because they are the imperial guard of the setting. Numerous, varied and full of flavour. No one company can cater to such a faction without doing a GW and pretending they no longer exist.
Swastakowey wrote: Mantic have said they will never produce Kingdom of Man models since they would rather people be creative and build what they want for all the various humans cultures it's supposed to represent. Unless this changes they will never enforce models.
You hear "we love the community", I hear "we haven't a clue where to start, so let's spin it".
I specifically said that KoW has no mini requirements. (Dreadball does though - I couldn't find any other Mantic event packs.)
People are implying GW are somehow ethically corrupt for wanting people to use GW minis to play GW games in GW stores and events, whilst intimating that Mantic are the saviours of the people, where anything goes.
They aren't.
Mantic aren't even trying to hide the fact they are in a massive grab for disillusioned WFB players right now.
Enforcing any kind of 'Mantic minis only' rule would sabotage that.
It's not philanthropic, it's as entirely bottom-line driven as any accusation levelled at GW's attitudes.
Play whichever system you and your friends prefer, but GW minis is the logical choice though - because GWdo care what you use, Mantic don't - so GW minis allow you to do both, unless you never have any intention of playing a GW game.
(Also, you wouldn't be relying on a successful Kickstarter every time you wanted new models for your army.)
Swastakowey wrote: Mantic have said they will never produce Kingdom of Man models since they would rather people be creative and build what they want for all the various humans cultures it's supposed to represent. Unless this changes they will never enforce models.
You hear "we love the community", I hear "we haven't a clue where to start, so let's spin it".
I specifically said that KoW has no mini requirements. (Dreadball does though - I couldn't find any other Mantic event packs.)
People are implying GW are somehow ethically corrupt for wanting people to use GW minis to play GW games in GW stores and events, whilst intimating that Mantic are the saviours of the people, where anything goes.
They aren't.
Mantic aren't even trying to hide the fact they are in a massive grab for disillusioned WFB players right now.
Enforcing any kind of 'Mantic minis only' rule would sabotage that.
It's not philanthropic, it's as entirely bottom-line driven as any accusation levelled at GW's attitudes.
Play whichever system you and your friends prefer, but GW minis is the logical choice though - because GWdo care what you use, Mantic don't - so GW minis allow you to do both, unless you never have any intention of playing a GW game.
(Also, you wouldn't be relying on a successful Kickstarter every time you wanted new models for your army.)
No they have said this since the start... Anyway
I was merely stating they choose not to enforce it. It's a choice. They even in person have mentioned their vision of Kingdom of man and what companies make great kingdom of man models. You can argue all you want that they cant enforce it etc with some weak arguments but it's your word vs theirs and frankly why would anyone believe that they don't enforce it because they cant?
They don't have to hide it, because again they don't care. They are hobbyists first and while their flavor of armies are very different to GW ones they don't have to pretend they are being original like GW is trying to do.
It's simply a difference in attitude. Most gaming companies are pretty open and frank about everything and are far more lenient. You can tell that they are gamers. When it comes to GW employees it's like talking to a brick wall. I saw a GW employee tell a kid to L2P against eldar. Another GW employee took Smaug to a tournament and ate all the players while defensively talking about how beatable it is. My main point was you can try pin it down to some kind of odd incompetence, but ultimately it's just a difference in attitude towards players between the companies. I mean, Manitc doesnt charge me more because I dwell in NZ for example. Again, different attitudes.
RoperPG wrote: People are implying GW are somehow ethically corrupt for wanting people to use GW minis to play GW games in GW stores and events
No, they are ethically corrupt for trying to IP bully 3rd party manufacturers out of business by claiming they own the rights to use Roman Numberals or arrows on models. Not allowing people to use other models is simply a policy that is restrictive to us, the consumers, and therefore bad.
RoperPG wrote: Mantic aren't even trying to hide the fact they are in a massive grab for disillusioned WFB players right now.
Of course they are, they are the people who made Warhammer Fantasy originally and WHFB is now dead. KoW is in every sense it's spiritual successor and they are running with that.
RoperPG wrote: Enforcing any kind of 'Mantic minis only' rule would sabotage that.
It's not philanthropic, it's as entirely bottom-line driven as any accusation levelled at GW's attitudes.
Regardless of what the reasoning behind it is (and I would argue the reason is because Mantic is a company run by hobbyist and gamers for hobbyists and gamers, rather than a company of accountants run for shareholders) it is a policy that allows a lot of freedom for us, the consumers, and is therefore good.
RoperPG wrote: You hear "we love the community", I hear "we haven't a clue where to start, so let's spin it".
Mantic can't match the prices on historical human models because of how competitive the market is, and they've said that publically. They'll release their own human factions (Basileans, Northern Alliance, Ophidians) with a fantasy aesthetic instead.
RoperPG wrote: Mantic aren't even trying to hide the fact they are in a massive grab for disillusioned WFB players right now.
If there's a market for a product (mass-battle fantasy) someone's going to meet that demand. GW have chosen not to, nor do they have a divine right to. What, you would prefer that collective economic forces just tell mass-battle players to go themselves? Even if GW wasn't canning the Old World, it has no moral or ethical right to "own" either the market or the tropes behind the game. I'm unclear, what point is being made here?
RoperPG wrote: Enforcing any kind of 'Mantic minis only' rule would sabotage that.
It's not philanthropic, it's as entirely bottom-line driven as any accusation levelled at GW's attitudes.
Of course it is, because the idea is stupid for a game (mass-battle fantasy) where there is a strong competition for models and 99.9% of games are played in unofficial venues. There' much better ways to use resources than to fight an unwinnable fight. Getting people playing the game is the most important thing at this stage in the game/business lifecycle.
RoperPG wrote: but GW minis is the logical choice though - because GWdo care what you use, Mantic don't - so GW minis allow you to do both, unless you never have any intention of playing a GW game.
That's a UK-centric view that has no value outside of the UK, because the UK's the only place GW has enough shop coverage for that to make a difference.
RoperPG wrote: (Also, you wouldn't be relying on a successful Kickstarter every time you wanted new models for your army.)
From one of Ronnie's video blogs: that Mantic stock with the KS model because the % of backers that are new e-mail addresses to their database is so high. Yes, upfront funding is a great boon to a business and they'd be daft to forego it, but it's the marketing reach of KS that is the big prize. There are already units being released for KoW that weren't KS-funded, and there's a load more on the way.
I've read through the KoW rules and I like the sound of them. Tried AoS and found it wanting. Nothing about the game system was good and the way GW handled old customers is well shocking.
The good news for KoW is that the unit footprint (movent tray) is what matters. So you can use round base movement trays and use AoS models. Or just carry on using your existing WHF forces.
It would have been nice fore GW to at least continue to include square bases when they rebox their existing products.
I have played both games. I prefer Age of Sigmar. My concerns with Kings of War...
Kings of War is a blatant rip off of Warhammer Fantasy Battle. It has a few rules changes that speed up play, but you sacrifice a great deal of depth, the background of WFB is one of the primary reasons I played. The background to KOW is really sad. The writing is done by someone who does not use english as a primary language. When you base your whole game and ethos on what others have done, and you pull that off badly, what kind of future do you have? Every new release by Mantic is crowd funded which shows that they do not have the capacity to manufacture things when they want or need to. The models for KOW are terrible. Just about no one I know uses them, so you end up using GW models to play. So when you have a company whose models are god awful, who can't design anything on their own, who can't write or produce beautiful books, who's background is copied from a game that is no longer being developed (there won't be anything new for them to steal), who has to use crowd funding to produce anything, I just don't see a future for KOW. My prediction is that as the years go by AOS will become stronger and KOW will be played by old gamers that have been playing with the same guys for years and buy all their stuff online.Since they aren't the flgs target market, stores will end up supporting AOS because it will bring new blood, new players, and sales. KOW won't.
AOS on the other hand, is much misunderstood The rules don't live on the 4 basic pages, they live on the Warscrolls and the scenarios in the hardcover books. AOS plays just fine if you are playing with friends. It breaks down on a competitive level, but there is an easy fix. A bunch of guys have created Project Point Cost, and these rules balance armies quite nicely for AOS. AOS is a skirmish game. It does not have units wheeling and marching in ranks. I am an old school player who loved WFB. But guess what, I also loved Leviathan, Chronopia, D&D Battlesystem, Warzone (the first edition), Confrontation. You get the point. Change happens. Here's the thing, if I wanted to play WFB I still own the game and could play it. I get the feeling that a lot of the people who have moved to KOW have done so mainly to spite GW. Like someone else brought up earlier, would anyone even be thinking about moving to KOW if WFB was still supported? WFB had hundreds of spells, KOW has 6. WFB allowed character customization and had hundreds of cool magic items, KOW not so much. It's Drazhoath the Ashen or silly names like Brakki Barkka for Chaos Dwarfs. What you should probably do is buy a copy of WFB 8th ed. and play it. You can also play AOS if you like. Who knows, in the future GW could decide to do Advanced AOS with formations and everything and crush Mantic like a bug!
Smellingsalts wrote: I have played both games. I prefer Age of Sigmar. My concerns with Kings of War...
Kings of War is a blatant rip off of Warhammer Fantasy Battle. It has a few rules changes that speed up play, but you sacrifice a great deal of depth, the background of WFB is one of the primary reasons I played. The background to KOW is really sad. The writing is done by someone who does not use english as a primary language. When you base your whole game and ethos on what others have done, and you pull that off badly, what kind of future do you have? Every new release by Mantic is crowd funded which shows that they do not have the capacity to manufacture things when they want or need to. The models for KOW are terrible. Just about no one I know uses them, so you end up using GW models to play. So when you have a company whose models are god awful, who can't design anything on their own, who can't write or produce beautiful books, who's background is copied from a game that is no longer being developed (there won't be anything new for them to steal), who has to use crowd funding to produce anything, I just don't see a future for KOW. My prediction is that as the years go by AOS will become stronger and KOW will be played by old gamers that have been playing with the same guys for years and buy all their stuff online.Since they aren't the flgs target market, stores will end up supporting AOS because it will bring new blood, new players, and sales. KOW won't.
AOS on the other hand, is much misunderstood The rules don't live on the 4 basic pages, they live on the Warscrolls and the scenarios in the hardcover books. AOS plays just fine if you are playing with friends. It breaks down on a competitive level, but there is an easy fix. A bunch of guys have created Project Point Cost, and these rules balance armies quite nicely for AOS. AOS is a skirmish game. It does not have units wheeling and marching in ranks. I am an old school player who loved WFB. But guess what, I also loved Leviathan, Chronopia, D&D Battlesystem, Warzone (the first edition), Confrontation. You get the point. Change happens. Here's the thing, if I wanted to play WFB I still own the game and could play it. I get the feeling that a lot of the people who have moved to KOW have done so mainly to spite GW. Like someone else brought up earlier, would anyone even be thinking about moving to KOW if WFB was still supported? WFB had hundreds of spells, KOW has 6. WFB allowed character customization and had hundreds of cool magic items, KOW not so much. It's Drazhoath the Ashen or silly names like Brakki Barkka for Chaos Dwarfs. What you should probably do is buy a copy of WFB 8th ed. and play it. You can also play AOS if you like. Who knows, in the future GW could decide to do Advanced AOS with formations and everything and crush Mantic like a bug!
Smellingsalts wrote: I have played both games. I prefer Age of Sigmar. My concerns with Kings of War...
Kings of War is a blatant rip off of Warhammer Fantasy Battle. It has a few rules changes that speed up play, but you sacrifice a great deal of depth, the background of WFB is one of the primary reasons I played. The background to KOW is really sad. The writing is done by someone who does not use english as a primary language. When you base your whole game and ethos on what others have done, and you pull that off badly, what kind of future do you have? Every new release by Mantic is crowd funded which shows that they do not have the capacity to manufacture things when they want or need to. The models for KOW are terrible. Just about no one I know uses them, so you end up using GW models to play. So when you have a company whose models are god awful, who can't design anything on their own, who can't write or produce beautiful books, who's background is copied from a game that is no longer being developed (there won't be anything new for them to steal), who has to use crowd funding to produce anything, I just don't see a future for KOW. My prediction is that as the years go by AOS will become stronger and KOW will be played by old gamers that have been playing with the same guys for years and buy all their stuff online.Since they aren't the flgs target market, stores will end up supporting AOS because it will bring new blood, new players, and sales. KOW won't.
AOS on the other hand, is much misunderstood The rules don't live on the 4 basic pages, they live on the Warscrolls and the scenarios in the hardcover books. AOS plays just fine if you are playing with friends. It breaks down on a competitive level, but there is an easy fix. A bunch of guys have created Project Point Cost, and these rules balance armies quite nicely for AOS. AOS is a skirmish game. It does not have units wheeling and marching in ranks. I am an old school player who loved WFB. But guess what, I also loved Leviathan, Chronopia, D&D Battlesystem, Warzone (the first edition), Confrontation. You get the point. Change happens. Here's the thing, if I wanted to play WFB I still own the game and could play it. I get the feeling that a lot of the people who have moved to KOW have done so mainly to spite GW. Like someone else brought up earlier, would anyone even be thinking about moving to KOW if WFB was still supported? WFB had hundreds of spells, KOW has 6. WFB allowed character customization and had hundreds of cool magic items, KOW not so much. It's Drazhoath the Ashen or silly names like Brakki Barkka for Chaos Dwarfs. What you should probably do is buy a copy of WFB 8th ed. and play it. You can also play AOS if you like. Who knows, in the future GW could decide to do Advanced AOS with formations and everything and crush Mantic like a bug!
*slow clap*
I was about to tell sing your life theirs was one of the best posts I had seen in a while, but then I continued to scroll down to the slow clap gif and it made my day
However, i think you're wrong about your prediction of AoS moving ahead with KoW having nothing to copy. Stormcast? Why not try Mantic's new Gold Elementals! Cygnar and Kaldor? We just made some new steam bot rules for factions that are totally not copied from them!
My other dislike of KoW is what I'm hearing about their storyline driven by the players. That's awesome on paper but what happens when the not-lizardmen are swarms by the not-WoC? Do they officially kill off that line in the fluff or will they constantly lie about the win rates so that no faction crushes another?
Besides these misgivings though, KoW is a good game and is solving the problem for players who want points and ranks in their games. That's what the hobby's about, everyone enjoying themselves.
Kings of War is nothing like Warhammer. Like nothing at all like it. I think the only thing even close to similar would be Bretonians but Bretonians are hardly an original theme anyway.
As for the story being driven by players, they will have campaigns with REASONABLE goals. For example I think the next one if Evil wins they open a rift or something and if good wins they get a major watch tower in a strategic location, both of which have ramifications to the fluff (can;t remember the outcome details). Unlike GW campaigns of the past one side winning is not a stupidly huge blow to another side.
Also the not Lizardmen are nothing like GW Lizardmen. It's also worth noting Lizardmen aren't native to GW... Same goes for all the KOW/Warhammer Factions.
Remember GW stuff is hardly original. It's hard if you only see GW logos everywhere I know but bear with me here... gerneric fantasy worlds with a twist is what 99% of Fantasy is. To say one is copying the other is silly.
A quick read of their rule book will show you very quickly the vast differences in the worlds of the 2 factions.
As for AOS it will fail. The only reason it is still alive is simply because it happened to have a GW logo. Without that logo it would already be dead, well more dead than it already is...
Ah, very good points there.(Except for that last bit but you're rather upset at the anti-KoW talk, so no blame there)
That's good to know that the player affected story will have limits on it, that's good progression.
Nothing's original but KoW does have heavy inspiration from Warhammer. The new book even has "The game of fantasy battles!" on the cover. Not sure what a debate there can prove though. Mantic's just trying to get good business, hard to argue otherwise.
Baron Klatz wrote: Ah, very good points there.(Except for that last bit but you're rather upset at the anti-KoW talk, so no blame there)
That's good to know that the player affected story will have limits on it, that's good progression.
Nothing's original but KoW does have heavy inspiration from Warhammer. The new book even has "The game of fantasy battles!" on the cover. Not sure what a debate there can prove though. Mantic's just trying to get good business, hard to argue otherwise.
No... I have always been adamant about the AOS failing. I give it 3 years unless it goes through heavy changes.
As for originality... how does it borrow from Warhammer? It looks to me more like a generic fantasy world with a twist. "The game of fantasy battles" is just a poke at GW because mantic grew by about 300% as a result of AOS (and as a result sold out big time on their rule books). Nothing to do with copying of the setting or anything...
Again, if you give it a read it's not really like Warhammer at all.
Swastakowey, I ask this with genuine curiosity (I know tone is lost in posts so trying to make that abundantly clear... this is not an attempt to troll or any of that other nonsense).
If KoW is such a quality game why did people not flock to it prior to GW pulling the plug on 8th edition? Edit - actually, I think you were not arguing KoW was a quality game, just that it was different, so this might not be answerable/appropriate (in which case, sorry )
And, apologies as I guess this is two questions rather than one, if the GW brand/logo is so strong... won't that keep AoS alive and kicking despite its current ruleset?
I honestly think both games can survive harmoniously (especially with the surge of circle-based movement trays) as they scratch different gaming itches. I just cannot find anyone by me familiar with KoW who is willing to run me through a couple games, so I have not actually experienced the game beyond the glancing through the digital rules.
quiestdeus wrote: Swastakowey, I ask this with genuine curiosity (I know tone is lost in posts so trying to make that abundantly clear... this is not an attempt to troll or any of that other nonsense).
If KoW is such a quality game why did people not flock to it prior to GW pulling the plug on 8th edition? Edit - actually, I think you were not arguing KoW was a quality game, just that it was different, so this might not be answerable/appropriate (in which case, sorry )
And, apologies as I guess this is two questions rather than one, if the GW brand/logo is so strong... won't that keep AoS alive and kicking despite its current ruleset?
I honestly think both games can survive harmoniously (especially with the surge of circle-based movement trays) as they scratch different gaming itches. I just cannot find anyone by me familiar with KoW who is willing to run me through a couple games, so I have not actually experienced the game beyond the glancing through the digital rules.
My argument was about the fluff yes rather than the game. I didn't like warhammer fantasy battle. Not my kind of game. I joined Kings of War as soon as V2 came out.
Well the GW logo is meaning less and less nowadays. But one thing to note is that whenever GW releases something of moderate size (not like their airbrush line nobody talks about) it gets attention. Especially an update. AOS was both of those and as a result AOS got a head start on things. If another company released this game it would have been laughed out of business. I think the brand was enough to get people interested but I don't think it's enough to keep people playing what is essentially a marine v chaos game with some other factions on the side.
As for the games it always depends on the area. As with all wargames it's not like they are against each other (most wargames feature other companies models or terrain here and so on. GW is the only real exception here). They are totally different games.
The age of kickstarter is what I believe is really going to kill AoS and could do some serious harm to KoW as well. There are just too many other games out there and some of them are superior others are not. There is finite gamer dollars out there, and brand loyalty is not enough to keep a company afloat. AoS is subpar to its competitors, its neither new nor revolutionary (most of its mechanics are just watered down warhammer anyway) GW missed a golden opportunity, but I dont think they care so long as they sell models. Games like Wrath of Kings, Relic Knights, etc... are going to be chipping away at the market. GW is simply too expensive, and mantics models are just awful for the most part.
Swastakowey wrote:Clearly a fair bit of ignorance going on here:
Kings of War is nothing like Warhammer. Like nothing at all like it.
So what you are saying is that from day 1 Mantic hasn't strategically picked armies for their game which are able to be proxied by WHFB models, and that they didn't decide around the same time as the announcement for AoS to add beastmen, lizardmen, Tomb Kings, and Warriors of Chaos to their list of armies despite having no planned dates to release models for them.
Swastakowey wrote:As for the story being driven by players, they will have campaigns with REASONABLE goals. For example I think the next one if Evil wins they open a rift or something and if good wins they get a major watch tower in a strategic location, both of which have ramifications to the fluff (can;t remember the outcome details). Unlike GW campaigns of the past one side winning is not a stupidly huge blow to another side.
That actually sounds really good, and I'm glad they are doing it right.
Swastakowey wrote: Also the not Lizardmen are nothing like GW Lizardmen. It's also worth noting Lizardmen aren't native to GW... Same goes for all the KOW/Warhammer Factions.
Remember GW stuff is hardly original. It's hard if you only see GW logos everywhere I know but bear with me here... gerneric fantasy worlds with a twist is what 99% of Fantasy is. To say one is copying the other is silly.
A quick read of their rule book will show you very quickly the vast differences in the worlds of the 2 factions.
Swastakowey wrote: As for originality... how does it borrow from Warhammer? It looks to me more like a generic fantasy world with a twist. "The game of fantasy battles" is just a poke at GW because mantic grew by about 300% as a result of AOS (and as a result sold out big time on their rule books). Nothing to do with copying of the setting or anything...
Again, if you give it a read it's not really like Warhammer at all.
I know its hard if you never actually read what you're responding to but bear with me here... that's not even close to what they were talking about.
No one cares if Braggi Breggi Broggi, lord of the Broggi dwarves, puts his pants on a half tilt to the right. The point being made is that Kings of War, as a game, has clearly from day one been trying to exist as a knock-off WHFB. Despite the pretty expansive and rich history of fantasy settings you really want to make a case that Kings of War just happening to have exactly all of the same major factions as WHFB is simply coincidence? Sure elves, dwarves, orcs, and undead are present in overwhelming majority, but what about ratmen, beastmen, or lizardmen? They've all been present in other fantasy settings, but how many have had them in starring roles rather than low level, uncultured mooks? And why does the description for the Twilight Kin Mega Army box sound so similar to Dark Elves rather than say, oh I don't know, DnD Drow or something.
Twilight Kin are Elves for the most part; depraved, tainted souls that kill for pleasure. Mixing their Elven brethren's battle prowess with a viciousness that is only rivalled by the hatred of the Abyssal beings the Twilight Kin ally with on the battlefield, these dark Elves employ the use of stealth, speed and an unhealthy use of poison when they march to war.
The concern raised is what Kings of War, as a game designed to attract disillusioned WHFB players, will do now that it doesn't have WHFB to leech players off of. Will it make an effort to add new races and units that clearly have no close GW analogue, or will it become stagnant. Will the actual models and publications be improved to try and attract new players, or will they continue to run with the idea that they can survive on selling bare bones products to people whose only concern is pushing cheap tokens around the board because they like the rules.
I want to emphasize that I personally, have no beef against Mantic or Kings of War, and I think its great that there is another game very similar to WHFB for fans to play now that AoS has replaced it. I'm not interested in KoW, but I'm sure that if Mantic are good designers they'll be able to do well to make KoW successful.
Swastakowey wrote: As for AOS it will fail. The only reason it is still alive is simply because it happened to have a GW logo. Without that logo it would already be dead, well more dead than it already is...
Swastakowey wrote: No... I have always been adamant about the AOS failing. I give it 3 years unless it goes through heavy changes.
Swastakowey wrote: I agree, unless they add and change it up I doubt it will last in it's current state. They'd be silly not to change it.
Repeating your own words doesn't make something true. At the moment no one knows how AoS is doing other than GW, and they've been recorded as being satisfied so far with the results. Now I'm pretty sure that anyone would agree that GW wouldn't tell people if they were dissatisfied for risk of ruining consumer confidence, so we can regard how they feel on the matter.
That said, you have no more of an inkling of anyone else on how the game is doing overall, and your insistence that they change it is meaningless so long as there are people who like the type of game that it is.
Kickstarter is a brilliant tool, the way its being used by some companies. Its the best kind of marketing research you can do.
It started off as crowdfunding, but its morphed into a tool which allows a company to gague interest in a product before it does the majority of work on a product. What company wouldn't want to use something like that?
I mean, if you're selling widgets, do you want to know you'll sell 1000 widgets BEFORE you start making them, or after you've already made 10,000?
Why anyone gets down on these companies for not wanting to take stupid risks when there's another way is beyond me.
Again ignorance. Have you read and looked at the races and how they differ?
Lets take Lizardmen... In Warhammer fantasy they are a space faring, Aztec themed dying race of neutered lizards who are strong magic users.
In Kings of War they are a fire based faction. Their limited magic and many of their soldiers based around fire. They have pirates with black powder weapons, explorer style pikemen and so on.
They are completely different... in fact ex warhammer players have complained a lot because the new factions are not like GW factions... They complained because what they called the "not empire list" was mostly filled with Halfings and not human. Or the "Not Lizardmen list" was filled with fire breathing not very magical dudes instead of the GW style. A lot of GW models don't have a place in KOW too (which was a source for complaints too). Lots of complaints about the Ratkin differences being too much for their GW theme to fit in easily.
The rules are not a rip off of GW either... in fact they are completely different. Of course if you look and day "they are both fantasy and both have ranks so therefore they are rip offs" then yes I can see how you may think this. However after playing both games I think you will find your opinion very incorrect.
I mean you can say all you want about how it's some subpar rip off, but at the end of the day all it takes is one look at the fluff or the rules to see how different it is. Mechanically and in terms of fluff.
I would not listen to Flasks guesses on another game. For example his assumption that the Lizards are uncultured mooks is wrongs (black powder weapons? Pretty unique to Lizards I would assume) and so on.
Like all fantasy there are similarates but KOW is certainly not a rip off or a low grade knock off etc. In my groups opinion the idea behind KOW is a fast pace tactic heavy game with a lot of player customization rather than a degenerate clone.
Swastakowey wrote:(most wargames feature other companies models or terrain here and so on. GW is the only real exception here)
Citation needed. Because last I checked no major wargame company advertised their product alongside a competitor's product without either some mutual deal or an inability to provide an equivalent product. Like it or not Games Workshop follows a horizontal integration model where they want to provide you with everything you could possibly need to play their games.
argonak wrote:Kickstarter is a brilliant tool, the way its being used by some companies. Its the best kind of marketing research you can do.
It started off as crowdfunding, but its morphed into a tool which allows a company to gague interest in a product before it does the majority of work on a product. What company wouldn't want to use something like that?
I mean, if you're selling widgets, do you want to know you'll sell 1000 widgets BEFORE you start making them, or after you've already made 10,000?
Why anyone gets down on these companies for not wanting to take stupid risks when there's another way is beyond me.
Because what Kickstarter is becoming is exactly what it wasn't supposed to be. It was made for the purpose of allowing products which otherwise would never have the chance to be made due to lack of funding or corporate interest the chance to actually be pursued.
The problem with kickstarter as market research is that it requires consumers to put down money on a product which has no guarantee about quality. That's fine when you're dealing with amateurs, but when you get established companies to essentially use their own customers to foot part of the bill for something they had the resources to do in the first place, its pretty damn abusive.
Do I blame them for trying? Heck no, its an incredibly logical decision, but you can't argue that really the major winner in this case is the company who now has more money for investors and executives.
Swastakowey wrote:(most wargames feature other companies models or terrain here and so on. GW is the only real exception here)
Citation needed. Because last I checked no major wargame company advertised their product alongside a competitor's product without either some mutual deal or an inability to provide an equivalent product. Like it or not Games Workshop follows a horizontal integration model where they want to provide you with everything you could possibly need to play their games.
Well I will take Warlord Games first. Warlord games sells items from other manufacturers IN THEIR sets. They feature other companies terrain (despite also making their own), other companies models (notably perry miniatures and other scales) in their rulebook and more. My black powder book has some cool stuff from other companies.
There are more I will just need to check them when I get home for more details.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheCustomLime wrote: Warlord Games has tons of terrain from other manufacturers and sells DAK infantry from Perry Brothers. They are fully capable of making DAK, btw.
They also sell stuff from plenty of other places. I think their Zulu Wars Gatling gun is from some random model maker. They have those cool mdf stuff from another company. I think they recently said they have plans with Wargames Factory (cant remember the company) to help each others ranges grow or something.
Swastakowey wrote: Again ignorance. Have you read and looked at the races and how they differ?
Lets take Lizardmen... In Warhammer fantasy they are a space faring, Aztec themed dying race of neutered lizards who are strong magic users.
In Kings of War they are a fire based faction. Their limited magic and many of their soldiers based around fire. They have pirates with black powder weapons, explorer style pikemen and so on.
They are completely different... in fact ex warhammer players have complained a lot because the new factions are not like GW factions... They complained because what they called the "not empire list" was mostly filled with Halfings and not human. Or the "Not Lizardmen list" was filled with fire breathing not very magical dudes instead of the GW style. A lot of GW models don't have a place in KOW too (which was a source for complaints too). Lots of complaints about the Ratkin differences being too much for their GW theme to fit in easily.
Funny you should insist that because I can't see those Reptilian rules since I'm not in the beta, but reading the Ratmen rules I find it hard to believe that people would find it hard to proxy any of those units with their older GW models. And again, the argument had nothing to do with lore, at all.
Swastakowey wrote: The rules are not a rip off of GW either... in fact they are completely different. Of course if you look and day "they are both fantasy and both have ranks so therefore they are rip offs" then yes I can see how you may think this. However after playing both games I think you will find your opinion very incorrect.
Really because I just read through them and they sound exactly like what everyone claims to like so much about WHFB. The units in blocks, the apparently complex dynamics of movement, etc.
Now I'm not claiming to be an expert on WHFB, because I'm relatively unfamiliar with it, but considering immediately after AoS there were so many people trying to get others to start KoW I find your assertions hard to believe.
After all, the burden of proof is on you, and well you never seem to bring any.
Swastakowey wrote: I mean you can say all you want about how it's some subpar rip off, but at the end of the day all it takes is one look at the fluff or the rules to see how different it is. Mechanically and in terms of fluff.
Funny because I didn't actually say that. I specifically said that I had nothing against it and I don't. I don't know if its better or worse than WHFB, nor do I care. As far as it tailoring its factions to fit someone transferring over with a old collection from WHFB, I still haven't seen anything demonstrating otherwise. And personally I see nothing wrong with that if Mantic can make it work.
Swastakowey wrote: I would not listen to Flasks guesses on another game. For example his assumption that the Lizards are uncultured mooks is wrongs (black powder weapons? Pretty unique to Lizards I would assume) and so on.
Reading comprehension.
I specifically said "in other games" as in neither KoW or WHFB. I meant that in reference to their depiction in various incarnations of Forgotten Realms DnD, Warcraft Kobolds (who are rats despite being minor draconic in DnD), and a variety of other generic fantasy video games.
TheCustomLime wrote: Warlord Games has tons of terrain from other manufacturers and sells DAK infantry from Perry Brothers. They are fully capable of making DAK, btw.
Warlord Games also sells multiple other games out of their webstore, that's their choice and part of their business model. Just like how they will soon be distributing Wargames Factory miniatures. They're as much a distributor for other companies as they are a miniature producer.
And yet they don't produce DAK infantry which means they are in fact unable to provide an equivalent product, by choice. If they did produce their own DAK infantry then they could sell both, but again that would be their choice.
GW is no more the bad guy for only selling their own miniatures than Privateer Press is for only selling theirs.
Swastakowey wrote:(most wargames feature other companies models or terrain here and so on. GW is the only real exception here)
Citation needed. Because last I checked no major wargame company advertised their product alongside a competitor's product without either some mutual deal or an inability to provide an equivalent product. Like it or not Games Workshop follows a horizontal integration model where they want to provide you with everything you could possibly need to play their games.
Well I will take Warlord Games first. Warlord games sells items from other manufacturers IN THEIR sets. They feature other companies terrain (despite also making their own), other companies models (notably perry miniatures and other scales) in their rulebook and more. My black powder book has some cool stuff from other companies.
There are more I will just need to check them when I get home for more details.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheCustomLime wrote: Warlord Games has tons of terrain from other manufacturers and sells DAK infantry from Perry Brothers. They are fully capable of making DAK, btw.
They also sell stuff from plenty of other places. I think their Zulu Wars Gatling gun is from some random model maker. They have those cool mdf stuff from another company. I think they recently said they have plans with Wargames Factory (cant remember the company) to help each others ranges grow or something.
Pretty cool company actually.
They have a distribution agreement. How is this so hard to understand. They have no reason not to show off those other miniatures because they can provide them.
Your subjective opinion, don't state it as a fact.
Smellingsalts wrote: Every new release by Mantic is crowd funded which shows that they do not have the capacity to manufacture things when they want or need to.
No it doesn't. Not at all. They ARE manufacturing the things they want and need quicker because of it.
Smellingsalts wrote: Just about no one I know uses them, so you end up using GW models to play.
Somehting you are allowed to do even in official events because Mantic don't see us, the customers, as walking wallets who's favourite part of the hobby is handing them out money.
Smellingsalts wrote: So when you have a company whose models are god awful, who can't design anything on their own, who can't write or produce beautiful books, who's background is copied from a game that is no longer being developed (there won't be anything new for them to steal), who has to use crowd funding to produce anything, I just don't see a future for KOW.
And yet there must be one because the US masters voted almost unanimously across their 8 regions to switch to it rather than stay with 8th or move to AoS.
Smellingsalts wrote: Since they aren't the flgs target market, stores will end up supporting AOS because it will bring new blood, new players, and sales. KOW won't.
Maybe, but KoW seems to be a game that is currently growing, GW are currently shrinking so AoS has an uphill battle if it is going to actually bring in new customers in the long term, because right now even 40k can't.
My oh my the irony is downright palpable Complexity not equating to depth?! Concerns about opinions being misconstrued as facts? My the shoe is on the other foot now...
@Swastakowey - Thank you for the reply! I totally agree AoS needs new releases to keep it fresh and growing... Sigmarines and Khorne are definitely not a sustainable story. The newest book did begin to branch out into Sylvaneth (branch! HA! Sorry ) and Skaven, so I am curious what the future holds. My biggest concern from KoW is that the only growth it is receiving are ex-8th Ed players. KoW was not growing before, so I am unsure why it will suddenly continue to pickup steam once the exodus concludes. At least by me, many of the more serious tournament gamers played in their garages and the like rather than game stores... so their switching to KoW isn't going to change the amount of exposure KoW gets. I would really love to see Mantic embrace something like what Malifaux or Warmachine did with the kind-of regional champions who tout the game system and organize events/games/tutorials locally.
quiestdeus wrote: My oh my the irony is downright palpable Complexity not equating to depth?! Concerns about opinions being misconstrued as facts? My the shoe is on the other foot now...
@Swastakowey - Thank you for the reply! I totally agree AoS needs new releases to keep it fresh and growing... Sigmarines and Khorne are definitely not a sustainable story. The newest book did begin to branch out into Sylvaneth (branch! HA! Sorry ) and Skaven, so I am curious what the future holds. My biggest concern from KoW is that the only growth it is receiving are ex-8th Ed players. KoW was not growing before, so I am unsure why it will suddenly continue to pickup steam once the exodus concludes. At least by me, many of the more serious tournament gamers played in their garages and the like rather than game stores... so their switching to KoW isn't going to change the amount of exposure KoW gets. I would really love to see Mantic embrace something like what Malifaux or Warmachine did with the kind-of regional champions who tout the game system and organize events/games/tutorials locally.
There are two types of simplicity. Simple does not equate to a lack of depth all the time. I don't know what games you play but after a few you can generally spot the games with a lack of depth (simple rules or not) and the ones with depth. Both can be fun to play... I'd question a persons experience if they argued AOS was a deep game personally, but I also don't see it as a bad thing.
In my area 2 ex Warhammer players (thats all there was...) joined but the other 5 of us did not enjoy Warhammer Fantasy. Again it all depends on the area. KOW was not growing before? I mean a lot of people seem to back the kickstarters etc... it's just grown even more now.
In NZ we are setting up regional apparently. Although it's still in the works. Winner of each region gets a prize (sponsored by Mantic and some other companies down here) and travel expenses paid to go to the next tournament. In my area alone we have over 20 people... my country is a small country. So it's happening, it just takes time. Remember the KOW rules have only just come out recently (the edition heaps of people were waiting for).
If you want to try the game, cut out cardboard (sucks I know) and have a game with someone else. No investment, the game is fast and after a few games the rules will be nailed into your brain. You will then find yourself having some intense games trying to outwit your opponent. Costs nothing, get to learn some new rules and if you like it then thats good. If not then you lost 2 hours of time.
TheCustomLime wrote: Warlord Games has tons of terrain from other manufacturers and sells DAK infantry from Perry Brothers. They are fully capable of making DAK, btw.
Warlord Games also sells multiple other games out of their webstore, that's their choice and part of their business model. Just like how they will soon be distributing Wargames Factory miniatures. They're as much a distributor for other companies as they are a miniature producer.
And yet they don't produce DAK infantry which means they are in fact unable to provide an equivalent product, by choice. If they did produce their own DAK infantry then they could sell both, but again that would be their choice.
GW is no more the bad guy for only selling their own miniatures than Privateer Press is for only selling theirs.
Swastakowey wrote:(most wargames feature other companies models or terrain here and so on. GW is the only real exception here)
Citation needed. Because last I checked no major wargame company advertised their product alongside a competitor's product without either some mutual deal or an inability to provide an equivalent product. Like it or not Games Workshop follows a horizontal integration model where they want to provide you with everything you could possibly need to play their games.
Well I will take Warlord Games first. Warlord games sells items from other manufacturers IN THEIR sets. They feature other companies terrain (despite also making their own), other companies models (notably perry miniatures and other scales) in their rulebook and more. My black powder book has some cool stuff from other companies.
There are more I will just need to check them when I get home for more details.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
TheCustomLime wrote: Warlord Games has tons of terrain from other manufacturers and sells DAK infantry from Perry Brothers. They are fully capable of making DAK, btw.
They also sell stuff from plenty of other places. I think their Zulu Wars Gatling gun is from some random model maker. They have those cool mdf stuff from another company. I think they recently said they have plans with Wargames Factory (cant remember the company) to help each others ranges grow or something.
Pretty cool company actually.
They have a distribution agreement. How is this so hard to understand. They have no reason not to show off those other miniatures because they can provide them.
They aren't a distributor. At best, they can be considered a part time publisher with Terminator Genisys. ACD is a distributor. They don't sell or market wargames. Warlord does and it specifically markets these competitor products for their games. The Sarista Precision terrain isn't listed under "Sarista Precision products". It's listed under "Bolt Action terrain". That's not even here nor there. You're moving goal posts. The original contention of yours was that no company markets a competitor's product without a mutual deal or the inability to market it themselves. Warlord can make terrain and it's not like Sarista Precision advertises German Infantry or something so your point is demonstrably wrong. How is that so hard to understand.
Kings of War is nothing like WHF. It's much more comparable to a draughts/chess hybrid in a tabletop model game format.
Jack Flask wrote: So what you are saying is that from day 1 Mantic hasn't strategically picked armies for their game which are able to be proxied by WHFB models, and that they didn't decide around the same time as the announcement for AoS to add beastmen, lizardmen, Tomb Kings, and Warriors of Chaos to their list of armies despite having no planned dates to release models for them.
When did wargaming become a protected industry? 99% of GW's ideas are not remotely original. There was an unserviced market segment (people who wanted less convoluted rules and/or cheaper models for mass battle) and a company decided to service it, clearly that segment is big enough to be sustainable. And now people have the choice to use the models they've invested time and money in to play a supported game if they want to, and that's a bad thing?
Jack Flask wrote: Will it make an effort to add new races and units that clearly have no close GW analogue
Examples of such armies have gone to print this week.
Jack Flask wrote: Repeating your own words doesn't make something true. At the moment no one knows how AoS is doing other than GW, and they've been recorded as being satisfied so far with the results. Now I'm pretty sure that anyone would agree that GW wouldn't tell people if they were dissatisfied for risk of ruining consumer confidence, so we can regard how they feel on the matter.
Except those of us that are ex-GW know that the stores have had a big meeting and been taken to task over sales of AoS being low
They aren't a distributor. At best, they can be considered a part time publisher with Terminator Genisys. ACD is a distributor. They don't sell or market wargames. Warlord does and it specifically markets these competitor products for their games. The Sarista Precision terrain isn't listed under "Sarista Precision products". It's listed under "Bolt Action terrain". That's not even here nor there. You're moving goal posts. The original contention of yours was that no company markets a competitor's product without a mutual deal or the inability to market it themselves. Warlord can make terrain and it's not like Sarista Precision advertises German Infantry or something so your point is demonstrably wrong. How is that so hard to understand.
And you are not demonstrating a strong understanding of the term competitor if you think that Warlord games selling another company's products qualifies under that statement. They advertise other companies products because they stock them, meaning not only are they in fact in a deal, but also that they are making profit of those items being sold out of their own webstore. You know, exactly how brick and mortar works. Sure you can go to Sarissa Precision's website and buy it, but Warlord is banking on you buying it from them considering that your on their site presumably ordering other things from them as well. That way not only is Sarissa making a sale on something but so is Warlord Games, and the best part is that warlord doesn't have to develop a competing product. Nothing about that contradicts anything I said.
There was no moving of goal posts, and in fact you've even misrepresented what I said to move the goalposts yourself.
Jack Flask wrote: Citation needed. Because last I checked no major wargame company advertised their product alongside a competitor's product without either some mutual deal or an inability to provide an equivalent product. Like it or not Games Workshop follows a horizontal integration model where they want to provide you with everything you could possibly need to play their games.
I specified no major wargame company, which is a significant limitation on the scope of the argument. I'm pretty sure I've seen small 15mm sci-fi manufacturers cross promote products from their "competitors", but that's largely due to how small and tight knit that community is. Then again I don't feel like looking for an example right now, so feel free to disregard this. It's irrelevant anyway since it lies outside the context of a larger scale operation like GW.
Second, I never "inability to market", I said "an inability to provide an equivalent product". This can reference a lack of technical ability (physical don't have the means to manufacture said product) but it also just as easily refers to a conscientious decision on the part of the company to not do so. Thus, they are not competing by virtue of the fact that promoting that product doesn't take money away from them, they don't even offer it. A perfect example outside just major wargames companies would be Armorcast using a Warjack to demonstrate their cinematic effects.
Also mutual deal doesn't refer to both companies having to advertise the other, it means the two companies have mutually beneficial agreement. I.e. Warlord Games stocks Sarissa products which is helping Sarissa to presumably make more sales, while Warlord Games are likely taking some percentage or at the very least adding value to their site by making it look more like a one-stop destination for all things 28mm historical (which is something they very much emphasize). And if you honestly don't believe that Warlord has deals with the companies whose products they stock, well they even state that in their about page:
We’re extremely proud to work in close partnership with the likes of Osprey Publishing, Mongoose Publishing, Italeri, Cutting Edge Miniatures, Empress Miniatures, and many other fantastic companies to offer the finest range of 28mm miniatures and accompanying rule systems in the world!
How does all of this relate to Games Workshop? Because their business model is more like Apple than say Warlord. Apple doesn't want to point you to a competitor, so they offer only their own products as well as products which don't overlap what they manufacture to increase the likelihood that you'll buy everything from Apple in a curated environment where a consumer can't see competing products.
Is it manipulative? Yeah, slightly. Is it immoral? Not in the slightest. It lets them control the environment of the sale, showing their product in the best manner possible which is very important when trying to sell expensive or luxury products. Privateer Press and Mantic do essentially the same thing.
Kings of War is nothing like WHF. It's much more comparable to a draughts/chess hybrid in a tabletop model game format.
Jack Flask wrote: So what you are saying is that from day 1 Mantic hasn't strategically picked armies for their game which are able to be proxied by WHFB models, and that they didn't decide around the same time as the announcement for AoS to add beastmen, lizardmen, Tomb Kings, and Warriors of Chaos to their list of armies despite having no planned dates to release models for them.
When did wargaming become a protected industry? 99% of GW's ideas are not remotely original. There was an unserviced market segment (people who wanted less convoluted rules and/or cheaper models for mass battle) and a company decided to service it, clearly that segment is big enough to be sustainable. And now people have the choice to use the models they've invested time and money in to play a supported game if they want to, and that's a bad thing?
I never said it was nor did I ever claim that GW was original in its choices or design, but you've admitted yourself that there was a market for it related to WHFB. That was the crux of the issue because Swastokowey is trying to make this out as apples to oranges when its really Granny Smith to Honeycrisp (which is which I'll let you decide).
I never said that was a bad thing, and in fact I explicitly stated the opposite. I honestly do think its good that there is a game relatively similar to WHFB for fans of it to play.
Jack Flask wrote: Will it make an effort to add new races and units that clearly have no close GW analogue
Examples of such armies have gone to print this week.
Cool, you should actually provide evidence for those of us who have no idea what you are talking about, its pretty standard procedure in making an argument.
Also I would specifically like to point out that my statement which you quoted was me attempting to summarize the post by Smellingsalts for the benefit of Swastakowey understanding the argument. I was not personally passing judgement on KoW (I don't play it so I don't care, though I am legitimately curious to hear you provide examples. I do quite enjoy wargame unit design concepts).
Jack Flask wrote: Repeating your own words doesn't make something true. At the moment no one knows how AoS is doing other than GW, and they've been recorded as being satisfied so far with the results. Now I'm pretty sure that anyone would agree that GW wouldn't tell people if they were dissatisfied for risk of ruining consumer confidence, so we can regard how they feel on the matter.
Except those of us that are ex-GW know that the stores have had a big meeting and been taken to task over sales of AoS being low
Which you are unable to prove, so pardon me if I don't simply take to word of a person I know nothing about as evidence in its own right.
The new book has 2 surprise armies which feature (confirmed feature) pirates, ninjas, other asian themed stuff and more than likely more. These lists are secret. Another book coming is also a historical supplement.
Obviously these are nothing like GW offerings as forces.
Jack Flask wrote: Will it make an effort to add new races and units that clearly have no close GW analogue
Examples of such armies have gone to print this week.
Cool, you should actually provide evidence for those of us who have no idea what you are talking about, its pretty standard procedure in making an argument.
Jack Flask wrote: Repeating your own words doesn't make something true. At the moment no one knows how AoS is doing other than GW, and they've been recorded as being satisfied so far with the results. Now I'm pretty sure that anyone would agree that GW wouldn't tell people if they were dissatisfied for risk of ruining consumer confidence, so we can regard how they feel on the matter.
Except those of us that are ex-GW know that the stores have had a big meeting and been taken to task over sales of AoS being low
Which you are unable to prove, so pardon me if I don't simply take to word of a person I know nothing about as evidence in its own right.
*shrugs* There's no inherent value to me in proving anything to you even if I wanted to cost someone their job.
In both these cases, there is sufficient information in the public domain to reach conclusions I would happily publish on a professional level, I got over needing to be right on the internet a long time ago, and I'm certainly not going to do the legwork for someone relying on a burden of proof fallacy to cover up their laziness in not bothering to fully research all the things they're arguing about.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Swastakowey wrote: The new book has 2 surprise armies which feature (confirmed feature) pirates, ninjas, other asian themed stuff and more than likely more. These lists are secret. Another book coming is also a historical supplement.
Obviously these are nothing like GW offerings as forces.
And Brian Blessed*
*This might actually be considered true, depending on your enjoyment, or lack thereof, of the meme.
I don't really understand where is the problem, here. We're talking about game systems, right? Why did it become some kind of a war to know if AoS is better than KoW?
I mean, they're nothing alike.
If it is a comparison between WFB and KoW, now I understand because they're playing in the same category. Still, they work differently in the rules.
The question about what game to play on long term is simple: WFB, as a game system, isn't supported anymore by GW. KoW is by Mantic Games (they even published a new rulebook not so long ago).
The first, you have to find it in second hand (I mean, if you begin now and didn't grab your copy when they were still sold in GW hops ). Not so difficult since there are still a lot of products on the market, but you will be dependant of the offer. The second, you can buy it using the official channels (second hand is possible, sure, but it's not so easy to find as for WFB).
In terms of community, it really depends of where you are. Once you have found players, it's fine. Trouble can come to have "new blood" on the long term; unsupported games tend to have smaller communities as time goes. The good news for WFB is that since it was an old game still played not so long ago, it's still possible to find some players willing to follow.
About miniatures, it's a false debate. You can use whatever you want to play either game (even AoS, actually - I don't see why I wouldn't be able to use my Warmachine/Horde or Anima Tactic human fighter as an Empire trooper, since bases don't matter and everything is measured from the miniature anyway). If people use their GW armies to play KoW, it's good for the KoW playing community and it's good for GW sales. Sure, they don't play GW games...and so what? You should know GW isn't alone anymore in the big miniature game market, now.
Why did it become some kind of a war to know if AoS is better than KoW?
To a lot of people, which game system is #1 is vastly important to them and what they will play. If a game is not #1 it is deemed inferior and people write it off.
This is true on pretty much every forum I read and the stem of many arguments.
I think the important thing here is that even if you don't like games funded by crowd funding, you can't deny that Mantic has a lot of popular backing. Added to which many popular fantasy battle tournaments are now running KoW over AoS/8th, Mantic are selling out on a lot of kits and books and I think we can see that there is real demand for Mantic games.
quiestdeus wrote: I would really love to see Mantic embrace something like what Malifaux or Warmachine did with the kind-of regional champions who tout the game system and organize events/games/tutorials locally.
They're called "Pathfinders", but of course it requires someone in your local area to be willing to do it.
quiestdeus wrote: If KoW is such a quality game why did people not flock to it prior to GW pulling the plug on 8th edition?
Mainly I would suggest it's because branding and network effects are both incredibly powerful sales and marketing tools. But also, 8th may simply have been good enough for many people that they weren't motivated to switch until WHF became unsupported. Or because KoW wasn't really what they wanted and 8th was, but now 8th is unsupported they'll take what they see as the next best thing. That's a few examples of reasons that apply without even touching on the relative quality of the two games (which of course is subjective anyway).
Baragash wrote: Mainly I would suggest it's because branding and network effects are both incredibly powerful sales and marketing tools.
Sorry to rip this out of you argumentation, Baragash, but I can't stress this hard enough.
This, good folks, is why AoS is even being considered as equivalent to vastly superior Wargames. If not for the GW brand backing it up, this "game" would not even be looked at. Period.
It's kind of like how GW is pushing the prices yet again. It's the brand.
They aren't a distributor. At best, they can be considered a part time publisher with Terminator Genisys. ACD is a distributor. They don't sell or market wargames. Warlord does and it specifically markets these competitor products for their games. The Sarista Precision terrain isn't listed under "Sarista Precision products". It's listed under "Bolt Action terrain". That's not even here nor there. You're moving goal posts. The original contention of yours was that no company markets a competitor's product without a mutual deal or the inability to market it themselves. Warlord can make terrain and it's not like Sarista Precision advertises German Infantry or something so your point is demonstrably wrong. How is that so hard to understand.
And you are not demonstrating a strong understanding of the term competitor if you think that Warlord games selling another company's products qualifies under that statement. They advertise other companies products because they stock them, meaning not only are they in fact in a deal, but also that they are making profit of those items being sold out of their own webstore. You know, exactly how brick and mortar works. Sure you can go to Sarissa Precision's website and buy it, but Warlord is banking on you buying it from them considering that your on their site presumably ordering other things from them as well. That way not only is Sarissa making a sale on something but so is Warlord Games, and the best part is that warlord doesn't have to develop a competing product. Nothing about that contradicts anything I said.
There was no moving of goal posts, and in fact you've even misrepresented what I said to move the goalposts yourself.
Well, aren't you a barrel of sunshine? In the "About Us" section they describe themselves as a distributor of miniatures in the sense that they distribute their miniatures to local gaming stores. In the same sense that Games Workshop is a distributor. They aren't a distributor like companies like ACD otherwise they would be wholesaling miniatures like X-wing or even 40k. And didn't I mention them being a publisher? I did! Because you didn't read my post in whole. You just flew off the handle trying to put a spin on some information you found without putting consideration towards context. They don't sell these products and different lines. They sell them under their own wargames lines. If they sold them under the "Perry Brothers miniatures" line then yeah, you'd have a point. Furthermore, how they are distrubitor doesn't even matter. We gave you examples of a major miniatures manufacturer advertising other companies products. And yes, they are competitors. Perry Brothers is competing with them for WW2 miniatures and Sarissa Protection is competing with them for terrain sales.
And yeah you did move goal posts. It went from "No major manufacturer advertising competing terrain unless they can't make it themselves" to "But they are a distributor! Why can't you guys see that they are just a distributor?".
quiestdeus wrote: I would really love to see Mantic embrace something like what Malifaux or Warmachine did with the kind-of regional champions who tout the game system and organize events/games/tutorials locally.
They're called "Pathfinders", but of course it requires someone in your local area to be willing to do it.
quiestdeus wrote: If KoW is such a quality game why did people not flock to it prior to GW pulling the plug on 8th edition?
Mainly I would suggest it's because branding and network effects are both incredibly powerful sales and marketing tools. But also, 8th may simply have been good enough for many people that they weren't motivated to switch until WHF became unsupported. Or because KoW wasn't really what they wanted and 8th was, but now 8th is unsupported they'll take what they see as the next best thing. That's a few examples of reasons that apply without even touching on the relative quality of the two games (which of course is subjective anyway).
Thanks for the Pathfinder keyword! Is there a way to look them up and find the one closest to me? I did a BRIEF google search and the top couple links were just about signing up.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Swastakowey wrote: The new book has 2 surprise armies which feature (confirmed feature) pirates, ninjas, other asian themed stuff and more than likely more. These lists are secret. Another book coming is also a historical supplement.
Obviously these are nothing like GW offerings as forces.
Can you PM me the details? I have wanted to start an Asian-inspired force (even considering running Nippon from http://warhammerarmiesproject.blogspot.com/) so I am intrigued. I did not see anything about it in the 2.0 book... is it planned for 3.0? (and if so, when would that be released?)
quiestdeus wrote: I would really love to see Mantic embrace something like what Malifaux or Warmachine did with the kind-of regional champions who tout the game system and organize events/games/tutorials locally.
They're called "Pathfinders", but of course it requires someone in your local area to be willing to do it.
quiestdeus wrote: If KoW is such a quality game why did people not flock to it prior to GW pulling the plug on 8th edition?
Mainly I would suggest it's because branding and network effects are both incredibly powerful sales and marketing tools. But also, 8th may simply have been good enough for many people that they weren't motivated to switch until WHF became unsupported. Or because KoW wasn't really what they wanted and 8th was, but now 8th is unsupported they'll take what they see as the next best thing. That's a few examples of reasons that apply without even touching on the relative quality of the two games (which of course is subjective anyway).
Thanks for the Pathfinder keyword! Is there a way to look them up and find the one closest to me? I did a BRIEF google search and the top couple links were just about signing up.
Swastakowey wrote: The new book has 2 surprise armies which feature (confirmed feature) pirates, ninjas, other asian themed stuff and more than likely more. These lists are secret. Another book coming is also a historical supplement.
Obviously these are nothing like GW offerings as forces.
Can you PM me the details? I have wanted to start an Asian-inspired force (even considering running Nippon from http://warhammerarmiesproject.blogspot.com/) so I am intrigued. I did not see anything about it in the 2.0 book... is it planned for 3.0? (and if so, when would that be released?)
Most of the stuff that was rumoured to be in the 2 lists were jokes (or at least we stretched it a bit so it wasn't obvious), so you won't find ninjas etc in the Uncharted Empires (fantasy) army lists. The historical army lists are being worked on and could suit your needs though.
(If that seems unhelpful, I'm afraid it's as obvious as I'm allowed to be )
No worries Baragash, appreciate what info you can share. Is there an ETA when more information will be available to us plebs, or is that timeline NDA'd too?
The Warhammer background was also what kept me in the game, and we'll have to strongly disagree here. It's not the awesome sorta-historically-based low fantasy that WHFB was, but Age of Sigmar isn't anywhere near that. I like the Mantica background a lot more than what GW is putting out these days. It feels like they're really enjoying what they're writing, rather than just hitting the latest corporate buzzwords and talking up the models, and it's reminiscent of the excellent Fall from Heaven mod for the Civilization games in the way the GW feels reminiscent of Elric and Dune. The background doesn't feel 'copied' from Warhammer Fantasy, at least not to me - they're introducing some minor factions to correspond with the more 'GW-ish' armies, but I can't fault them for that. Dwarves are a rising power in their world, Orcs feel more Tolkienish than GW-like, the main human faction is more Roman-influence than Holy Roman Empire...
And I'll take Brakki Barka over the latest Blood(insert half a word here) any day.
I don't need five billion castable spells to have fun with a game, just like I don't need ten different names for shields or a ton of different special rules. Warhammer was an awesome game, and I wish it was still supported, but for me, if the choice is between Age of Sigmar and Kings of War? I'll be working on some regimental diorama bases, thanks.
If KoW is such a quality game why did people not flock to it prior to GW pulling the plug on 8th edition?
I know the question was for Swastakowey, but I'd like to throw my two cents in here. For me, it was the Warhammer background. I loved playing in the world, I loved reading about it, writing campaign stuff, all sorts of things. I didn't care for a lot of the other stuff GW did, like the price rises, the constant balance cycle and purging of old material, or their general corporate attitude (Spots the Space Marine, anyone?), but none of it was enough to keep me out of the Old World.
Then they blew it up.
Sure, I could just hang around and play eighth edition, just like I could play any earlier edition, but I don't feel 'tied' to GW any more, if that makes sense. It was a bit of brand loyalty, I guess, sort of a feeling of wanting to support the company with this really cool setting despite its flaws. But when one of the entries on their list of 'things we like about Age of Sigmar' is 'we got rid of the old background' (right next to gold spray paint!), that kinda stomps any remaining loyalty into the mud I'm not looking into Kings of War to spite GW, I'm looking into it because GW has nothing left to interest me, and frankly, I wish I had started looking sooner.
quiestdeus wrote: No worries Baragash, appreciate what info you can share. Is there an ETA when more information will be available to us plebs, or is that timeline NDA'd too?
Either when the book hits the shelves or Mantic will reveal it on their blog in the week leading up to release (I don't know what their marketing plan is).
Well, I am grateful that I wasn't flamed as badly as I imagined I would be. The greater passion is usually on the side of the KOW crowd as their ranks include many former WFB players who are casting their vote of anger by moving to KOW. Unlike many on this forum I have read and played both AOS and KOW, so I do know what I am talking about. There are people that get upset that the things I say aren't facts. The things I say are my truth and so they are facts to me. You don't have to agree, but you can't say your position is a fact either. And it really doesn't matter. This thread was started by someone who wanted our opinions, so I gave him mine. They are just as valid as anyone else.
I own a game store. When we have arguments about whether Mantic ripped off GW. All I have to do is hand the parties involved both rule books and that usually solves the argument. Are the two games different. Yes, because if they are not at least 20% different, Mantic finds itself in a courtroom with GW.
Now my experience with Mantic is that I tried to carry their models, but they were so bad! The only box I could sell were the zombies. While WFB was around, nobody wanted to play KOW. That's right, all the guys who are saying KOW is great would not touch it while WFB was around. They still own all their books and could keep playing WFB. 2nd Edition KOW has some minor tweaks, but those tweaks are not so awesome that if WFB was still around, players would have dropped it for KOW. It is still not as good as WFB, go figure.
You can make the argument that Mantic models are cheaper than GW, but I'll go you one better. Reaper Bones are better than Mantic models, and cost a lot less.
So as a store owner, I am going to carry GW models, not Mantic. Both Aos and KOW rules are free online, so I won't be selling KOW books because they are also low quality art. I will sell the AOS books because I have people buying them who don't even play miniatures. So I have explained why I will not carry Mantic products, but let me show you how I think that will affect the gaming community.
First, in order to support leagues and tournaments I have to provide prizes. I have already explained that the vast majority of people prefer GW models to Mantic. Here I will concede not everyone likes all GW models but enough people prefer more of them to Mantic. Now I cannot afford to give away enough product to cover leagues, tournaments, and promotions (even with entry fees, it costs a lot of money to run a brick and mortar store). GW gives me an allotment to do these things. But how do you think they would react if I told them"Can you give me $400.00 in product for my KOW tournament?" It just is not gonna happen. Now you may be thinking "But Mantic will surely support your tournament with free figs." To which I would direct you to the part of my post regarding the quality of Mantic figs and the preference for players for GW.
So since I am carrying GW figs and books, it makes more fiscal sense to run AOS. As this is the case, I believe more flgs will support AOS. GW will also promote the hell out of it, and they have way more dollars than Mantic to do this. This was the point I was making about Mantic constantly HAVING to rely on crowd funding. It's not that they want to do it, they have to because they are a small fish in GW's pond. They can't keep up. I had to explain this to a card player once who asked why I didn't sell his card game, but I sold Magic. I had to explain that while product diversity is a good thing, you have to weigh the different products. Two products that take the same niche. Which one wins? It's the one that turns over the fastest. I sell it and replace it, let's say 5 times faster than the other product. So while I could stock both products, if brand A makes 5 dollars to brand B. Then I am going to put all of my dollars into brand A.
If this logic holds true for flgs, and in particular flgs with in-store gaming tables, then you promote what you sell. So more people will be exposed to AOS, maybe not right away, but in the long run. If this is true, then you have to look at the tournament scene and how it is effected. Stores run tournaments to stoke interest and sell models. You can't have masters tournaments without the hundreds of tournaments that create tournament players and the community. If AOS is played at the micro levels, then the structure to support KOW masters doesn't exist. The WFB masters scene was never that large, often you saw the same core players traveling around and winning tournaments. The fact that there are a handful of people calling their tournaments "master tournaments" has even less impact than the ETC claiming that they will continue with WFB 9th. The old WFB is fractured into groups that will continue to play 8th, KOW, and some that will create WFB9th. But none will have the power that comes with GW backing.
Another problem is that GW was right about the current WFB8th crowd not buying models. Their lore had created a rut that did not force established players to go out and buy new models. AOS has done that as is evident to me in my sales of GW fantasy figures (which have gone up drastically). One thing that contributed to slow sales was the army book rotation. You get an army book, buy the new figures in it that you like, and wait 4 years (at best) before you see a new book and new models. With AOS, they can drop new models any time they want. They don't need army books, the rules come in the box.
So basically, what I am saying is that flgs will stick with GW models, and with that comes the GW powerhouse that will promote them. The promotion of GW models (and AOS) will alter the tpurnament scene. The altered tournament scene will crowd out KOW and many other similar games. That is why I believe in 3 years AOS will still be chugging along and KOW will have a small niche. And if all of this seems horrible to KOW players, you can do something about it. Go out to your flgs and have them order as many Mantic figs for you as your hobby (and wallet) can support. Create a situation where it does not make sense for me not to carry Mantic. If you look deep inside yourself and simply can't find the will to go out and buy Mantic figs, then you have made my point for me.
One last, the guy who wrote Kings of War used to work for GW. Someone scoffed when I said KOW was a GW rip off and said the guys who designed it worked for GW. I thought that that kinda proved my point, but the guy who wrote KOW was Alessio Cavatore. Now I know game design is hard, but isn't that the same guy who wrote the 6th edition Skaven army book that ended up having 15 pages of FAQ's?
Everything GW writes needs about 15 pages of FAQs... probably why they stopped doing FAQs...
I imagine the problem lies with GW leadership and demands rather than their unfortunate staff. Since many of their writers etc have moved on to make some stunning games.
You're talking about your point of view on the matter.
But these aren't facts. It's just your point of view, based on your experience, local playing community preferences and (maybe) your own preference for GW products. And I would be perfectly fine with it. Just call a dog a dog, not a cat. Facts are never subjective.
Anyway, it doesn't really matter. A game system may be judged on its quality alone, not on how well it sells or what the local players usually play, or even the price of the miniatures used for it. You may be willing to trust in AoS, it will still not make it a regimental game like KoW. Also, we can only judge on what is really and already here - not what may come later or not.
Smellingsalts wrote: One last, the guy who wrote Kings of War used to work for GW. Someone scoffed when I said KOW was a GW rip off and said the guys who designed it worked for GW. I thought that that kinda proved my point, but the guy who wrote KOW was Alessio Cavatore. Now I know game design is hard, but isn't that the same guy who wrote the 6th edition Skaven army book that ended up having 15 pages of FAQ's?
I regularly see the same actors playing very different roles on screen, writers producing very different scripts/books, etc. Just because there is a name on the front, does not mean it will be the same as anything else that name has done
And KoW has gone through extensive playtesting and has dedicated rules committee who filter community feedback to ensure that rules are clear, well written, and fit in with established balance. You are free to check out the FAQ/errata of the current KoW2 rules and see whether you think that KoW is poorly written from a rules point of view.
You're talking about your point of view on the matter.
But these aren't facts. It's just your point of view, based on your experience, local playing community preferences and (maybe) your own preference for GW products. And I would be perfectly fine with it. Just call a dog a dog, not a cat. Facts are never subjective.
Anyway, it doesn't really matter. A game system may be judged on its quality alone, not on how well it sells or what the local players usually play, or even the price of the miniatures used for it. You may be willing to trust in AoS, it will still not make it a regimental game like KoW. Also, we can only judge on what is really and already here - not what may come later or not.
I don't even know why you bothered replying after that beautiful pearl you highlighted.... It shows a total detachment towards any kind of rational conversation.
Smellingsalts wrote: One last, the guy who wrote Kings of War used to work for GW. Someone scoffed when I said KOW was a GW rip off and said the guys who designed it worked for GW. I thought that that kinda proved my point, but the guy who wrote KOW was Alessio Cavatore. Now I know game design is hard, but isn't that the same guy who wrote the 6th edition Skaven army book that ended up having 15 pages of FAQ's?
I regularly see the same actors playing very different roles on screen, writers producing very different scripts/books, etc. Just because there is a name on the front, does not mean it will be the same as anything else that name has done
And KoW has gone through extensive playtesting and has dedicated rules committee who filter community feedback to ensure that rules are clear, well written, and fit in with established balance. You are free to check out the FAQ/errata of the current KoW2 rules and see whether you think that KoW is poorly written from a rules point of view.
I personally don't believe GW has anyone fulfilling an equivalent role within their design process, and that's why we get what we get.
Anyway, it doesn't really matter. A game system may be judged on its quality alone, not on how well it sells or what the local players usually play, or even the price of the miniatures used for it. You may be willing to trust in AoS,it will still not make it a regimental game like KoW. Also, we can only judge on what is really and already here - not what may come later or not.
I mean, emphasis above is mine, that is the entire point... right? People who want a regimental game are not going to be satisfied by AoS. AoS is still a game of fantasy battles, it just does not have the same regimental structure as WHFB. That does not make AoS a bad game though (especially as evidenced by how many of us are have fun playing it). Nor does it make KoW better (or worse), it just makes the two games different, which is honestly pretty awesome.
Being able to play AoS with the folks who enjoy it and seamlessly put those exactsamefigures on trays to play KoW is such a unique place for the hobby to be in. There is no reason both communities cannot harmonize as the games scratch two very different itches. At the end of the day the rules for both are FREE. You purchase models once and can use them in both systems... I do not understand where the competition comes from. Ok, that was rhetorical, I do understand... but the point is it does not need to be that way.
Another problem is that GW was right about the current WFB8th crowd not buying models. Their lore had created a rut that did not force established players to go out and buy new models. AOS has done that as is evident to me in my sales of GW fantasy figures (which have gone up drastically). One thing that contributed to slow sales was the army book rotation. You get an army book, buy the new figures in it that you like, and wait 4 years (at best) before you see a new book and new models. With AOS, they can drop new models any time they want. They don't need army books, the rules come in the box.
I've already explained why I didn't switch to Kings of War before they axed fantasy (it had nothing to do with which was the better game) and if you find that GW stuff sells better than Mantic stuff at your store, I certainly can't fault you for carrying one over the other! This makes no sense to me, though. You're equating the army book and model release cycle with the lore, and I absolutely cannot see how the lore would have 'not forced' people to get new models. It inspired me to get new models - I was coming up with different tribes for my Waaagh!, figuring out how they ended up under my warboss, which big bosses were trouble and which were relatively loyal, all kinds of fun stuff. The new background does nothing for me like that. They keep saying it's open, it's freeing, it's so big that you can do whatever you want, but all I see is a blank expanse created specifically to talk up the new models. That's not an immersive background, that's a stretched-out Saturday morning cartoon. Are there good bits? Well, yeah, there's some neat stuff, but it's buried under a lot of...less than stellar ideas, and just like I don't want to rewrite the game rules to make it work, I don't want to dig through the muck to find the few remaining cool concepts. Not when there's other options.
Blame the rules, blame the prices, blame the corporate attitude, blame simple neglect for why WFB apparently wasn't selling enough, and that might be the answer. Probably a mixture of all four. But there's no way it had anything to do with the background.
And yes, Cavatore wrote Kings of War. It's incredibly streamlined compared to WFB AND AoS. I don't think he was the underlying reason for the giant FAQ.
I love the a+hole atat.sent of unlike the other people here I read both so I know want I'm talking about. Failing of course to you a brain that would tell him the people unlikely to have read both are the AOS players.
I start to not believe salt own a store as he posted elsewhere. Where your store at salt, fix my misbelief.
Noir wrote: I love the a+hole atat.sent of unlike the other people here I read both so I know want I'm talking about. Failing of course to you a brain that would tell him the people unlikely to have read both are the AOS players.
I start to not believe salt own a store as he posted elsewhere. Where your store at salt, fix my misbelief.
??? I assume your on a smart phone, autocorrect is not working out for you.
I love the a+hole statment of unlike the other people here I read both so I know want I'm talking about. Failing of course to use a brain that would tell him the people unlikely to have read both are the AOS players.
I start to not believe salt own a store as he posted elsewhere. Where your store at salt, fix my misbelief.
Before WFB went away, Fantasy sales were a rare occurrence. After AOS my fantasy sales are much much better. Lower bar for entry, rules that you may find simple, but that appeal to a larger section of the total population (not just gamers). I loved WFB. I played it from the beginning (still have my little brown books). I do like regimental combat, not just skirmish. I don't like Mantics figures, and we will have to agree to disagree about their rules, which I think are not good. I think pre-measurement + fixed charge rules are a bad idea. I don't like combat phases in which only one side fights. I don't like pulling units apart after combat. I don't like having only 6 spells. I like characters to be customized/different. I like a lot of magic items (which KOW does not have compared to WFB). In KOW, characters act like they are in a skirmish game because they can't join units. I hate that in a regimented combat games. I like beautiful art that is lacking in Mantic products. I like great figures that Mantic doesn't make. For me, in KOW the figures don't even matter. You can put anything you want on the bases that you are pushing around. You can say that about any miniatures game I guess, except it doesn't ring true to me for any game except KOW. The authors don't care whose miniatures you use. KOW is so generic that it feels like vanilla. I hate that about it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: I'm not making an A++hole statement. Many of the posts here have actually said they have not read both sets of rules. Others have accused me of not reading KOW, which I have. First as free downloads online, and then when I picked up the KOW 2nd Edition rules. I invite you to come visit my store, At Ease Games, in San Diego and I would enjoy talking to you in person.
It's because both games are competing for fans of WHFB. Some people will go to KoW and decry how AoS is a tactically shallow and bare bones game. Some people will go to AoS and say that KoW has no brand identity of it's own and terrible models. It's just the way of things with nerds. They have to compare their interests against each other to see who is best. Check out the "TIE/in Interceptor vs Colonial viper for a friendlier example of this.
Smellingsalts wrote: Before WFB went away, Fantasy sales were a rare occurrence. After AOS my fantasy sales are much much better. Lower bar for entry, rules that you may find simple, but that appeal to a larger section of the total population (not just gamers).
Does it? I haven't seen anything at all to suggest that it's drawing in people who didn't play wargames before (unless you mean collectors and so forth, but really, there's no reason for WFB to NOT appeal to collectors if AoS does.)
And about KoW and their lack of insistence on using 'official' figures - yeah, we're disagreeing on that I love the customization that brings, the lack of a GW-style 'You HAVE to use this or you're doing it wrong' mentality. It feels very liberating and opens a lot of creative doors. I have an alternate miniature goblin project waiting in the wings that I think is going to look incredible, and yeah, I could have done that with Warhammer, I'm hardly a tournament player and I've never set foot in an official Games Workshop store, but it always would have felt a little weird and it's nice to see the hobbyist side of the people behind the game come to the forefront.
AOS does not say in the rules that you need official gw minis... this has been spoken about before.
Sales are higher. Most of it is because you don't need to spend hundreds to play. Another selling point is someone can buy their favorite characters and play with just them (even if they are from different factions). Want to use Archaon, Crom, a Carstein or two, and use a reaper mini as a empire wizard? Yes you can
Oh, I never said you couldn't - but try doing that in a GW store and see what happens. It's just part of the corporate culture, and I'm not sure that it's something I can fault them on except for the extremes, but it's refreshing to see a company come right out and say 'Hey! You like that cool-looking troll model on Kickstarter? Sure, use him, he looks awesome!"
And I don't see the second thing as a selling point so much as an issue with suspension of disbelief. WHY are Archaon, Crom, a couple of von Carsteins, and an Empire Wizard teaming up to take on a common enemy? Yeah, you can come up with something, but does it really make sense for Archaon to work with an Empire Wizard? Or the von Carsteins, for that matter? I've got absolutely no problem with creative narrative, it's the lifeblood of these sort of games as far as I'm concerned, but you need to jump through some serious hoops for that particular All-Stars team to make sense
No, you are putting words in my mouth. I don't like the rules in KOW period. I'm not saying there simple. I'm saying they are vanilla. Nor did I say that AOS rules are simple. Other people have.
I believe salt when he says he has a store, but I also am convinced due to my personal experiences that his situation is a local situation, the truth in my metro area is if I dont go to GW I cannot get a game of AoS. IT is not popular here, and GW treats our local FLGS like crap. I like playing AoS, but its a very crappy attempt at a game, it is not quality. It is a fun little time filler but not some award winning revolution in gaming. I enjoy it for what it is, quick and to the point. I dont think KoW is gonna be what kills AoS, GW will do that. It will get nickel and dimed to death by all the quality kickstarter games and be toppled by just better companies making better products. I also play KoW, but I do it with my WHFB models because i thoroughly dislike mantics models.
thekingofkings wrote: I also play KoW, but I do it with my WHFB models because i thoroughly dislike mantics models.
I honestly think there is a ton of this going on, and I do not know how Mantic is going to grow to match their increased playerbase. Maybe through another kickstarter? I guess their costs are low... but GW makes its money selling models, not rules, so even if everyone transitions to KoW... as long as we are still playing with GW models they probably could not care less.
A few people definitely prefer mantic's models, but they definitely appear to be the minority. I wonder how much Mantic will continue to appreciate and support their playerbase when their new playerbase never actually buys anything from them...
Smellingsalts wrote: No, you are putting words in my mouth. I don't like the rules in KOW period. I'm not saying there simple. I'm saying they are vanilla. Nor did I say that AOS rules are simple. Other people have.
Okay, that's fair enough. So, in the interest of a fair discussion what is your opinion on Age of Sigmar?
Swastakowey wrote: Their models are getting a lot better... plus according to mighty ape here Mantic models do sell (more than GW).
I agree, apart from their Enforcers I think almost every release by Mantic in the past year has been excellent, they just need to go back and retool all the release from when they were starting out.
The cool thing is that, along with FrostGrave, they're all baseless.
You can do an entire campaign with three different games. A small expedition with FrostGrave that leads to a KoW mass battle and then a heroic mass skirmish with AoS as your Generals and their remaining forces square off.
Knockagh wrote: Does kings of war have any associated fiction? I never really looked at the game until recently the models, particularly the orcs are great.
Sure. But it's a barebones, half-arsed effort to keep away GW big legal stick (see, our elves are in Mantica, a world of our own creation, nothing to do with any other elves around).
Of course, nothing stops you from using KoW rules in GW narrative. That's what most people are doing anyway.
Neither KoW or AoS work for me, though. I enjoyed 8th, so I keep playing 8th edition, with an eye open on what the 9th age team is doing.
KoW do seem to slowly be making an effort to differentiate themselves. If you have a world with elves, it's going to be derivative of something no matter what. Elves are derivative.
Baron Klatz wrote: The cool thing is that, along with FrostGrave, they're all baseless.
You can do an entire campaign with three different games. A small expedition with FrostGrave that leads to a KoW mass battle and then a heroic mass skirmish with AoS as your Generals and their remaining forces square off.
It's a good time to be a hobbyist.
Exalted for this.
As long as you get rid of "brand loyalty", you really have a lot of choice for games using miniatures nowadays. You can make cool campaigns using different game systems and a huge variety of miniatures - especially when you're not limited by the bases.
This is a Golden Age for games with miniatures, I tell ya! Once you understand GW isn't alone in quality and interesting games, a whole new world is ready to welcome you.
Knockagh wrote: Does kings of war have any associated fiction? I never really looked at the game until recently the models, particularly the orcs are great.
Sure. But it's a barebones, half-arsed effort to keep away GW big legal stick (see, our elves are in Mantica, a world of our own creation, nothing to do with any other elves around).
Of course, nothing stops you from using KoW rules in GW narrative. That's what most people are doing anyway.
Neither KoW or AoS work for me, though. I enjoyed 8th, so I keep playing 8th edition, with an eye open on what the 9th age team is doing.
This is really quite an unfair characterisation.
Firstly, elves were invented in their nowadays common form and fashion by Tolkien. GW elves are as much derivative of Tolkienian elves as Mantic elves are - in fact, both have taken a rather different take on this very very old trope, so I wouldn't even accuse Mantic of copying the particular GW type of elves, be it in lore or miniatures (in fact, many deride the technically high quality elf sculpts for their "weird" aesthetics simply because they are NOT like GW elves!)
Secondly, why half-arsed ? The game hasn't been around for particularly long and nonetheless it already has a hardback with a nice amount of fluff, a novella, a couple of campaign books with extra lore stuff, is going to get a lot of extra fluff from the DS compendium, and game adventure books and two fluff heavy army-list expansion are planned /almost completed. If you don't like some of the fluff, fair enough. But don't complain that a young company doesn't have hundreds of novels written about their fluff just yet.
Secondly, why half-arsed ? The game hasn't been around for particularly long and nonetheless it already has a hardback with a nice amount of fluff, a novella, a couple of campaign books with extra lore stuff, is going to get a lot of extra fluff from the DS compendium, and game adventure books and two fluff heavy army-list expansion are planned /almost completed. If you don't like some of the fluff, fair enough. But don't complain that a young company doesn't have hundreds of novels written about their fluff just yet.
It's not about word count. It's the quality.
Early warhammer had no qualms about publicly heralding the generic fantasy tropes they were butchering. Early warhammer fluff was horrendously written, but at least it was funny, lots of puns. This gave it a texture that eventually grow into a more serious (grimdark, for those 40k-inclined), coherent work. Most of it was a basic template (every army had the best, baddest, dragon-slaying character and the best fighters) but it worked.
Mantica is so bland, grey and generic it might come from a textbook rather than a fantasy story. AoW's warthrone seems a Tolkien masterpiece in comparison using 1/10th or word count (only in Spanish, though).
It feels as something they HAVE to do in order to make minis, not something that grows from a concept that develops into a story that at some point has some new characters in it. Hence half-arsed.
Secondly, why half-arsed ? The game hasn't been around for particularly long and nonetheless it already has a hardback with a nice amount of fluff, a novella, a couple of campaign books with extra lore stuff, is going to get a lot of extra fluff from the DS compendium, and game adventure books and two fluff heavy army-list expansion are planned /almost completed. If you don't like some of the fluff, fair enough. But don't complain that a young company doesn't have hundreds of novels written about their fluff just yet.
It's not about word count. It's the quality.
Early warhammer had no qualms about publicly heralding the generic fantasy tropes they were butchering. Early warhammer fluff was horrendously written, but at least it was funny, lots of puns. This gave it a texture that eventually grow into a more serious (grimdark, for those 40k-inclined), coherent work. Most of it was a basic template (every army had the best, baddest, dragon-slaying character and the best fighters) but it worked.
Mantica is so bland, grey and generic it might come from a textbook rather than a fantasy story. AoW's warthrone seems a Tolkien masterpiece in comparison using 1/10th or word count (only in Spanish, though).
It feels as something they HAVE to do in order to make minis, not something that grows from a concept that develops into a story that at some point has some new characters in it. Hence half-arsed.
Yes, when they started out in first edition, it was very, say, bare bones. And I am by no means a Mantic fan boy. I do cringe when reading some of the writing they put out ... but no more than when reading the horrid end times GW writing. None of these guys is going to win a literary prize, that is clear.
I feel that by now Mantica has become LESS generic than GW's world despite not 1% of the number of pages filled out. Neither GW nor Mantic have shied away from the beaten-to-death horse of waning decaying dying elven kingdoms, but I guess that is just the easiest way to keep a superhuman race semi interesting. On the other hand, Mantic has done some good moves by letting Mantica start not 1min to midnight but AFTER the great fall, with a very late roman /byzantine empire struggling against (the novelty! its sad to say this is novel but it really is in generic fantasy-land) rising dwarves! usually those guys are waning right alongside their elven brethren.
Anyway, I am not here to be "right", I just feel that many people still bash Mantic for their very first works, ignoring the recent and very encouraging developments.
VicVox wrote: On the other hand, Mantic has done some good moves by letting Mantica start not 1min to midnight but AFTER the great fall,
This is one of the things I like about the AoS fluff. The WFB world couldn't 'go' anywhere other than annihilation.
With the new 'order ascendant' setting, it allows for far more ebb and flow.
Time will tell if it can achieve the same gravity that events in the Old Warhammer World did.
VicVox wrote: On the other hand, Mantic has done some good moves by letting Mantica start not 1min to midnight but AFTER the great fall,
This is one of the things I like about the AoS fluff. The WFB world couldn't 'go' anywhere other than annihilation.
With the new 'order ascendant' setting, it allows for far more ebb and flow.
Time will tell if it can achieve the same gravity that events in the Old Warhammer World did.
I can think of a lot of directions they could have advanced the story instead of blowing the world up.
Oh boy, looks like we're heading down the "they should've done this" path.
Anyway, I'm loving the potential of the new AoS fluff. Indeed they are focusing on the Stormcasts right now but they just want their new models to get the spotlight and become popular. (Certainly worked on me with the Hallowed knights)
Just give them time. There's massive amounts of potential in the setting that GW can make into a glorious game.
Same goes with KoW's fluff as well. Just give it time. As long as there's a dedicated company behind it the game can only improve in both story and gameplay.
jonolikespie wrote: If you're comparing KoW to AoS fluff be fair and compare it to AoS fluff, not WHFB fluff.
For those of us still playing WHFB yes, it does
Yes, when they started out in first edition, it was very, say, bare bones. And I am by no means a Mantic fan boy. I do cringe when reading some of the writing they put out ... but no more than when reading the horrid end times GW writing. None of these guys is going to win a literary prize, that is clear.
I meant the 2nd edition book. I preordered and tried to have a thorough read for 2-3 days, then gave up and mostly skimmed it.
It might just be the case that while I've been gradually immersing myself in WHFB lore back when I was a tender teenager over 20 years ago and now nostalgia makes up for bad writing.
Honestly most of it is tripe. I'd rather keep my battles in the old world (which is what most KoW players in my area do).
jouso wrote: For those of us still playing WHFB yes, it does
The problem is that this thread is KoW vs AoS. .
Since we're talking about fluff. AoS fluff is a continuation of WHFB. Nothing stops you from playing Old world or End times games with AoS rules. Hell there are even rules for characters that were dead centuries before proper AoS fluff started.
Fluff-wise, AoS incorporates the whole of WHFB storyline. Otherwise there'd be no point in having rules for Settra, Kurt Helborg, Gorbad Ironclaw, Azhag, and many other characters that died during or even centuries before the end times.
jouso wrote: For those of us still playing WHFB yes, it does
The problem is that this thread is KoW vs AoS. .
Since we're talking about fluff. AoS fluff is a continuation of WHFB. Nothing stops you from playing Old world or End times games with AoS rules. Hell there are even rules for characters that were dead centuries before proper AoS fluff started.
Fluff-wise, AoS incorporates the whole of WHFB storyline. Otherwise there'd be no point in having rules for Settra, Kurt Helborg, Gorbad Ironclaw, Azhag, and many other characters that died during or even centuries before the end times.
Sorry to break this to you, but no matter how much you want to stretch it, AoS is. not. WHFB. It's a completely different beast. They merely added rules for those characters/units in order to prevent the formation of an enraged mob that would otherwise come to tear down GWHQ.
Do not for a moment think that AoS is anything like WHFB.
Yes AOS is a continuation of WHFB. The storyline continues right from where the end times left off. The gaming system is different from WHFB (it is more akin to the hybrid child of 40k and a small scale skirmish game), but the storyline, units, characters, etc, are the same. So in essence it is a lot like WHFB from that aspect.
On the other hand, KOW is also different from WHFB in it's own ways. It is more simplified and has no storyline depth. I know many WHFB players were very into the fluff, so I am surprised they would even look at KOW, which is just a simplified WHFB game (which is what people have called AOS).
It is based around a post-apocalyptic setting where the world's environment was ruined by magical disasters and wars, the current setting is based in the distant aftermath, where things are recovering from that.
There have been multiple expansions and books released, the basilean legacy book is particularly in-depth, with a page for each unit, detailed maps, historical timelines etc.
Later this year there will be a campaign book released with the results affecting the background.
It's early days, but they've done a decent job with the background.
I particularly like their depiction of orcs compared to WHFB, a very short-lived race (most die before 20) where their hatred of other civilized races stems from envy of their lifespan, quality of life and accomplishments, compared to a typical orc, who is lucky if he doesn't get killed by another orc before the age of 5 in a very brutal survival of the fittest culture. Has more in common with Tolkien, I guess.
455_PWR wrote: Yes AOS is a continuation of WHFB. The storyline continues right from where the end times left off. The gaming system is different from WHFB (it is more akin to the hybrid child of 40k and a small scale skirmish game), but the storyline, units, characters, etc, are the same. So in essence it is a lot like WHFB from that aspect.
On the other hand, KOW is also different from WHFB in it's own ways. It is more simplified and has no storyline depth. I know many WHFB players were very into the fluff, so I am surprised they would even look at KOW, which is just a simplified WHFB game (which is what people have called AOS).
It can be a lot like WHFB (which I don't think it is, anyway) but it's not WHFB. That's the thing. The fluff is completely different. You can't say it's the same fluff wise just because it's got some (vague) traces of continuity.
If the characters and units are all the same, I will then be awaiting to see how they manage to put units like the Lothern Seaguard, the Teutogen Guard, Vespero's Vendetta, (etc etc etc) back in the fluff as they were, mind you. And where were those Sigmarines in WHFB again?
We need to start learning how to segregate fluff from mechanics, people...
It also picks up right where WHFB left off... then skips over a few thousand years doesn't it? In which time anything that might have resembled the Old World is torn down and trampled into dust. As it stands in AoS the Fantasy world might as well be a myth, it and none of the attached fluff to it have any relevance in AoS other than being a quick origin story for some of the gods.
jouso wrote: For those of us still playing WHFB yes, it does
The problem is that this thread is KoW vs AoS. .
Since we're talking about fluff. AoS fluff is a continuation of WHFB. Nothing stops you from playing Old world or End times games with AoS rules. Hell there are even rules for characters that were dead centuries before proper AoS fluff started.
Fluff-wise, AoS incorporates the whole of WHFB storyline. Otherwise there'd be no point in having rules for Settra, Kurt Helborg, Gorbad Ironclaw, Azhag, and many other characters that died during or even centuries before the end times.
Sorry to break this to you, but no matter how much you want to stretch it, AoS is. not. WHFB. It's a completely different beast. They merely added rules for those characters/units in order to prevent the formation of an enraged mob that would otherwise come to tear down GWHQ.
Do not for a moment think that AoS is anything like WHFB.
I don't play AoS at all. I mostly play WHFB with a bit of KoW on the side of course I know that.
However, fluff wise AoS allows anyone to play with Settra, Azhag, Greasus, Tyrion, everything that happened on the old world at some point or another.
I can play the battle of blackfire pass with AoS rules (not sure why I would like to, having WHFB rules available, but it's a possibility) so of course the old world is part of the fluff, AoS only has moved the storyline further in time.
Or do you think playing Horus Heresy is not 40K because it's far removed in time and most of the characters aren't there?
jonolikespie wrote: It also picks up right where WHFB left off... then skips over a few thousand years doesn't it? In which time anything that might have resembled the Old World is torn down and trampled into dust. As it stands in AoS the Fantasy world might as well be a myth, it and none of the attached fluff to it have any relevance in AoS other than being a quick origin story for some of the gods.
Not exactly.
An Orc is an Orc, whether he is in the Old World, Mortal Realms or the 41st Millennium. A Skaven is still a treacherous little rat. The Chaos Gods, very much part of Warhammer, are still present. Some of the characters are still bashing about - Nagash is the obvious one, but Alarielle has not gone anywhere (just a bit harder than she was before), Manfred has just popped up, and there will be others.
It is very much a continuation, and part of the draw is what happens next.
jonolikespie wrote: It also picks up right where WHFB left off... then skips over a few thousand years doesn't it? In which time anything that might have resembled the Old World is torn down and trampled into dust. As it stands in AoS the Fantasy world might as well be a myth, it and none of the attached fluff to it have any relevance in AoS other than being a quick origin story for some of the gods.
Not exactly.
An Orc is an Orc, whether he is in the Old World, Mortal Realms or the 41st Millennium.
No he's not. He's an orc or an orruk or an ork. :p
It's only a continuation if you considered WHFB to be about Nagash or the basic concept of Chaos Gods. Otherwise, it's got little or nothing to do with the original game. The last setting is literally reduced to a destroyed planetoid thing, it's high fantasy rather than a Grim World of Perilous Adventure, and it shares practically no themes or underlying concepts.
jouso wrote: For those of us still playing WHFB yes, it does
The problem is that this thread is KoW vs AoS. .
Since we're talking about fluff. AoS fluff is a continuation of WHFB. Nothing stops you from playing Old world or End times games with AoS rules. Hell there are even rules for characters that were dead centuries before proper AoS fluff started.
Fluff-wise, AoS incorporates the whole of WHFB storyline. Otherwise there'd be no point in having rules for Settra, Kurt Helborg, Gorbad Ironclaw, Azhag, and many other characters that died during or even centuries before the end times.
Sorry to break this to you, but no matter how much you want to stretch it, AoS is. not. WHFB. It's a completely different beast. They merely added rules for those characters/units in order to prevent the formation of an enraged mob that would otherwise come to tear down GWHQ.
Do not for a moment think that AoS is anything like WHFB.
I don't play AoS at all. I mostly play WHFB with a bit of KoW on the side of course I know that.
However, fluff wise AoS allows anyone to play with Settra, Azhag, Greasus, Tyrion, everything that happened on the old world at some point or another.
I can play the battle of blackfire pass with AoS rules (not sure why I would like to, having WHFB rules available, but it's a possibility) so of course the old world is part of the fluff, AoS only has moved the storyline further in time.
Or do you think playing Horus Heresy is not 40K because it's far removed in time and most of the characters aren't there?
Go on, then. Please provide quotes in the AoS fluff that provide justification for the survival of the units I said above. And do add Eltharion, Alith Anar, Korhil, etc etc etc.
I would also like to see how Khaine has survived the End Times since clearly he is still worshiped by the Witch Elves of the Dark el... errr, sorry, of the "Aelf Exiles". Find me Malus Darkblade, Shadowblade etc, etc, etc... The list goes on and on and on.... And we're only talking elves here.
Just because GW copped out and released warscrolls with AoS rules for the previous setting's units and characters doesn't make them part of the new setting. How hard is it to understand that? Heck, you said it yourself: you can play Blackfire pass - a Warhammer scenario - with AoS rules.
jonolikespie wrote: It also picks up right where WHFB left off... then skips over a few thousand years doesn't it? In which time anything that might have resembled the Old World is torn down and trampled into dust. As it stands in AoS the Fantasy world might as well be a myth, it and none of the attached fluff to it have any relevance in AoS other than being a quick origin story for some of the gods.
Not exactly.
An Orc is an Orc, whether he is in the Old World, Mortal Realms or the 41st Millennium.
No he's not. He's an orc or an orruk or an ork. :p
It's only a continuation if you considered WHFB to be about Nagash or the basic concept of Chaos Gods. Otherwise, it's got little or nothing to do with the original game. The last setting is literally reduced to a destroyed planetoid thing, it's high fantasy rather than a Grim World of Perilous Adventure, and it shares practically no themes or underlying concepts.
Thank you good Sir.
If you really,really wanna be anal about that bit, then an Orc(WHFB) is not an Orc(LOTR), or an Orc(DnD), or an Orc (WoW), or.... etc etc etc
It's only a continuation if you considered WHFB to be about Nagash or the basic concept of Chaos Gods. Otherwise, it's got little or nothing to do with the original game. The last setting is literally reduced to a destroyed planetoid thing, it's high fantasy rather than a Grim World of Perilous Adventure, and it shares practically no themes or underlying concepts.
I am sorry, I do not agree. I see Warhammer running right through AoS. The locations have changed, some faces have disappeared while others have popped up or returned (Sigmar himself), but I am finding an awful lot that is familiar.
Khorne Bloodbound have received new Blood Warriors and their Reavers, for example, but they would have both slotted right into a Khorne-themed Chaos Warriors force in WHFB. Nurgle forces have had Blightkings pushed to the fore, but otherwise all the old forces are fitting right in.
Things have moved on, I grant you, but it is still Warhammer. No one is going to be mistaking it for Warmachine
It's only a continuation if you considered WHFB to be about Nagash or the basic concept of Chaos Gods. Otherwise, it's got little or nothing to do with the original game. The last setting is literally reduced to a destroyed planetoid thing, it's high fantasy rather than a Grim World of Perilous Adventure, and it shares practically no themes or underlying concepts.
I am sorry, I do not agree. I see Warhammer running right through AoS. The locations have changed, some faces have disappeared while others have popped up or returned (Sigmar himself), but I am finding an awful lot that is familiar.
Khorne Bloodbound have received new Blood Warriors and their Reavers, for example, but they would have both slotted right into a Khorne-themed Chaos Warriors force in WHFB. Nurgle forces have had Blightkings pushed to the fore, but otherwise all the old forces are fitting right in.
Things have moved on, I grant you, but it is still Warhammer. No one is going to be mistaking it for Warmachine
It's only a continuation if you considered WHFB to be about Nagash or the basic concept of Chaos Gods. Otherwise, it's got little or nothing to do with the original game. The last setting is literally reduced to a destroyed planetoid thing, it's high fantasy rather than a Grim World of Perilous Adventure, and it shares practically no themes or underlying concepts.
I am sorry, I do not agree. I see Warhammer running right through AoS. The locations have changed, some faces have disappeared while others have popped up or returned (Sigmar himself), but I am finding an awful lot that is familiar.
Khorne Bloodbound have received new Blood Warriors and their Reavers, for example, but they would have both slotted right into a Khorne-themed Chaos Warriors force in WHFB. Nurgle forces have had Blightkings pushed to the fore, but otherwise all the old forces are fitting right in.
Things have moved on, I grant you, but it is still Warhammer. No one is going to be mistaking it for Warmachine
Nobody's going to be mistaking it for WHFB, either.
The locations have done more than change - they blew them all up, then made new locations, then blew THEM up without really telling us anything about them. So that's one part of the setting out.
Surviving characters have gone through personality shifts. Sigmar - the big one - has gone from a hands-off Germanic barbarian deity that may or may not actually exist to a more petulant and less xenophobic version of the God-Emperor of Mankind, for example. I can't see Original Flavor Sigmar abandoning the Empire to go beat the hell out of Bretonnia for backstabbing them while Chaos stomps on everyone else. I can't see Original Flavor Sigmar physically manifesting at all, actually, because that wasn't something that happened in WHFB.
And if we're going into what models can fit in where, which seems an odd metric for judging a game's background and lore and how well it meshes up with another one - well, a lot of them would fit right into someone's Kings of War force, but that doesn't mean that the Mortal Realms and Mantica are the same place.
If you like AoS and the background, good! I'm glad you're enjoying it. But it's not really a continuation...a more honest term would be 'reboot', despite any official timeline handwaving.
I understand people are upset about the change in direction/style, but it still is Warhammer to me. Everything about it is Warhammer to me. Reminds me of going from Halo 1 to Halo 2 or something and people saying it's not Halo anymore. It's Halo, it changed some and you might not like it and that's fine, but it's Halo.
Playing AoS feels just like playing Warhammer. Painting AoS feels just like painting Warhammer. Reading about AoS feels just like reading about Warhammer. It's Warhammer. You can dislike the change, but I don't know what points you're trying to win saying it's not how you define Warhammer.
Internet points. The most valuable currency of all - one Internet point is, like, thirty chunks of ur-gold at current exchange rates.
It's hardly the difference between Halo and Halo 2. Halo 2 is a direct continuation of a storyline, with the same basic mechanics, recognizable and consistent characters, no off-screen millenia-long time skip, and they didn't suddenly decide to call SPARTANS "Techmod Shockwarriors" so they could copyright them.
I have to disagree on basically everything you said - but if you like it, great! I don't, have no problem pointing out why, and will probably keep doing so when it's relevant.
Spinner wrote: Internet points. The most valuable currency of all - one Internet point is, like, thirty chunks of ur-gold at current time exchange rates.
It's hardly the difference between Halo and Halo 2. Halo 2 is a direct continuation of a storyline, with the same basic mechanics, recognizable and consistent characters, no off-screen millenia-long time skip, and they didn't suddenly decide to call SPARTANS "Techmod Shockwarriors" so they could copyright them.
I have to disagree on basically everything you said - but if you like it, great! I don't, have no problem pointing out why, and will probably keep doing so when it's relevant.
Maybe more like Halo and Reach. Still Halo, but some people don't think it's "real Halo." Not to get too into the weeds but you could come up with similar examples between Halo 1/2. There were massive changes to the storyline and gameplay. Hardcore Halo people would definitely not agree 1 and 2 have the same basic mechanics. Similar, but like with AoS, it was a big style change.
On the other hand, KOW is also different from WHFB in it's own ways. It is more simplified and has no storyline depth. I know many WHFB players were very into the fluff, so I am surprised they would even look at KOW, which is just a simplified WHFB game (which is what people have called AOS).
How on earth is KoW "just simplified WHFB"?
Have you seen it in action on the table top? Skimming the rules and seeing ranked troops in the pictures and fantasy words used doesn't mean you know how it plays
Spinner wrote: Internet points. The most valuable currency of all - one Internet point is, like, thirty chunks of ur-gold at current time exchange rates.
It's hardly the difference between Halo and Halo 2. Halo 2 is a direct continuation of a storyline, with the same basic mechanics, recognizable and consistent characters, no off-screen millenia-long time skip, and they didn't suddenly decide to call SPARTANS "Techmod Shockwarriors" so they could copyright them.
I have to disagree on basically everything you said - but if you like it, great! I don't, have no problem pointing out why, and will probably keep doing so when it's relevant.
Maybe more like Halo and Reach. Still Halo, but some people don't think it's "real Halo." Not to get too into the weeds but you could come up with similar examples between Halo 1/2. There were massive changes to the storyline and gameplay. Hardcore Halo people would definitely not agree 1 and 2 have the same basic mechanics. Similar, but like with AoS, it was a big style change.
Same enemies, some different weapons and one or two additional vehicles with a whole lot of improved textures. It's more like the difference between the 4e Marine Codex and the 6e one.
A more apt comparison would be the difference between CE and 4. Radically different designs, nearly none of the old characters, whole new story and the places you were before got blownded up.
Spinner wrote: Internet points. The most valuable currency of all - one Internet point is, like, thirty chunks of ur-gold at current time exchange rates.
It's hardly the difference between Halo and Halo 2. Halo 2 is a direct continuation of a storyline, with the same basic mechanics, recognizable and consistent characters, no off-screen millenia-long time skip, and they didn't suddenly decide to call SPARTANS "Techmod Shockwarriors" so they could copyright them.
I have to disagree on basically everything you said - but if you like it, great! I don't, have no problem pointing out why, and will probably keep doing so when it's relevant.
Maybe more like Halo and Reach. Still Halo, but some people don't think it's "real Halo." Not to get too into the weeds but you could come up with similar examples between Halo 1/2. There were massive changes to the storyline and gameplay. Hardcore Halo people would definitely not agree 1 and 2 have the same basic mechanics. Similar, but like with AoS, it was a big style change.
Same enemies, some different weapons and one or two additional vehicles with a whole lot of improved textures. It's more like the difference between the 4e Marine Codex and the 6e one.
A more apt comparison would be the difference between CE and 4. Radically different designs, nearly none of the old characters, whole new story and the places you were before got blownded up.
Yes, not to put on my nerd hat here but there is a lot more that changed in basic gameplay mechanics between 1/2 than that. Every Halo has come with rage quits and uproar because of seemingly minor (to casual players) things. I was part of the competitive community. The whole way of playing Halo changes between 1/2. That's as nerdy on this as I'm going to go.
Smaller ammo capacities, quicker recharging shields, regenerating health, no fall damage, UNSC vehicle damage, more realistic damage overall, skulls, online multiplayer, improved physics (vehicles dont instasplat you with a light tap anymore), improved vehicle handling and dual wielding introducing whole new combos such as the plasma pistol BR/pistol combo.
You are talking to another Halo nerd here. But none of these are huge differences.
TheCustomLime wrote: Smaller ammo capacities, quicker recharging shields, regenerating health, no fall damage, UNSC vehicle damage, more realistic damage overall, skulls, online multiplayer, improved physics (vehicles dont instasplat you with a light tap anymore), improved vehicle handling and dual wielding introducing whole new combos such as the plasma pistol BR/pistol combo.
You are talking to another Halo nerd here. But none of these are huge differences.
We are off on a tangent... The simple gameplay mechanics of how playing feels changed a lot. Skilled players in 1 were not necessarily as good in 2 in all cases, and vice versa. The game was played differently on a competitive level. To a competitive player, 1 and 2 are completely different games, not simply an iteration. To get back on topic, I suppose to my mind, I saw 7th/8th in Warhammer as iterations, like patches on the same game basically, whereas AoS is a different game, as people are saying. However, Halo 1 and Halo 2 are both Halo, and AoS and WFB are both Warhammer.
For the people extremely serious about the gaming side of Warhammer, I understand why they would not call AoS "Warhammer," in the same way a super serious Halo 1 player would have not called 2 "Halo" (at the time it came out, by now I'm sure he would).
Bleh, this side topic/analogy is getting exhausting.
In AoS fluff are Dark Elves led by their bitter King in raids across the ocean and attempt to invade the High Elf homeland?
Do the High Elves have their own island in the middle of the ocean where they are containing the winds of magic?
Is there an empire of humans holding itself together despite corruption and cowardice through the sheer determination and courage of a few great leaders?
Is there a knightly nation of nobles who refuse to adopt modern military tactics because heavy cav charges are cool?
Is Kislev a thing? Tilea?
So very little of the Old World remains, it doesn't matter that the fluff is technically continuing on from the Old World, we are not playing there and it is different.
As for the argument that you can play the battle for Skull pass in AoS, you can do so with KoW rules too
455_PWR wrote: Yes AOS is a continuation of WHFB. The storyline continues right from where the end times left off. The gaming system is different from WHFB (it is more akin to the hybrid child of 40k and a small scale skirmish game), but the storyline, units, characters, etc, are the same. So in essence it is a lot like WHFB from that aspect.
On the other hand, KOW is also different from WHFB in it's own ways. It is more simplified and has no storyline depth. I know many WHFB players were very into the fluff, so I am surprised they would even look at KOW, which is just a simplified WHFB game (which is what people have called AOS).
The Book of Mormon claims to be a continuation of the New Testament, but that doesn't mean its automatically accepted.
"We need to start learning how to segregate fluff from mechanics, people..."
Dude if you read my post that you responded to, you will see I said the fluff is a continuation from whfb but I also said the games are fundamentally different in gameplay. Maybe read before posting?
As for the fluff argument being different... so Return of the Jedi isn't as Star Wars as A New Hope? Or the new one coming out isn't Star Wars? Stories need to change as they progress to stay relevent. Many people don't like change but change can be good, especially for a dying game.
You seem to be fundamentally missing the difference between a couple of years timeskip continuing directly off the same plot points with the same characters and a couple of thousand years timeskips with a new main character (Sigmar was not an active player in WHFB) and a few other characters still along for the ride (but overall only a fraction of the ones that existed).
455_PWR wrote: "We need to start learning how to segregate fluff from mechanics, people..."
Dude if you read my post that you responded to, you will see I said the fluff is a continuation from whfb but I also said the games are fundamentally different in gameplay. Maybe read before posting?
As for the fluff argument being different... so Return of the Jedi isn't as Star Wars as A New Hope? Or the new one coming out isn't Star Wars? Stories need to change as they progress to stay relevent. Many people don't like change but change can be good, especially for a dying game.
Well plenty of people thought the prequles weren't "star wars" enough for them. The creator of something may have control over the "official" view of it, but once its out there being enjoyed it takes on an independent life of its own. Just ask any fan of the New Jedi Order or KOTOR what they think of Disney wiping the extended universe off the map.
In my own head, the end times never happened and never will happen. My WFB universe is quite happy the way it is. And its mine. Nothing GW can ever do can touch it, because they pissed me off enough that I disconnected it from them. Its not official (obviously), but then I don't really care too much. When the creator offends too many of the consumers, weird things happen. For me, AoS is nothing to do with WFB. It doesn't feel the same at all. It copied some names and pretends to be a continuation, but it is its own creature and (in my opinion) should be respected or derided on its own merits.
i don't see the big deal...
it is still the Warhammer universe, it just isn't The Old World anymore...
if you don't like the Realms, it is not as if Mantica is a real replacement for The Old World, so the point of this whole argument is moot...
i really don't understand why people would be bitter about having Warscrolls for (fictionally) dead characters...
either the fluff matters so much to you that you woudn't use dead characters anyway, or you are such a gamer that the rules are all that matter, in which case all of the old stuff (characters that don't even exist in Mantica) is still viable...
as a reader, my old Warhammer books are still just as good as they were a year ago...
the new stuff is just that, new and interesting...
i have 30 years worth of books i can read if i want The Old World, and now i have fiction set in the Realms on top of that...
it is not like i can't read fiction because some other fiction came along...
at the end of the day, it is all just a bunch of made up stuff, and not worth getting upset over...
jonolikespie wrote: Because AoS doesn't get to piggy back off the success of WHFB's fluff after having just destroyed it all.
if you want to be bitter about it, that's your choice...
i would rather enjoy it...
like i said, i'm not married to fiction...
WHFB fluff has only been destroyed if you let it be...
i know my books didn't spontaneously combust on the 11th of July...
it's all just a lot of make believe, so why get so upset about it???
i enjoyed the Star Wars prequels, even though i grew up with the original trilogy...
i enjoyed Peter Jackson's LotR and Hobbit, even though they weren't the same as the books...
as long as something is visually amazing, like films or models, i am cool with it...
for me, AoS stands on it's own as a continuation of the Warhammer universe...
jonolikespie wrote: Because AoS doesn't get to piggy back off the success of WHFB's fluff after having just destroyed it all.
if you want to be bitter about it, that's your choice...
i would rather enjoy it...
like i said, i'm not married to fiction...
WHFB fluff has only been destroyed if you let it be...
i know my books didn't spontaneously combust on the 11th of July...
it's all just a lot of make believe, so why get so upset about it???
i enjoyed the Star Wars prequels, even though i grew up with the original trilogy...
i enjoyed Peter Jackson's LotR and Hobbit, even though they weren't the same as the books...
as long as something is visually amazing, like films or models, i am cool with it...
for me, AoS stands on it's own as a continuation of the Warhammer universe...
cheers
jah
It's not really a case of anyone 'wanting to be bitter'. Somebody stopped making something we like - background and fiction set in the Warhammer universe - and replaced it with something we don't like - a high-fantasy ALWAYS-WAR-ALL-THE-TIME setting with little subtlety or fleshed - out detail that feels like it was designed by committee.
That's how it is for the fluff nuts, anyway. The people drawn in by Warhammer rules have a whole different kettle of fish to fry, if I can treat analogies like GW treats synonyms for blood and storms.
I'm not angry, just disappointed :p Yes, I know they can't take my copy of Skarsnik or my Arachnarok model away, but I won't be getting more of that. It's the lost potential that's kinda sad. That's thirty years of background that they won't be building on any more, and they said goodbye to it by blowing it up. I dunno, maybe this would have rankled less if they just let it be and made Age of Sigmar its own thing?
jonolikespie wrote: Because AoS doesn't get to piggy back off the success of WHFB's fluff after having just destroyed it all.
Derp
It's not really a case of anyone 'wanting to be bitter'. Somebody stopped making something we like - background and fiction set in the Warhammer universe - and replaced it with something we don't like - a high-fantasy ALWAYS-WAR-ALL-THE-TIME setting with little subtlety or fleshed - out detail that feels like it was designed by committee.
That's how it is for the fluff nuts, anyway. The people drawn in by Warhammer rules have a whole different kettle of fish to fry, if I can treat analogies like GW treats synonyms for blood and storms.
I'm not angry, just disappointed :p Yes, I know they can't take my copy of Skarsnik or my Arachnarok model away, but I won't be getting more of that. It's the lost potential that's kinda sad. That's thirty years of background that they won't be building on any more, and they said goodbye to it by blowing it up. I dunno, maybe this would have rankled less if they just let it be and made Age of Sigmar its own thing?
Very well put.
I feel AoS would've had a MUCH better reception if it still kept the original fluff going on. And heck, they could even keep the End Times as part of the fluff (Do note this is said by a staunch HE player).
The End Times, properly used, could've been the breath of fresh air to the stalemate that was going on in the Old world. Sure, kill off some characters but keep the world (mostly) intact, give both sides a costly draw, so you can rework from there.
You'd have loads of potential for narrative campaign books anyway with (for example):
-the reforming of the Empire/Bretonnia,
- the inner fighting of the Skaven/Elves,
- a great War of Reclamation for the Dwarf Holds, etc.
Why not put pictures of actual age of sigmar games instead of promo pics?
From beasts of war:
From creative twilight:
I also think AoS is tripe (that's why our group is still playing 8th edition, and we're dipping our toe at KoW), but at least let's have a honest discussion.
Why not put pictures of actual age of sigmar games instead of promo pics?
From beasts of war:
From creative twilight:
I also think AoS is tripe (that's why our group is still playing 8th edition, and we're dipping our toe at KoW), but at least let's have a honest discussion.
Not even sure what point you're trying to make here, as a) you ignore the promo WFB picture you quoted, and b) those pictures were originally posted to point out AoS looks more like WMH than WFB.
i agree, GW could have gone in a few different directions...
they chose the most extreme and dramatic option...
they pissed a lot of people off...
all i'm saying is that, even as a 30 year veteran fluff bunny, i'm fine with it...
as far as i'm concerned, the old fluff is now just the setting of a different Age, and is just as valid...
i'm not going to get any less enjoyment out of the Nagash Time of Legends novels, or Mallus Darkblade's stories, or the Gotrek and Felix books, than i am the Realm Gate Wars...
i can still paint my old minis, and i like a lot of the new ones, so i don't see any lost potential...
i've already been through five "generations" of major changes to GW minis from 1985 to today...
the first Slaan are nowhere near the same minis as we have today...
as much as i loved those little Aztec frogs (i still have them in my collection), the latest plastic Dinos are pretty damn impressive minis, and miles ahead of the original Lizardmen sculpts...
the quality and appeal of the majority of the Stormcast Eternals and the Bloodbound sculpts have me very interested in seeing what the studio has in store for the other races...
Why not put pictures of actual age of sigmar games instead of promo pics?
From beasts of war:
From creative twilight:
I also think AoS is tripe (that's why our group is still playing 8th edition, and we're dipping our toe at KoW), but at least let's have a honest discussion.
I am talking about apples and you reply about potatoes so... I really don't know what to say to that.
But answer me these two very, very simple questions that will reflect how the three games can be immediately recognized on the tabletop (if you can, as I've seen my previous fluff-related questions posed to you remain unanswered - why wonder why?)
- Which of these three games requires the use of square bases/movement trays: AoS, WHFB or WMH?
- Which of these three games are (supposedly) low scale, low model count fantasy skirmish games: AoS, WHFB or WMH?
Not even sure what point you're trying to make here, as a) you ignore the promo WFB picture you quoted, and b) those pictures were originally posted to point out AoS looks more like WMH than WFB.
My point is AoS is a game that incorporates and feeds on WHFB lore, minis and general fluff.
Don't like the rules? That's ok, don't play it (that's what I do) but to deny the continuity with WHFB is intellectually dishonest.
But answer me these two very, very simple questions that will reflect how the three games can be immediately recognized on the tabletop (if you can, as I've seen my previous fluff-related questions posed to you remain unanswered - why wonder why?)
- Which of these three games requires the use of square bases/movement trays: AoS, WHFB or WMH?
- Which of these three games are (supposedly) low scale, low model count fantasy skirmish games: AoS, WHFB or WMH?
I'm talking about fluff, you're talking about rules.
My very first point on this thread:
Since we're talking about fluff. AoS fluff is a continuation of WHFB. Nothing stops you from playing Old world or End times games with AoS rules. Hell there are even rules for characters that were dead centuries before proper AoS fluff started.
You want to talk rules, I'm OK with another round of AoS bashing
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote: But answer me these two very, very simple questions that will reflect how the three games can be immediately recognized on the tabletop(if you can, as I've seen my previous fluff-related questions posed to you remain unanswered - I wonder why?)
jouso wrote: I'm talking about fluff, you're talking about rules.
I'll just leave this right here. And do understand that I was talking about how the games LOOK on the tabletop, as the images I posted were posted in answer to this specific point made by Mongoose Matt:
MongooseMatt wrote: Things have moved on, I grant you, but it is still Warhammer. No one is going to be mistaking it for Warmachine
So... where am I talking about rules again?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Let me see if I can put this really clearly.
WHFB - 8th or (whatever) Ed rules, Old World Setting and fluff. Grimdark, war-as-necessary-evil setting where the horrors of armed conflict are in your face.
AoS - AoS Rules, AoS setting and fluff. War-is-fun-and-cool setting where where the horrors of armed conflict are... pretty much ignored. Van Halen!
GW themselves have stressed that AoS and WHFB are not the same thing.
But hey, if you want to use the vague, VAGUE, continuity that GW just tossed in half assedly to believe that AoS and WHFB are the same game fluf-fwise... more power to you, I guess.
Fluff wise, AOS doesn't make much sense. It doesn't feel real. There's no logic to how the worlds work. Where does the food come from? What is the culture like? Economics? Society? Countries? Anything?
The Old World made a lot more sense and felt real. Mostly because it was based loosely on history.
This new world feels shallow and not thought out at all.
AoS - AoS Rules, AoS setting and fluff. War-is-fun-and-cool setting where where the horrors of armed conflict are... pretty much ignored. Van Halen!
And what the hell you talking about? "War-is-fun-and-cool setting" have you ever read any fluff material about AOS?
Actually I have read a bit. Enough for me to understand that this setting (imo, anyway, so ymmv) can be pretty much summed up as "Rule of Cool cranked up to eleven" or "HEY KIDS LOOK, SHINY TOYS!". There is no real focus on suffering and loss, on the horrible truth of war - the waste of life. Do the sigmarines die? No no, sorry, because the apothe-errr... relictor just picks up their genes-errr... soul so it can be reforged. Oh they become a little less emotional, boohoo. Dying? Ain't nobody got time for that.
Holy gak, did Nagash just die by Archaon's hand? Lol nope.
Heck, even Sigmar just ignores his subjects when rushes out to get himself some payback - in the middle of a battle. And his reaction when he realizes he kinda got his priorities switched can be compared to when one is pondering if one has left the gas on or not and needs to go check.
Where's the common people? Wait... who are those? I can only see sigmarines and bloodzerkers.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
MWHistorian wrote: Fluff wise, AOS doesn't make much sense. It doesn't feel real. There's no logic to how the worlds work. Where does the food come from? What is the culture like? Economics? Society? Countries? Anything?
The Old World made a lot more sense and felt real. Mostly because it was based loosely on history.
This new world feels shallow and not thought out at all.
Exactly.
And it's not because it's "new" and doesn't have a lot of background to it. I mean, how many "background" books have been released already for AoS? It's just because it's meant to be this way. It's meant to be the opposite of WHFB's lore. It's meant to be larger than life.
MWHistorian wrote: Fluff wise, AOS doesn't make much sense. It doesn't feel real. There's no logic to how the worlds work. Where does the food come from? What is the culture like? Economics? Society? Countries? Anything?
The Old World made a lot more sense and felt real. Mostly because it was based loosely on history.
This new world feels shallow and not thought out at all.
So? You said nothing but "new world feels shallow".
Actually, most "point" you asked, have already mention in different AoS book, just not as rich as 30 years old and based on history "Old World". You feel shallow, because you invest no time in the AoS fluff.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is no real focus on suffering and loss
There are city-state independent from Chaos and Azyr, they are suffering real loss.
MWHistorian wrote: Fluff wise, AOS doesn't make much sense. It doesn't feel real. There's no logic to how the worlds work. Where does the food come from? What is the culture like? Economics? Society? Countries? Anything?
The Old World made a lot more sense and felt real. Mostly because it was based loosely on history.
This new world feels shallow and not thought out at all.
So? You said nothing but "new world feels shallow".
Actually, most "point" you asked, have already mention in different AoS book, just not as rich as 30 years old and based on history "Old World". You feel shallow, because you invest no time in the AoS fluff.
If you wanna go that way, you're saying nothing but "You're wrong". Back it up. Go get that background book and refute his points on
:
Where the food comes from?
What is the culture like?
Economics?
Society?
Countries?
MWHistorian wrote: Fluff wise, AOS doesn't make much sense. It doesn't feel real. There's no logic to how the worlds work. Where does the food come from? What is the culture like? Economics? Society? Countries? Anything?
The Old World made a lot more sense and felt real. Mostly because it was based loosely on history.
This new world feels shallow and not thought out at all.
So? You said nothing but "new world feels shallow".
Actually, most "point" you asked, have already mention in different AoS book, just not as rich as 30 years old and based on history "Old World". You feel shallow, because you invest no time in the AoS fluff.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is no real focus on suffering and loss
There are city-state independent from Chaos and Azyr, they are suffering real loss.
"Also in the starter set is a Lord-Relictor. These sinister figures safeguard the souls of the Stormcast Eternals and ensure that when they ‘die’ their souls are kept from the underworlds."
Notice the ' ' there?
Also:
"Even upon death the Stormcast Eternals cannot escape their righteous purpose. A slain Eternal is born anew and sent back into the fray once more. This reforging, however, changes a warrior in strange ways. The Lord-Relictors, heroes from the Realm of Shyish, hold a mysterious power over the clutches of death, that can rouse the Stormcast from death."
MWHistorian wrote: Fluff wise, AOS doesn't make much sense. It doesn't feel real. There's no logic to how the worlds work. Where does the food come from? What is the culture like? Economics? Society? Countries? Anything?
The Old World made a lot more sense and felt real. Mostly because it was based loosely on history.
This new world feels shallow and not thought out at all.
There's nothing internally inconsistent about it. You have themed magical realms where people live, but we haven't seen hardly any of them yet. We have Stormcast, who don't need to eat and live to fight. We have Bloodbound, who are cannibals. We have Nurgle followers, who are also cannibals. We have Alarielle, who is a god, and her forest creatures, who are magical and/or trees. We have only seen one instance of "normal" people, and they were starving and constantly hunted by Bloodbound. We have seen the remnants of an abandoned Dwarven kingdom but no actual dwarves. So none of what you are asking for has been shown. Which does not mean that it doesn't exist.
MWHistorian wrote: Fluff wise, AOS doesn't make much sense. It doesn't feel real. There's no logic to how the worlds work. Where does the food come from? What is the culture like? Economics? Society? Countries? Anything?
The Old World made a lot more sense and felt real. Mostly because it was based loosely on history.
This new world feels shallow and not thought out at all.
There's nothing internally inconsistent about it. You have themed magical realms where people live, but we haven't seen hardly any of them yet. We have Stormcast, who don't need to eat and live to fight. We have Bloodbound, who are cannibals. We have Nurgle followers, who are also cannibals. We have Alarielle, who is a god, and her forest creatures, who are magical and/or trees. We have only seen one instance of "normal" people, and they were starving and constantly hunted by Bloodbound. We have seen the remnants of an abandoned Dwarven kingdom but no actual dwarves. So none of what you are asking for has been shown. Which does not mean that it doesn't exist.
So, without disrespect towards what you just posted (as it is all correct), so far the fluff backing up the culture, economics, food, etc, at the moment can be (basically) condensed into "a wizard did it" and cannibalism.
True enough that there's still a lot to flesh out, but the job so far has been so poorly done and so over the top that's it's hard not to find it shallow and way too incomplete when comparing it to a more "realistic"(?) setting like WHFB's.
When starting a new universe I'm not surprised they began with a very macro view. We've got all the time in the world to get into the micro with individual army books/fluff books/Black Library.
I'm looking forward to men/elves/dwarves getting released, as that will do a lot to fill in our view.
Stormcast have a lot of hints of being deeper than they first appear too. I get a very fascist vibe, and I wouldn't be surprised (or I would create my own) to have "order" civilizations who do not support them.
MWHistorian wrote: Fluff wise, AOS doesn't make much sense. It doesn't feel real. There's no logic to how the worlds work. Where does the food come from? What is the culture like? Economics? Society? Countries? Anything?
The Old World made a lot more sense and felt real. Mostly because it was based loosely on history.
This new world feels shallow and not thought out at all.
So? You said nothing but "new world feels shallow".
Actually, most "point" you asked, have already mention in different AoS book, just not as rich as 30 years old and based on history "Old World". You feel shallow, because you invest no time in the AoS fluff.
If you wanna go that way, you're saying nothing but "You're wrong". Back it up. Go get that background book and refute his points on
:
Where the food comes from?
What is the culture like?
Economics?
Society?
Countries?
Wait... A wizard did it, right?
I'm not going to explain every point, it is because you didn't read any "bit"and always twisting other comments into your word. You know that you are toxic and annoying, right?
MWHistorian wrote: Fluff wise, AOS doesn't make much sense. It doesn't feel real. There's no logic to how the worlds work. Where does the food come from? What is the culture like? Economics? Society? Countries? Anything?
The Old World made a lot more sense and felt real. Mostly because it was based loosely on history.
This new world feels shallow and not thought out at all.
So? You said nothing but "new world feels shallow".
Actually, most "point" you asked, have already mention in different AoS book, just not as rich as 30 years old and based on history "Old World". You feel shallow, because you invest no time in the AoS fluff.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is no real focus on suffering and loss
There are city-state independent from Chaos and Azyr, they are suffering real loss.
"Also in the starter set is a Lord-Relictor. These sinister figures safeguard the souls of the Stormcast Eternals and ensure that when they ‘die’ their souls are kept from the underworlds."
Notice the ' ' there?
Also:
"Even upon death the Stormcast Eternals cannot escape their righteous purpose. A slain Eternal is born anew and sent back into the fray once more. This reforging, however, changes a warrior in strange ways. The Lord-Relictors, heroes from the Realm of Shyish, hold a mysterious power over the clutches of death, that can rouse the Stormcast from death."
That's on White Dwarf Issue 75.
Jacotus Goldenmane, decapitated and cannot be resurrected. And how to kill a sigmarine? Read it yourself, "a bit enough to", ha.
MWHistorian wrote: Fluff wise, AOS doesn't make much sense. It doesn't feel real. There's no logic to how the worlds work. Where does the food come from? What is the culture like? Economics? Society? Countries? Anything?
The Old World made a lot more sense and felt real. Mostly because it was based loosely on history.
This new world feels shallow and not thought out at all.
So? You said nothing but "new world feels shallow".
Actually, most "point" you asked, have already mention in different AoS book, just not as rich as 30 years old and based on history "Old World". You feel shallow, because you invest no time in the AoS fluff.
If you wanna go that way, you're saying nothing but "You're wrong". Back it up. Go get that background book and refute his points on
:
Where the food comes from?
What is the culture like?
Economics?
Society?
Countries?
Wait... A wizard did it, right?
I'm not going to explain every point, it is because you didn't read any "bit"and always twisting other comments into your word. You know that you are toxic and annoying, right?
MWHistorian wrote: Fluff wise, AOS doesn't make much sense. It doesn't feel real. There's no logic to how the worlds work. Where does the food come from? What is the culture like? Economics? Society? Countries? Anything?
The Old World made a lot more sense and felt real. Mostly because it was based loosely on history.
This new world feels shallow and not thought out at all.
So? You said nothing but "new world feels shallow".
Actually, most "point" you asked, have already mention in different AoS book, just not as rich as 30 years old and based on history "Old World". You feel shallow, because you invest no time in the AoS fluff.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is no real focus on suffering and loss
There are city-state independent from Chaos and Azyr, they are suffering real loss.
"Also in the starter set is a Lord-Relictor. These sinister figures safeguard the souls of the Stormcast Eternals and ensure that when they ‘die’ their souls are kept from the underworlds."
Notice the ' ' there?
Also:
"Even upon death the Stormcast Eternals cannot escape their righteous purpose. A slain Eternal is born anew and sent back into the fray once more. This reforging, however, changes a warrior in strange ways. The Lord-Relictors, heroes from the Realm of Shyish, hold a mysterious power over the clutches of death, that can rouse the Stormcast from death."
That's on White Dwarf Issue 75.
Jacotus Goldenmane, decapitated and cannot be resurrected. And how to kill a sigmarine? Read it yourself, "a bit enough to", ha.
Glad to see I wasn't wrong in thinking you can't back anything you're spewing out of your fingertips
So basically this thread is just about people upset and hirt what they did with warhammer fantasy. Impretty sure we could go thru every other game pick flaws and find some type of garbage. I love aos personally. I honestly thought kow was an old warhammer game and the models were just old. This thread is pointless because its based of opinions.
MWHistorian wrote: Fluff wise, AOS doesn't make much sense. It doesn't feel real. There's no logic to how the worlds work. Where does the food come from? What is the culture like? Economics? Society? Countries? Anything?
The Old World made a lot more sense and felt real. Mostly because it was based loosely on history.
This new world feels shallow and not thought out at all.
So? You said nothing but "new world feels shallow".
Actually, most "point" you asked, have already mention in different AoS book, just not as rich as 30 years old and based on history "Old World". You feel shallow, because you invest no time in the AoS fluff.
If you wanna go that way, you're saying nothing but "You're wrong". Back it up. Go get that background book and refute his points on
:
Where the food comes from?
What is the culture like?
Economics?
Society?
Countries?
Wait... A wizard did it, right?
I'm not going to explain every point, it is because you didn't read any "bit"and always twisting other comments into your word. You know that you are toxic and annoying, right?
MWHistorian wrote: Fluff wise, AOS doesn't make much sense. It doesn't feel real. There's no logic to how the worlds work. Where does the food come from? What is the culture like? Economics? Society? Countries? Anything?
The Old World made a lot more sense and felt real. Mostly because it was based loosely on history.
This new world feels shallow and not thought out at all.
So? You said nothing but "new world feels shallow".
Actually, most "point" you asked, have already mention in different AoS book, just not as rich as 30 years old and based on history "Old World". You feel shallow, because you invest no time in the AoS fluff.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is no real focus on suffering and loss
There are city-state independent from Chaos and Azyr, they are suffering real loss.
"Also in the starter set is a Lord-Relictor. These sinister figures safeguard the souls of the Stormcast Eternals and ensure that when they ‘die’ their souls are kept from the underworlds."
Notice the ' ' there?
Also:
"Even upon death the Stormcast Eternals cannot escape their righteous purpose. A slain Eternal is born anew and sent back into the fray once more. This reforging, however, changes a warrior in strange ways. The Lord-Relictors, heroes from the Realm of Shyish, hold a mysterious power over the clutches of death, that can rouse the Stormcast from death."
That's on White Dwarf Issue 75.
Jacotus Goldenmane, decapitated and cannot be resurrected. And how to kill a sigmarine? Read it yourself, "a bit enough to", ha.
Glad to see I wasn't wrong in thinking you can't back anything you're spewing out of your fingertips
I mentioned there are wizard builder, and Jacotus Goldenmane got "killed completely", but you twisted those into your word "can't back anything". You realise you are the toxic of the forum, right?
Who is Jacotus Goldenmane? First I've heard of a Sigmarine actually dying.
GW made a lot of missteps with AoS, and not explaining how the world's work is one of them. You can be vague and leave blank space and so forth, but it does feel shallow if you don't talk about the ordinary people or places beyond a mention of a name and a big battle that was was fought there.
On top of that, you've still got people waiting to find out what their factions are like. Going back earlier in the thread, I know what an orc is, I know what an ork is, but I have no clue what an orruk is except that sometimes they can be turned into a Stormcast, at which point they are no longer an orruk at all. The aelf players have no idea what's happened to their faction, the duardin players are stuck wondering whether their slayers have to be greedy mercenaries now...
As opposed to KoW, which tells you everything you need about the major factions in the rulebook and puts up blurbs in the free rules! Bam! Back on topic!
MWHistorian wrote: Fluff wise, AOS doesn't make much sense. It doesn't feel real. There's no logic to how the worlds work. Where does the food come from? What is the culture like? Economics? Society? Countries? Anything?
The Old World made a lot more sense and felt real. Mostly because it was based loosely on history.
This new world feels shallow and not thought out at all.
So? You said nothing but "new world feels shallow".
Actually, most "point" you asked, have already mention in different AoS book, just not as rich as 30 years old and based on history "Old World". You feel shallow, because you invest no time in the AoS fluff.
If you wanna go that way, you're saying nothing but "You're wrong". Back it up. Go get that background book and refute his points on
:
Where the food comes from?
What is the culture like?
Economics?
Society?
Countries?
Wait... A wizard did it, right?
I'm not going to explain every point, it is because you didn't read any "bit"and always twisting other comments into your word. You know that you are toxic and annoying, right?
MWHistorian wrote: Fluff wise, AOS doesn't make much sense. It doesn't feel real. There's no logic to how the worlds work. Where does the food come from? What is the culture like? Economics? Society? Countries? Anything?
The Old World made a lot more sense and felt real. Mostly because it was based loosely on history.
This new world feels shallow and not thought out at all.
So? You said nothing but "new world feels shallow".
Actually, most "point" you asked, have already mention in different AoS book, just not as rich as 30 years old and based on history "Old World". You feel shallow, because you invest no time in the AoS fluff.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is no real focus on suffering and loss
There are city-state independent from Chaos and Azyr, they are suffering real loss.
"Also in the starter set is a Lord-Relictor. These sinister figures safeguard the souls of the Stormcast Eternals and ensure that when they ‘die’ their souls are kept from the underworlds."
Notice the ' ' there?
Also:
"Even upon death the Stormcast Eternals cannot escape their righteous purpose. A slain Eternal is born anew and sent back into the fray once more. This reforging, however, changes a warrior in strange ways. The Lord-Relictors, heroes from the Realm of Shyish, hold a mysterious power over the clutches of death, that can rouse the Stormcast from death."
That's on White Dwarf Issue 75.
Jacotus Goldenmane, decapitated and cannot be resurrected. And how to kill a sigmarine? Read it yourself, "a bit enough to", ha.
Glad to see I wasn't wrong in thinking you can't back anything you're spewing out of your fingertips
I mentioned there are wizard builder, and Jacotus Goldenmane got "killed completely", but you twisted those into your word "can't back anything". You realise you are the toxic of the forum, right?
Spinner wrote: Who is Jacotus Goldenmane? First I've heard of a Sigmarine actually dying.
Yea, he is the 1st named Lord-Celestant got killed and cannot be resurrected.
Spinner wrote: GW made a lot of missteps with AoS, and not explaining how the world's work is one of them. You can be vague and leave blank space and so forth, but it does feel shallow if you don't talk about the ordinary people or places beyond a mention of a name and a big battle that was was fought there.
On top of that, you've still got people waiting to find out what their factions are like. Going back earlier in the thread, I know what an orc is, I know what an ork is, but I have no clue what an orruk is except that sometimes they can be turned into a Stormcast, at which point they are no longer an orruk at all. The aelf players have no idea what's happened to their faction, the duardin players are stuck wondering whether their slayers have to be greedy mercenaries now...
As opposed to KoW, which tells you everything you need about the major factions in the rulebook and puts up blurbs in the free rules! Bam! Back on topic!
I do agree AoS fluff maybe too vague, and not as rich as The Old World. However, AoS fluff still fun to read, every book give a little piece if lore about the realm and how it work.
AoS *is* a continuation of the WFB background, because that's what GW have said it is, and they kinda own it...
Whether you like it or not is down to subjective, not objective points.
Whether you prefer AoS fluff to WFB fluff to KoW fluff is similarly inarguable.
Whether the fluff has any bearing on whether you wish to play whatever game is also your choice.
Might be an idea to take the fluff v fluff discussion into a separate thread.
Who is Jacotus Goldenmane? First I've heard of a Sigmarine actually dying.
A lord Celestant. He is killed in the 2nd novel by the khorne warlord Khuul. Khuul cuts his head off with his axe that opens a rift up to the realm of chaos, and Goldenmane's spirit is sucked through that rift, preventing resurrection.
RoperPG wrote: AoS *is* a continuation of the WFB background, because that's what GW have said it is, and they kinda own it...
Whether you like it or not is down to subjective, not objective points.
Whether you prefer AoS fluff to WFB fluff to KoW fluff is similarly inarguable.
Whether the fluff has any bearing on whether you wish to play whatever game is also your choice.
Might be an idea to take the fluff v fluff discussion into a separate thread.
I'm an Alien fan. We're used to disowning official continuity.
You're right, though - there's probably a better place for this.
Thanks for the explanation on Goldenmane, guys. Interesting - I suppose there's a seed of a decent plot in there. Perhaps the Stormcast shall know fear if they realize the only way to kill them is also basically the worst fate they can suffer.
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote: But answer me these two very, very simple questions that will reflect how the three games can be immediately recognized on the tabletop(if you can, as I've seen my previous fluff-related questions posed to you remain unanswered - I wonder why?)
jouso wrote: I'm talking about fluff, you're talking about rules.
I'll just leave this right here. And do understand that I was talking about how the games LOOK on the tabletop, as the images I posted were posted in answer to this specific point made by Mongoose Matt:
How can you say that? I posted two pictures of actual AoS games from two different podcasts.
I can see dwarves fighting elves (on square bases, btw, not that it matters). On another one I see brets fighting beastmen. Same minis, same world as in WHFB, different rules.
Regarding fluff who cares what happened post end times? The game gives you the tools to play pre, during and post end times.
You can play sigmarines against khornebloodgorecrushers or Nagash taking on the combined armies of the Elves and men or a desperate alliance of Dwarves and men holding the push of waagh Gorbad.
The fluff is there. The rules are there. At any point GW may decide to launch campaign books based on the old world and it will still be Warhammer. You know what? Because they own warhammer and they can take the storyline wherever they want to.
According to your rationale flames of war is no longer a WW2 game because they're releasing Cold war minis and rules now. Hell they haven't released anything MW since v2 and guess what, I still consider MW a valid FoW timeline.
Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote: But answer me these two very, very simple questions that will reflect how the three games can be immediately recognized on the tabletop(if you can, as I've seen my previous fluff-related questions posed to you remain unanswered - I wonder why?)
jouso wrote: I'm talking about fluff, you're talking about rules.
I'll just leave this right here. And do understand that I was talking about how the games LOOK on the tabletop, as the images I posted were posted in answer to this specific point made by Mongoose Matt:
How can you say that? I posted two pictures of actual AoS games from two different podcasts.
I can see dwarves fighting elves (on square bases, btw, not that it matters). On another one I see brets fighting beastmen. Same minis, same world as in WHFB, different rules.
Regarding fluff who cares what happened post end times? The game gives you the tools to play pre, during and post end times.
You can play sigmarines against khornebloodgorecrushers or Nagash taking on the combined armies of the Elves and men or a desperate alliance of Dwarves and men holding the push of waagh Gorbad.
The fluff is there. The rules are there. At any point GW may decide to launch campaign books based on the old world and it will still be Warhammer. You know what? Because they own warhammer and they can take the storyline wherever they want to.
According to your rationale flames of war is no longer a WW2 game because they're releasing Cold war minis and rules now. Hell they haven't released anything MW since v2 and guess what, I still consider MW a valid FoW timeline.
You do get he posted the pic he did because they are all promo pics and not game play photo for a reason right?
TrollSlayerThorak'Khun'Na wrote: When starting a new universe I'm not surprised they began with a very macro view. We've got all the time in the world to get into the micro with individual army books/fluff books/Black Library.
Personally I think it is the dumbest thing they could have done in regards to fluff short of not including any.
When releasing a new game with a new setting the very first thing you should be trying to do is give people an overview of the setting to draw them in. Instead, as another poster pointed out, you have people like me disinterested because I have no idea if my dark elves exist anymore, all I know is that they are being sold as a force of order, and that worries me.
TrollSlayerThorak'Khun'Na wrote: When starting a new universe I'm not surprised they began with a very macro view. We've got all the time in the world to get into the micro with individual army books/fluff books/Black Library.
Personally I think it is the dumbest thing they could have done in regards to fluff short of not including any.
When releasing a new game with a new setting the very first thing you should be trying to do is give people an overview of the setting to draw them in. Instead, as another poster pointed out, you have people like me disinterested because I have no idea if my dark elves exist anymore, all I know is that they are being sold as a force of order, and that worries me.
Did you read the end times? How long has kow been out
@jono: they are the ones holding Slaanesh captive...
very much still a part of the story...
the DE may be listed as order, because they are opposed to Chaos, but the DE are the Exiles, jabbing Slaanesh's bloated body with sharp sticks...
jonolikespie wrote: I have no idea if my dark elves exist anymore, all I know is that they are being sold as a force of order, and that worries me.
Embittered and cruel, the aelf Exiles roam the Mortal Realms bringing death to every foe they meet. These swift and vicious warriors are ostensibly allies of Sigmar. In truth, they serve only the shadowy Malerion, and themselves. Emerging from the darkened places of the realms, the Exile warbands engage in lightning raids that leave ravaged corpses piled high in their wake. Then they vanish as quickly as they came, like smoke melting away on the breeze.
Aelf Exiles(Dark Elves) exist for sure. However, their lore not as rich as The Old World. Maybe you can create your own background like realm drifting Black Ark Raider, the realms are so huge, still a lot of city-state and area untouched by Chaos.
That's what I keep getting told by GW employees if I ask about them.
That is a TERRIBLE way to do business.
Seriously, the other stuff you just said is literally three or four sentences more than I have gotten out of any official GW representative's mouth. I might have known that myself if I bought the books, but when people just tell me to wait and see what else gets released i have 0 incentive to buy anything
RoperPG wrote: AoS *is* a continuation of the WFB background, because that's what GW have said it is, and they kinda own it...
Whether you like it or not is down to subjective, not objective points.
Whether you prefer AoS fluff to WFB fluff to KoW fluff is similarly inarguable.
Whether the fluff has any bearing on whether you wish to play whatever game is also your choice.
Might be an idea to take the fluff v fluff discussion into a separate thread.
I'm an Alien fan. We're used to disowning official continuity.
You're right, though - there's probably a better place for this.
Thanks for the explanation on Goldenmane, guys. Interesting - I suppose there's a seed of a decent plot in there. Perhaps the Stormcast shall know fear if they realize the only way to kill them is also basically the worst fate they can suffer.
They actually fear death intensely because they are starting to realize that they lose themselves more and more each time they die. That's pretty terrifying and Sigmar didn't tell them about it.
jonolikespie wrote: I dunno, I've had redshirts try to tell me that that is worse than death and all but it feels more like bad writing to me.
Not.. you know... bad bad but saturday morning cartoon kinda bad. 'Immature' bad I suppose.
You should read the novel/book by yourself, they explain why reforging is worse than death, not just losing memory and personality; how different is stormcast before and after reforge; And also what is the ultimate goal of Chaos in Mortal Realms... There are so much to read for.
Just my two cents but they really need the Relictors to guide them back to Sigmar. He is essentially stealing the souls meant for Nagash. Nagash is all to aware of this and has hinted that he will get what's owed to him.
I believe they need the Relictors for defense against daemons as well, otherwise their souls are helpless and will be torn apart when they die.
Lastly, mindless drones are not only a inefficient fighting force compared to highly skilled and enraged warriors but I don't think Sigmar has the power to cause that anyway. It's a side effect of the reforging process. Also, do you want empty shells facing hordes of creatures known for possessing weak minds and mortal husks?
You know when you read the blurbs on the back of books and DvDs? And they say things like "Sigmar learns that weapons are for war" or "Sigmarine fears losing a little bit of himself when he dies for 18th time" and you think to yourself... "hmmm, not really what I want to waste my time on... this?"
So no I have not wasted time on these books.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Baron Klatz wrote: Just my two cents but they really need the Relictors to guide them back to Sigmar. He is essentially stealing the souls meant for Nagash. Nagash is all to aware of this and has hinted that he will get what's owed to him.
I believe they need the Relictors for defense against daemons as well, otherwise their souls are helpless and will be torn apart when they die.
Lastly, mindless drones are not only a inefficient fighting force compared to highly skilled and enraged warriors but I don't think Sigmar has the power to cause that anyway. It's a side effect of the reforging process. Also, do you want empty shells facing hordes of creatures known for possessing weak minds and mortal husks?
Yes, I would kill and reforge over and over again until they are so devoid of personality and individuality that they do anything I ask without care. I would have warriors that would fight until they die from whatever cause. They dont need personality to die for me. Nor would they care about dying since they have nothing to lose by dying.
You know when you read the blurbs on the back of books and DvDs? And they say things like "Sigmar learns that weapons are for war" or "Sigmarine fears losing a little bit of himself when he dies for 18th time" and you think to yourself... "hmmm, not really what I want to waste my time on... this?"
So no I have not wasted time on these books.
You admit you read nothing and claim the writing dumb, it is all right.
You know when you read the blurbs on the back of books and DvDs? And they say things like "Sigmar learns that weapons are for war" or "Sigmarine fears losing a little bit of himself when he dies for 18th time" and you think to yourself... "hmmm, not really what I want to waste my time on... this?"
So no I have not wasted time on these books.
You admit you read nothing and claim the writing dumb, it is all right.
Alright, dumb basis and ideas FOR writing, is that better?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mymearan wrote: Why would he want mindless warriors when he specifically chose them based on their personal traits?
Because in wars you dont need personal traits, just men who can work as one without care or problems and who wont break formation. These guys have nothignt o lose, nothing to gain etc. They will hold their ranks and ultimately win. If they die then you simply "reforge them". Win win scenario.
You know when you read the blurbs on the back of books and DvDs? And they say things like "Sigmar learns that weapons are for war" or "Sigmarine fears losing a little bit of himself when he dies for 18th time" and you think to yourself... "hmmm, not really what I want to waste my time on... this?"
So no I have not wasted time on these books.
Yeah I have to agree here. It may well be written better, but from all I have heard I am not going to spend time or money seeing for myself.
Mymearan wrote: Why would he want mindless warriors when he specifically chose them based on their personal traits?
Maybe for the same reason he turned a diverse cast of heroic warriors from across eight worlds, spanning everything from humans to orcs, and turned them all into space marine replicas?
Baron Klatz wrote: Just my two cents but they really need the Relictors to guide them back to Sigmar. He is essentially stealing the souls meant for Nagash. Nagash is all to aware of this and has hinted that he will get what's owed to him.
I believe they need the Relictors for defense against daemons as well, otherwise their souls are helpless and will be torn apart when they die.
Lastly, mindless drones are not only a inefficient fighting force compared to highly skilled and enraged warriors but I don't think Sigmar has the power to cause that anyway. It's a side effect of the reforging process. Also, do you want empty shells facing hordes of creatures known for possessing weak minds and mortal husks?
Yes, I would kill and reforge over and over again until they are so devoid of personality and individuality that they do anything I ask without care. I would have warriors that would fight until they die from whatever cause. They dont need personality to die for me. Nor would they care about dying since they have nothing to lose by dying.
This is a trope that has been used everywhere, from Superman and Batman and all sorts of comic books, to anime, and even mythology.
The protagonist must choose between winning the easy way and losing a part of himself (Batman or Superman could, for instance, just kill their arch-nemeses and be done with it), or do it the hard way, retaining yourself while also being victorious (sending their enemies to Arkham or space or whatever)
Sigmar represents the Good Guy, and Good Guys don't do the kind of thing like steal individuality, etc. Good Guys don't use mindless drones.
Imagine Sigmar standing over the forge, about to strip the last bit of thought and personality from a Sigmarine. Suddenly, Robin bursts into the room, "No! Sigmar! Don't do this! If you take away all of that warrior's humanity, you're no better than Lex Luthor!". Sigmar pauses (in a comic book, there would be about 4 panels of narrator box describing Sigmar's internal conflict) before resolving himself to win the "right" way - with warriors, not drones.
You know when you read the blurbs on the back of books and DvDs? And they say things like "Sigmar learns that weapons are for war" or "Sigmarine fears losing a little bit of himself when he dies for 18th time" and you think to yourself... "hmmm, not really what I want to waste my time on... this?"
So no I have not wasted time on these books.
You admit you read nothing and claim the writing dumb, it is all right.
Alright, dumb basis and ideas FOR writing, is that better?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mymearan wrote: Why would he want mindless warriors when he specifically chose them based on their personal traits?
Because in wars you dont need personal traits, just men who can work as one without care or problems and who wont break formation. These guys have nothignt o lose, nothing to gain etc. They will hold their ranks and ultimately win. If they die then you simply "reforge them". Win win scenario.
Somehow I don't think Sigmar would think that the end justified the means in that scenario. This is a pretty silly discussion anyway since we have no idea if he could make them mindless robots even if he wanted to (which we can assume he doesn't).
Spinner wrote:
Mymearan wrote: Why would he want mindless warriors when he specifically chose them based on their personal traits?
Maybe for the same reason he turned a diverse cast of heroic warriors from across eight worlds, spanning everything from humans to orcs, and turned them all into space marine replicas?
You know when you read the blurbs on the back of books and DvDs? And they say things like "Sigmar learns that weapons are for war" or "Sigmarine fears losing a little bit of himself when he dies for 18th time" and you think to yourself... "hmmm, not really what I want to waste my time on... this?"
So no I have not wasted time on these books.
You admit you read nothing and claim the writing dumb, it is all right.
Alright, dumb basis and ideas FOR writing, is that better?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mymearan wrote: Why would he want mindless warriors when he specifically chose them based on their personal traits?
Because in wars you dont need personal traits, just men who can work as one without care or problems and who wont break formation. These guys have nothignt o lose, nothing to gain etc. They will hold their ranks and ultimately win. If they die then you simply "reforge them". Win win scenario.
Somehow I don't think Sigmar would think that the end justified the means in that scenario. This is a pretty silly discussion anyway since we have no idea if he could make them mindless robots even if he wanted to (which we can assume he doesn't).
Spinner wrote:
Mymearan wrote: Why would he want mindless warriors when he specifically chose them based on their personal traits?
Maybe for the same reason he turned a diverse cast of heroic warriors from across eight worlds, spanning everything from humans to orcs, and turned them all into space marine replicas?
What? This doesn't make any sense, sorry.
No worries, it was kind of half-clear. And, now that I look back at it, somewhat typo'd.
He already got rid of a bunch of their personal traits. Woman, orc, dwarf, whatever...they all look like fantasy space marines. Don't they have their former memories suppressed anyway as part of the 're-forging'? I thought a plot point in one of the novels involved the main character getting them back when he was sent against the warlord that would have killed him. Clearly, Sigmar does subscribe to the school of thought that would prefer lockstep super-drones to a rag-tag band of heroes.
...which seems a misstep both from a modelling perspective and an in-universe one. Think of the possibilities if their original forms were simply physically idealized. No greenskin tribe is going to follow some 'umie git in golden armor, but an orc the size of an ogre? I mean, once he explains who they'll be working with, he might have to kill one or two or thirty, but the rest will fall in line because he's obviously da best. Or imagine a dwarf with a beard below his knees, wearing the heaviest armor possible like it was nothing and born aloft on mechanical wings, discovering an isolated enclave and inspiring them as a divine messenger. He'd be greeted with much less suspicion than a Sigmarine, I'd think.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, Age of Sigmar Sigmar isn't all that bright.
Rihgu wrote: This is a trope that has been used everywhere, from Superman and Batman and all sorts of comic books, to anime, and even mythology.
The protagonist must choose between winning the easy way and losing a part of himself (Batman or Superman could, for instance, just kill their arch-nemeses and be done with it), or do it the hard way, retaining yourself while also being victorious (sending their enemies to Arkham or space or whatever)
Sigmar represents the Good Guy, and Good Guys don't do the kind of thing like steal individuality, etc. Good Guys don't use mindless drones.
Imagine Sigmar standing over the forge, about to strip the last bit of thought and personality from a Sigmarine. Suddenly, Robin bursts into the room, "No! Sigmar! Don't do this! If you take away all of that warrior's humanity, you're no better than Lex Luthor!". Sigmar pauses (in a comic book, there would be about 4 panels of narrator box describing Sigmar's internal conflict) before resolving himself to win the "right" way - with warriors, not drones.
That's a fair explanation but if true then the setting has clearly lost a lot of the darkness and shady morality that made WHFB different from your more typical fantasy world.
I would never expect a GW character, across any of their settings, to choose the morally right path over victory. That's kinda what defines their settings.
I also have to agree that given how samey the sigmarines already seem going the extra step further seems like no big deal and an army of emotionless superhumans is probably the ideal fighting force.
Well, they're not just losing their emotions. It seems they're losing parts of their humanity as well.(things like that and their armor make me think GW are giving nods to Dark Souls.)
As I said before, with Nagash being cheated of his due and the hordes of chaos swarming the realms, a army of mindless and soulless warriors would be easy targets.
I don't really understand why this is a argument. Sigmar is the god of humanity and would never kill the humanity of his subjects voluntarily. Complaining about his Stormcast being covered in uniform armor is a bit silly too.
GW gives us lots of options for your Stormcast to be almost anything you want them to be. We'll probably see less armored Stormcasts that show off their former life and heritage in the future but right now we can make our own. So why make it such a big deal?
....man, we're pretty much in another country as far as being on topic is concerned.
I highly doubt we will ever see a Stormcast outside of their armour. They seem very deliberately designed to me to mimic humanity, not to be a part of it. Sculpted faces on the helmets makes them look human, but at the same time you can see they are sculpted, those are not the sigmarines' faces, they are a mimicry or a parody.
Baron Klatz wrote: Well, they're not just losing their emotions. It seems they're losing parts of their humanity as well.(things like that and their armor make me think GW are giving nods to Dark Souls.)
Wellp!! I had never even considered Sigmarines until you made this association... And now I NEED Sigmarines...
I'll make you pay for this, somehow. I'm sure I'll make you pay...
jonolikespie wrote: I highly doubt we will ever see a Stormcast outside of their armour. They seem very deliberately designed to me to mimic humanity, not to be a part of it. Sculpted faces on the helmets makes them look human, but at the same time you can see they are sculpted, those are not the sigmarines' faces, they are a mimicry or a parody.
That's a good point.
Though it does make sense we'll only see them covered in armor (a good idea for warriors going into battle) I'm hoping we'll see some minor personality like this.
Baron Klatz wrote: Well, they're not just losing their emotions. It seems they're losing parts of their humanity as well.(things like that and their armor make me think GW are giving nods to Dark Souls.)
Wellp!! I had never even considered Sigmarines until you made this association... And now I NEED Sigmarines...
I'll make you pay for this, somehow. I'm sure I'll make you pay...
Haha, sorry about that.
Sigmar does have a Lord Gwyn vibe going on though and you might spot some Ornstein and Smough similarities in his army...
Mix some snakemen in their (future Seraphon?) and you can have a Anor Londo army going.
If we look at Space Marines GW give you the option for helmet less with every squad leader and every officer. Most of the important characters are helmet less by default and would need to be converted to add a helmet.
We have seen unit leaders, characters, officers and even the leader of the sigmarines all only with the option for helmets though haven't we?
That's a fair explanation but if true then the setting has clearly lost a lot of the darkness and shady morality that made WHFB different from your more typical fantasy world.
Bloodreavers are made of people who were conquered by Khorne and forced to eat their friends/family or be killed along with them, cannibals who if they don't show enough joy in being cannibals are put on the dinner table next. Fairly dark. I think people have jumped to a lot of conclusions, like with thinking Slaanesh got written out because it was too risqué for GW, when there's clearly a story arc between elves and Slaanesh coming up.
See, that just feels like a 12 year old's attempt at being dark to go along with the 12 year old's attempt at being deep with the sigmarines death thing.
GW just feel like they are at a point were they don't know if they are parodying themselves anymore. There was some good old goofy stuff in the fluff, and some stuff taken super seriously, and I don't think the current writers know what of the old stuff was serious and what was lighthearted tongue in cheek.
jonolikespie wrote: See, that just feels like a 12 year old's attempt at being dark to go along with the 12 year old's attempt at being deep with the sigmarines death thing.
GW just feel like they are at a point were they don't know if they are parodying themselves anymore. There was some good old goofy stuff in the fluff, and some stuff taken super seriously, and I don't think the current writers know what of the old stuff was serious and what was lighthearted tongue in cheek.
You should read the lore yourself, not reading the pieces on forum and twisting into your flavor.
Stormcast lose part of their soul every time after reforge, change in personality, memory... etc, are nothing but side effect. The truth is Stormcast ain't Eternal, they will die eventually(or instantly). However, you focus on the side effect of reforge but not the true matter, Stormcast are nothing but expendable wardog. I know that sound like Space Marine, but Stormcast live under the illusion of Eternal.
The fluff of Old World is so rich and fun to read, in different style.
Meowstalker wrote:You should read the lore yourself, not reading the pieces on forum and twisting into your flavor.
Stormcast lose part of their soul every time after reforge, change in personality, memory... etc, are nothing but side effect. The truth is Stormcast ain't Eternal, they will die eventually(or instantly). However, you focus on the side effect of reforge but not the true matter, Stormcast are nothing but expendable wardog. I know that sound like Space Marine, but Stormcast live under the illusion of Eternal.
The fluff of Old World is so rich and fun to read, in different style.
See:
jonolikespie wrote:
Yeah I have to agree here. It may well be written better, but from all I have heard I am not going to spend time or money seeing for myself.
It just doesn't seem worth it.
It just don't excite me or interest me enough to spend $20 to find out if it is good. If Abbnett wrote one I'd probably give it a try but AoS just is doing nothing to entice me right now.
jonolikespie wrote: If Abbnett wrote one I'd probably give it a try but AoS just is doing nothing to entice me right now.
That is dumb, you criticise something you are not interested in, know little to zero bit. So, how can you tell AoS lore is "12 year old's attempt"? Actually, you can't.
Just stay away, and wait for slaanesh shadowhost aelf exile whatever it called.
jonolikespie wrote: If Abbnett wrote one I'd probably give it a try but AoS just is doing nothing to entice me right now.
That is dumb, you criticise something you are not interested in, know little to zero bit. So, how can you tell AoS lore is "12 year old's attempt"? Actually, you can't.
Just stay away, and wait for slaanesh shadowhost aelf exile whatever it called.
Lets say a movie was about 19 old women who talk about eating soup while pooping. Would one have to watch the movie to think the whole idea was dumb and silly enough to not waste time watching?
Is it so hard to understand that the premise of this crap (forced happy cannibalism, learning what weapons are for, losing bits of oneself (oooh deep) and so on) is incredibly childish, lame, boring, dumb and so on to people?
You dont have to have an ultimate understanding to think a concept is pathetic. You just need to know what it's about and usually that is enough 99% of the time to know how rubbish something is.
jonolikespie wrote: If Abbnett wrote one I'd probably give it a try but AoS just is doing nothing to entice me right now.
That is dumb, you criticise something you are not interested in, know little to zero bit. So, how can you tell AoS lore is "12 year old's attempt"? Actually, you can't.
Just stay away, and wait for slaanesh shadowhost aelf exile whatever it called.
Lets say a movie was about 19 old women who talk about eating soup while pooping. Would one have to watch the movie to think the whole idea was dumb and silly enough to not waste time watching?
Is it so hard to understand that the premise of this crap (forced happy cannibalism, learning what weapons are for, losing bits of oneself (oooh deep) and so on) is incredibly childish, lame, boring, dumb and so on to people?
You dont have to have an ultimate understanding to think a concept is pathetic. You just need to know what it's about and usually that is enough 99% of the time to know how rubbish something is.
Since you didn't read before reply, right? "losing bits of oneself (oooh deep)" isn't the point . Take a rest, and read all over again.
jonolikespie wrote: If Abbnett wrote one I'd probably give it a try but AoS just is doing nothing to entice me right now.
That is dumb, you criticise something you are not interested in, know little to zero bit. So, how can you tell AoS lore is "12 year old's attempt"? Actually, you can't.
Just stay away, and wait for slaanesh shadowhost aelf exile whatever it called.
Lets say a movie was about 19 old women who talk about eating soup while pooping. Would one have to watch the movie to think the whole idea was dumb and silly enough to not waste time watching?
Is it so hard to understand that the premise of this crap (forced happy cannibalism, learning what weapons are for, losing bits of oneself (oooh deep) and so on) is incredibly childish, lame, boring, dumb and so on to people?
You dont have to have an ultimate understanding to think a concept is pathetic. You just need to know what it's about and usually that is enough 99% of the time to know how rubbish something is.
Since you didn't read before reply, right? "losing bits of oneself (oooh deep)" isn't the point . Take a rest, and read all over again.
You are saying they are silly for criticising something they have not read... but there is no reason they cant criticise something based on what they know. But if one hears enough about something they can easily form an opinion without having to read the whole thing when they know how silly it is.
You are saying they are silly for criticising something they have not read... but there is no reason they cant criticise something based on what they know. But if one hears enough about something they can easily form an opinion without having to read the whole thing when they know how silly it is.
You guys don't read/hear enough definitely, few day before you guys still insist that Stormcast can't be killed(and not resurrect), until I put Goldenmane head on table.
Sure you can criticise something with enough info. However, you guys like twist the info into your flavor. For example the "cannibalism" thing, it is a raw ritual of Khorne; but it become "happy forced" one in your mouth, to proof your "12 year old thing", how creative.
You know, the most interesting part is:
>>Dude likes AoS, wants advice
>>Posts on warseer/dakka asking a question
>>F**KING ********S OUT OF NO WHERE "S**T GAME" "F**KING GW SHILL" "IDIOT FOR PLAYING"
>>Dude stops posting on forum
>>OMG NO NEW POSTS AOS IS DEAD
AoS ain't my spiritual liege, all I want is a place/forum let everyone discuss about the game, good or bad, but not the endless whinefest for every single thread, it hurt the community. You hurt the community.
You are saying they are silly for criticising something they have not read... but there is no reason they cant criticise something based on what they know. But if one hears enough about something they can easily form an opinion without having to read the whole thing when they know how silly it is.
You guys don't read/hear enough definitely, few day before you guys still insist that Stormcast can't be killed(and not resurrect), until I put Goldenmane head on table.
Sure you can criticise something with enough info. However, you guys like twist the info into your flavor. For example the "cannibalism" thing, it is a raw ritual of Khorne; but it become "happy forced" one in your mouth, to proof your "12 year old thing", how creative.
You know, the most interesting part is:
>>Dude likes AoS, wants advice >>Posts on warseer/dakka asking a question >>F**KING ********S OUT OF NO WHERE "S**T GAME" "F**KING GW SHILL" "IDIOT FOR PLAYING" >>Dude stops posting on forum >>OMG NO NEW POSTS AOS IS DEAD
AoS ain't my spiritual liege, all I want is a place/forum let everyone discuss about the game, good or bad, but not the endless whinefest for every single thread, it hurt the community. You hurt the community.
Haha ok... Anyway... please explain why it being a ritual stops it being any more stupid? A raw ritual of Korn? If I told that to a normal person with a straight face to try get them interested in a book 99% of people would probably laugh then go find something else to read. Which is probably why few people bother to read these books anyway. Especially when they try sell them with lines like "In this book Sigmar learns weapons are for war" etc. Nobody will take stuff like that seriously. GW probably doesn't take it seriously (which is evident in the rules and fluff really).
Yea I hurt the community. Sure its not the terrible fluff, or the detrimental rules, or the over priced minis... no it's those people who laugh at such a silly game. Yea, they are the problem...
Anyway, complaining about complainers won't give you an echo chamber.
jonolikespie wrote: See, that just feels like a 12 year old's attempt at being dark to go along with the 12 year old's attempt at being deep with the sigmarines death thing.
Well the game is aimed at 12 year olds so that is not surprising.
Haha ok... Anyway... please explain why it being a ritual stops it being any more stupid? A raw ritual of Korn? If I told that to a normal person with a straight face to try get them interested in a book 99% of people would probably laugh then go find something else to read. Which is probably why few people bother to read these books anyway. Especially when they try sell them with lines like "In this book Sigmar learns weapons are for war" etc. Nobody will take stuff like that seriously. GW probably doesn't take it seriously (which is evident in the rules and fluff really).
Yea I hurt the community. Sure its not the terrible fluff, or the detrimental rules, or the over priced minis... no it's those people who laugh at such a silly game. Yea, they are the problem...
Anyway, complaining about complainers won't give you an echo chamber.
You twist my word into your flavor again, why should I focus the lore in only one ritual only, actually not really important? You skipped all the rest and even put "In this book Sigmar learns weapons are for war" strawman. It is ok as long as you know you do nothing but damage to the forum, I'm really feeling sorry about you.
Haha ok... Anyway... please explain why it being a ritual stops it being any more stupid? A raw ritual of Korn? If I told that to a normal person with a straight face to try get them interested in a book 99% of people would probably laugh then go find something else to read. Which is probably why few people bother to read these books anyway. Especially when they try sell them with lines like "In this book Sigmar learns weapons are for war" etc. Nobody will take stuff like that seriously. GW probably doesn't take it seriously (which is evident in the rules and fluff really).
Yea I hurt the community. Sure its not the terrible fluff, or the detrimental rules, or the over priced minis... no it's those people who laugh at such a silly game. Yea, they are the problem...
Anyway, complaining about complainers won't give you an echo chamber.
You twist my word into your flavor again, why should I focus the lore in only one ritual only, actually not really important? You skipped all the rest and even put "In this book Sigmar learns weapons are for war" strawman. It is ok as long as you know you do nothing but damage to the forum, I'm really feeling sorry about you.
Cheer for the internet.
Haha, im damaging the forum? Ok sure, yea im the problem AOS is failing. The problem only exists on the internet. Do you work for GW?
Swastakowey wrote: Yea I hurt the community. Sure its not the terrible fluff, or the detrimental rules, or the over priced minis...
Those come from your mouth, right? Actually, talking to you is waste of time, because you intent to damage the AoS forum, because you dislike AoS. That is how internet work.
Swastakowey wrote: Yea I hurt the community. Sure its not the terrible fluff, or the detrimental rules, or the over priced minis...
Those come from your mouth, right? Actually, talking to you is waste of time, because you intent to damage the AoS forum, because you dislike AoS. That is how internet work.
Yes exactly, but why should I not do so? I dislike AOS so I will say so. Its how it works in off the internet too...
Anyway this is off topic.
Its not damaging, it's simply adding another opinion to the mix. Well, not damaging to the forum anyway.
Yes exactly, but why should I not do so? I dislike AOS so I will say so. Its how it works in off the internet too...
Anyway this is off topic.
Its not damaging, it's simply adding another opinion to the mix. Well, not damaging to the forum anyway.
Everyone can express their opinion on internet, but not twist other comment into their flavor? Whining every(almost) thread about their opinion, turn the forum into 3 month of whinefest? it is f**king damage to the community.
New dude ask for advice in 4chan /tg/ AoS thread, and he said that, all warhammer forum he know is turning into nothing but whinefest, even 1 or 2 good guy reply something constructive, soon the thread flooded with naysayer like you, express their opinion with baseless assumption, this sound like f**king damage.
BTW, I'm really surprised that /tg/ become a better place to talk about AoS then the traditional forum.
Meowstalker wrote: Everyone can express their opinion on internet, but not twist other comment into their flavor? Whining every(almost) thread about their opinion, turn the forum into 3 month of whinefest? it is f**king damage to the community.
And you know what, you're right, that is our right to do so if we want to.
We are giving opinions on the game.
If you think we are breaking rules, please use the report button, the mods are very good on this forum and will clean up anything that should not be here. But other than that your opinion that people criticizing AoS is bad is no more valid than the opinion that AoS is bad. If so many people are criticizing AoS that it is turning away new players and damaging real gaming communities then maybe you need to ask yourself why so many people dislike it.
I'd just like to point out though that you are accusing others of twisting comments in their favour, but it was you who posted:
>>Posts on warseer/dakka asking a question
>>F**KING ********S OUT OF NO WHERE "S**T GAME" "F**KING GW SHILL" "IDIOT FOR PLAYING"
No one is insulting you for liking the game. If you see that, report it.
If you think we are breaking rules, please use the report button, the mods are very good on this forum and will clean up anything that should not be here. But other than that your opinion that people criticizing AoS is bad is no more valid than the opinion that AoS is bad. If so many people are criticizing AoS that it is turning away new players and damaging real gaming communities then maybe you need to ask yourself why so many people dislike it.
Yea, that why traditional forum degenerate into nothing, every whiner stay behind the "rules", even they turn every thread in whinefest and twist everyone comment into their flavor and stay safe. That is damage to community and not constructive at all. And that why /tg/ become a better place, /tg/ have not much "rule" whiner like you guys can't hide, all the s***poster leave eventually.
I don't care why you guys dislike AoS, but leave the space/room/forum for the guy especially new dude is important.
*Describes AoS writing as immature/appealing to 12 year olds.
*Collects an army where the entire backstory is the mother of all self-entitled teenage strops,and the imagery for said force is spikes, hooks, and being 'evil'.
I find it very interesting that new faces keep coming to argue the pros about a "dying" game and it is the same faces who argue how "bad" they think AoS is. If things were so horrible shouldn't it be the other way around? A steadfast few believers pushing their opinions on everyone who dislikes the game... but that does not appear to be the case. The number of people who like AoS and are upset by the vocal minority keeps growing...
That would indicate more people keep trying the game, realizing it is pretty awesome so they come to the forums, only to be disappointed by this cesspool we have created online. The cesspool part sucks, but the fact new people keep joining in on the pro-AoS side of a tired back and forth is actually a pretty good sign
quiestdeus wrote: I find it very interesting that new faces keep coming to argue the pros about a "dying" game and it is the same faces who argue how "bad" they think AoS is. If things were so horrible shouldn't it be the other way around? A steadfast few believers pushing their opinions on everyone who dislikes the game... but that does not appear to be the case. The number of people who like AoS and are upset by the vocal minority keeps growing...
That would indicate more people keep trying the game, realizing it is pretty awesome so they come to the forums, only to be disappointed by this cesspool we have created online. The cesspool part sucks, but the fact new people keep joining in on the pro-AoS side of a tired back and forth is actually a pretty good sign
Just something to think about.
I want to drop in just to say that I stopped posting because I lost most of my interest in the game. I've got nothing more to say(write) about it. I must be a single case though...
quiestdeus wrote: I find it very interesting that new faces keep coming to argue the pros about a "dying" game and it is the same faces who argue how "bad" they think AoS is. If things were so horrible shouldn't it be the other way around? A steadfast few believers pushing their opinions on everyone who dislikes the game... but that does not appear to be the case. The number of people who like AoS and are upset by the vocal minority keeps growing...
That would indicate more people keep trying the game, realizing it is pretty awesome so they come to the forums, only to be disappointed by this cesspool we have created online. The cesspool part sucks, but the fact new people keep joining in on the pro-AoS side of a tired back and forth is actually a pretty good sign
Just something to think about.
Or people have just lost interest in the game and the few who stick around to defend it are the vocal minority.
If you think we are breaking rules, please use the report button, the mods are very good on this forum and will clean up anything that should not be here. But other than that your opinion that people criticizing AoS is bad is no more valid than the opinion that AoS is bad. If so many people are criticizing AoS that it is turning away new players and damaging real gaming communities then maybe you need to ask yourself why so many people dislike it.
Yea, that why traditional forum degenerate into nothing, every whiner stay behind the "rules", even they turn every thread in whinefest and twist everyone comment into their flavor and stay safe. That is damage to community and not constructive at all. And that why /tg/ become a better place, /tg/ have not much "rule" whiner like you guys can't hide, all the s***poster leave eventually.
I don't care why you guys dislike AoS, but leave the space/room/forum for the guy especially new dude is important.
This is a discussion forum. Things get discussed here. If you want an echo chamber for just pro-AoS opinions start a blog.
Chumbalaya wrote: I tried KoW for the first time yesterday. I'll never dream about playing Age of Excrement again
I know right? I feel like I'm being lectured by someone who thinks they're my mom.
I'll have the chicken "Wow, your not even giving the liver a chance!" I like chicken "You can eat both, but you should eat way more liver" Maybe another time. Would you like some of my chicken, you seem hungry? OGM STUP TRYING TO CONVERT ME!
I don't hate AOS. I'm bored senseless by AOS. Can I play KOW with the grownups without hearing how I'm destroying the hobby with my negativity?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Swastakowey wrote: Lets say a movie was about 19 old women who talk about eating soup while pooping. Would one have to watch the movie to think the whole idea was dumb and silly enough to not waste time watching?
You haven't even read my screenplay yet! Give it a chance!
AoS ain't my spiritual liege, all I want is a place/forum let everyone discuss about the game, good or bad, but not the endless whinefest for every single thread, it hurt the community. You hurt the community.
Says he wants a place to discuss, good or bad, yet labels all criticism as Haterz and whiners.
Maybe the reason you hear so much negativity about the game is because people have a lot of things they find wrong with it? Where there's smoke, there's fire.
Opinions on the game will differ. Some may not like the game for the very reasons that you do. That's ok. We're here to discuss that. Wanting to get rid off all opinions that are different than yours isn't helpful to anyone.
I like a lot of things that other people can't stand. I understand why they don't like it, (instead of dismissing those opinions and insulting the person) but it doesn't lessen my enjoyment of those things.
In other words, your going to have to develop a thicker skin. Especially if you're defending AOS.
Chumbalaya wrote: I tried KoW for the first time yesterday. I'll never dream about playing Age of Excrement again
I know right? I feel like I'm being lectured by someone who thinks they're my mom.
I'll have the chicken "Wow, your not even giving the liver a chance!" I like chicken "You can eat both, but you should eat way more liver" Maybe another time. Would you like some of my chicken, you seem hungry? OGM STUP TRYING TO CONVERT ME!
I don't hate AOS. I'm bored senseless by AOS. Can I play KOW with the grownups without hearing how I'm destroying the hobby with my negativity?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Swastakowey wrote: Lets say a movie was about 19 old women who talk about eating soup while pooping. Would one have to watch the movie to think the whole idea was dumb and silly enough to not waste time watching?
You haven't even read my screenplay yet! Give it a chance!
Playing KoW doesn't make anyone a negative person. Constantly repeating how much they hate another game they don't have any interest in playing does. I have yet to see AoS fans go to the KoW forum to crap on that game from their high horses. Probably because they have no interest in it and so naturally don't feel the need to constantly think about it and engage with it. But moderation policy here being what it is (trolling is fine as long as you don't insult anyone directly), please keep up the "Age of Excrement" trolling and gakposting that brings nothing to the forum, it's fully within your rights and I'm sure it makes you guys happier to think about AoS every day.
Chumbalaya wrote: I tried KoW for the first time yesterday. I'll never dream about playing Age of Excrement again
I know right? I feel like I'm being lectured by someone who thinks they're my mom.
I'll have the chicken "Wow, your not even giving the liver a chance!" I like chicken "You can eat both, but you should eat way more liver" Maybe another time. Would you like some of my chicken, you seem hungry? OGM STUP TRYING TO CONVERT ME!
I don't hate AOS. I'm bored senseless by AOS. Can I play KOW with the grownups without hearing how I'm destroying the hobby with my negativity?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Swastakowey wrote: Lets say a movie was about 19 old women who talk about eating soup while pooping. Would one have to watch the movie to think the whole idea was dumb and silly enough to not waste time watching?
You haven't even read my screenplay yet! Give it a chance!
Playing KoW doesn't make anyone a negative person. Constantly repeating how much they hate another game they don't have any interest in playing does. I have yet to see AoS fans go to the KoW forum to crap on that game from their high horses. Probably because they have no interest in it and so naturally don't feel the need to constantly think about it and engage with it. But moderation policy here being what it is (trolling is fine as long as you don't insult anyone directly), please keep up the "Age of Excrement" trolling and gakposting that brings nothing to the forum, it's fully within your rights and I'm sure it makes you guys happier to think about AoS every day.
If you happen to find something to criticize about KOW and it's legitimate, then you will have people explain your misconceptions and explain why it is that way.
If you criticize AOS people go nuts and say one or a combination of: Change the rules until it works for you, dont play that loser, dont break the game, forge the narrative, balance it yourself etc.
AOS is low hanging fruit in the gaming world. It's like the live action Last Air bender movie of the movie world. So bad that it constantly gets low reviews and people constantly make fun of it. When something is terrible and it's easy to criticize it people will do it.
You are trying to take a moral stance because KOW doesnt get bashed often (it does, like ALL WARGAMES, but not often) but the only reason it's not bashed as often is simply because it is higher in the food chain. It's not easy to criticize it meaningfully, nor does it have many real flaws to point out. If KOW sucked as bad as AOS then you can bet it would be bashed as often.
Mymearan wrote: I have yet to see AoS fans go to the KoW forum to crap on that game from their high horses.
Read the title of this thread.
This discussion has been from the start EXACTLY the place for someone to criticize AoS in favour of KoW.
As for 'damaging the community', I can't help but think dismissing other posters opinions is more damaging, at least to dakka itself. I really enjoy dakka, I think it has great moderators and a solid community BECAUSE diverse opinions are allowed. I would never want that to change.
Almost all of the WHFB podcasts I listen to have made the switch to AoS. Heelanhammer and Facehammers coverage of the first AoS event in Britian really sold me on the potential of the game.
Tried a few games of KoW and it didn't really grab me.
Several in our game group are doing just that.The models work for both games,in fact I play mainly Stormcast in AoS but have a Bretonnian force I mix in with them sometimes...then I picked up a Basilean army from the kickstarter to beef up the Bretonnians even further for use in both games.
Since KoS is basically movement tray battles all you need to do is place a fair amount of appropriate models on each try.You can even customize the trays like a diorama just making the proper type of base hole in the tray for model placement.
Both games are actually very different with KoW being more balanced for the competitive player and AoS being more for the casual/fluff type player.I prefer to have access to both
It's people like you, Minijack, that give me hope for hobbyists.
Though it would be ideal to play what you enjoy most, this is the internet. Here we go from mature individuals who go about our lives and using our free time in pleasurable pursuits to bickering fanatics who believe if we argue loud and hard enough that our opinions will become the one truth that all must agree with.
This is a discussion forum. Things get discussed here. If you want an echo chamber for just pro-AoS opinions start a blog.
This is the point, it is discussion forum, not hub a whiner , you guys repeat the same word for 3 month, and now even trying to twist other word into your flavor(like 12 year old). Not much topic have been going well, because every thread are flooded with you guys. If you want unstoppable whinefest, start your own blog, leave dakka for new dude. You guys are nothing but whiner, deal tons of damage to the community.
If you're building an army for 
ing toxic for a game.
)
Dying? Ain't nobody got time for that.
