So I've been away from the Warhammer community for a while. I left for the most part around the End of Times thing for two reasons, firstly I had no idea what was going on with AoS at the time (besides going to round bases), and I was going back to college at the time so figured I wouldn't give it too much focus anyway.
I've done some casual collecting, switching over to 40k in the meantime.
But I'm looking to return to Fantasy gaming. I'm trying to decide if I should consider going over to AoS (which in truth comes down to a singular question, should I rebase my models to round bases? I have an enormous amount and I'm not good at rebasing, but I like my models to be uniform in that way), or if I should make the jump a friend recommended and move instead to KoW?
How have things gone with the change to AoS? Are the community rejecting it or liking it?
And what's going on with KoW?
Should I instead buy square bases when I buy new models and transfer them on? Or if I'm going to rebase my models how best should I do it?
Well, if your main concern is rebasing you're in luck, KoW use unit footprints so it is the movement tray that is important and you can stack as many bases of whatever shape you want on that. In AoS bases are also completely unimportant, as you measure everything model to model.
Hope that solves that issue for you
As for how AoS changed and how the community is receiving it... take a look in the AoS general, I'd think it fair to say that is is not being well received. Sure, some people are enjoying it but the community is at the very least fractured by it. For my part I think much of that is down to them destroying the setting and replacing it with a very poorly defined and empty 'realms' of infinite size and then focusing all the narrative stuff since on the immortal space marine equivalents.
KoW has seen a massive surge of popularity recently, it has quietened down a little since the initial shock of WHFB being scrapped but it has taken over from WHFB for one of the major American tourney circuits. The foreword in the recently released 2nd edition book actually has an amusing part about how they never thought when they were planning 2nd edition that they would be releasing the number one mass battle fantasy game on the market, and they are not wrong, if ranked soldiers are your thing AoS is not for you.
I am a little biased as I am a more competitive gamer than not and I consider a point system to balance the game a very important feature, but that is the impression I have seen of both games and if nothing else I would suggest picking KoW over AoS if you have to make a choice purely because KoW seems to be holding steady or gaining popularity while AoS does not seem to have a following except for in a very few small communities.
jonolikespie wrote: The foreword in the recently released 2nd edition book actually has an amusing part about how they never thought when they were planning 2nd edition that they would be releasing the number one mass battle fantasy game on the market, and they are not wrong, if ranked soldiers are your thing AoS is not for you.
Pathetic/hilarious that they felt the need to include that, little brother anyone?
Pathetic/hilarious that they felt the need to include that, little brother anyone?
Well, it was written by Rick Priestly (you know, one of the original authors of WHFB), so if anyone's going to make a declaration on that, they got the right guy.
As for the OP, both rule sets and army lists are free, so you can check out both without needing to spend money.
I guess it depends on what you want out of your fantasy gaming. KoW is your regular rank-and-flank game, with regimented units marching in formation. It relatively rules-light and fast playing compared to 8th, and there's more of an emphasis on the units than on the heroes and wizards. Magic is toned down, with there only being 6 spells (Fireball, Lightning Bolt, Wind Blast, Bane Chant, Heal, and Surge). The justification being that all spells in fantasy gaming basically boil down to those six archetypes; short range big blast, long range high strength, defensive or offensive movement, buff, healing, and sudden forward movement. The rules are designed to be competition-oriented.
AoS is very much the opposite - it's supposed to be skirmish scale, with even less rules, although there are tons of special rules (in the Empire faction alone, I counted nearly 30 individual special rules). You don't need to rebase you models, as the rules make a point to ignore bases. There are no army lists/building, so it's a bring-what-you-want/can afford/can agree with what your opponent wants to play. YMMV, unless you're using one of the dozen or so community based attempts to make points cost and list building rules.
You can also check out other community attempts to replace 8th, like 8.5 or the Ninth Age.
Personally, I went with KoW. I like Mantic's design methods - I started playing WHFB because I liked the look of units marching across the table - and I prefer the element basing that allows me to get creative with my units.
AoS is the grown-up equivalent of pushing your toy soldiers around the table and making "pew-pew" noises. Fun for a bit, sure, but not very fulfilling after awhile.
There are, in fact, rules giving you bonuses for doing such things as dancing, talking to your model, having a bigger beard than your opponent, etc.
Well first off, a warning; there is a strong likelyhood this thread will devolve into heated argument and bashing over the two systems somewhere around page 2. Maybe tempers have cooled, but this has been the fate of previous threads involving your question.
Jono and Infinite gave pretty good summaries of the situation, imo, so I will try to add on what they said.
Going by what players have been saying on AoS, you need one of two things. The first is a good gaming group that is very reasonable about what they bring to the table; AoS has no inherent balance (at all) so without a comp system you will rely on your opponents to bring relatively balanced armies to what you have. Which brings me to the other option, a comp system. There are a lot of attempts to balance AoS in use across various locales, so it is worth seeing what your local playerbase has signed up with. Note that anything based on warscroll or wounds count will not be balanced (which is fine, just make sure you have the first option). Alternatively, the Azyr comp system has solid balance with very simple changes, while Project Points Cost has tighter balance but uses a bit more complexity to get there. Both assign points costs to AoS units.
As for KoW, Mantic is very onboard with players using whatever models they like, so your WHFB armies are good to go. The rules are free, but note that the free army lists available on their website are sample lists that contain the mainstay options for the army but only about half of what the full lists (found in the main rulebook) offer. Their first supplement, Hidden Kingdoms (has the fluff&lists for 8 new armies), is about to release and once it does KoW will have an analogous army to every WHFB one plus two that are more unique to them.
Tannhauser42 wrote: AoS is the grown-up equivalent of pushing your toy soldiers around the table and making "pew-pew" noises. Fun for a bit, sure, but not very fulfilling after awhile.
I've actually heard some of the criticisms being that people played it, they liked it even, but they they have no interest in buying into it and 'playing' it as a regular game. Making 'pew pew' noises can be plenty of fun but I don't think all that many people want to make a hobby of it.
Tannhauser42 wrote: There are, in fact, rules giving you bonuses for doing such things as dancing, talking to your model, having a bigger beard than your opponent, etc.
Unless those rules were just there to deliberately embarrass the people still trying to use their WHFB armies in AoS and will not be put into any rules for new, AoS specific, releases... Either way I find it just devalues the hobby as a whole to be encouraging that kind of crap. I don't consider spending hours painting something or playing a game at a competitive level to be 'playing with little army men' or 'man dollies' or what have you and it is hard enough to get people outside the hobby to see the difference without those kinds of rules.
AoS suffers heavily from GW's special rules fetish, where everything must have tons of ancillary rules on top of the main rules, where KoW really never has units with more than a couple of special rules, with many of those being simple effects against stats that never have to be referenced after one or two glances. (Like Thunderous Charge, Piercing, etc, are just modifiers on certain rolls).
AoS is a four page set of rules, plus so-called 'war scrolls' which are the lists for all the legacy WHFB armies. These can be downloaded for free. If you want the war scrolls for the new armies (Chaos, and Sigmarites) then you have to buy the deluxe rulebook and campaign books -- surprisingly, these are very expensive -- or the tablet app.
The rules are a cut-down version of 40K mixed with WHFB. The stat line has been reduced a bit, however the same IGOUGO turn sequence and To Hit, To Wound, To Save combat mechanic is still there.
Magic is greatly simplified. There is a simple morale system called 'Battle shock', that can cause extra casualties on a unit losing troops. There is no command and control.
Each unit is simpler than before, but each unit will have one or more special rules. The tactics of the game are how to combine special rules from different units, especially characters and terrain, to get bonuses in combat. Terrain is defined by war scrolls too, relating to the various kits of magical terrain features that GW is producing. The other main tactic is how to get the best advantage in melee by positioning more figures within range, and judging the sequence of attacks and counter attacks. (For example, to cause maximum damage to the enemy's best unit before it gets its return hack, rather than attacking a weaker unit.)
Although figures are moved individually, you will often want to concentrate figures into the most compact formation to take advantage of the above tactical factors. There are no rules to prevent making formations to move and fight in ranks, and it will often be advantageous to do this. However there are no flanking bonuses, figures can move and fight in any direction without penalty, subject only the range of their weapon. Thus, quite strange formations have been created, such as the inverse T used to defend against charges.
There is no points system. The army lists are the war scrolls. You basically can bring whatever units you like. You and your opponent deploy one unit each alternately, until someone thinks they have enough on the table, after which the other one can deploy any more that he likes. If the larger army is big enough, the smaller army gets a special victory condition.
Much of the community has reacted with horror, disdain or amused disbelief at the rules. There are people saying it isn't a game, or it's the worst game ever written. This is not correct.
Despite the complaints, AoS certainly should not be dismissed out of hand. There is the great advantage that the game is very simple, free, and you can use your existing WHFB armies without modifications.
AoS certainly could and arguably should have been a lot better, but the rules are there for a simple fantasy mass skirmish.
Kilkrazy wrote: AoS is a four page set of rules, plus so-called 'war scrolls' which are the lists for all the legacy WHFB armies. These can be downloaded for free. If you want the war scrolls for the new armies (Chaos, and Sigmarites) then you have to buy the deluxe rulebook and campaign books -- surprisingly, these are very expensive -- or the tablet app.
This is the only part I disagree with - in fact, the war scrolls for all units, including Stormcast and Khorne are available freely online at GW, or in the AoS app. What is not available and locked without the books or app is the 'battalions', groups of units with special rules when taken together, like 40Ks formations. Overall, the books can be skipped unless you like the fluff and/or art. Otherwise, the war scrolls for units are online, and come in the boxes of minis, too, for that matter.
Both AoS and KoW are simplified down from WFB 8th... Aos a LOT moreso than KoW.
The Swedehammer and ETC Comp committees have gotten together and are making (granted, work in progress) a more balanced version of WFB 8th they're calling The 9th Age. It's an attempt to streamline and balance the mess that was WFB 8th, and they're in beta testing right now.
But I'm looking to return to Fantasy gaming. I'm trying to decide if I should consider going over to AoS (which in truth comes down to a singular question, should I rebase my models to round bases? I have an enormous amount and I'm not good at rebasing, but I like my models to be uniform in that way), or if I should make the jump a friend recommended and move instead to KoW?
Unless there are big AoS and/or KoW scenes in your area (and even if there are), I'd point out to you and your friend that there's a third way. (And fourth, and fifth, and so on)
Bottle wrote: Yeah, Kilkrazy is 100% wrong with regards to the Warscrolls for the new armies. The rules for all units can be downloaded directly from the Webstore on the unit page. There are even some Warscroll Battlions available to download such as the Skyborne Slayers for the Stormcast Eternals.
You don't need to buy any of the big books or battletomes if you don't want to.
I apologise for that mistake. TBH I haven't looked at the downloads page for AoS for a few weeks, and certainly when I last looked only the legacy armies and the terrain war scrolls were available.
AegisGrimm wrote: Its all down to the mechanics you want: single bases like 40k, or unit block tactics like old Warhammer?
You mean, do you want to play a game (KoW) or do you want to buy models to put on your display shelf (AoS)? AoS is not a functioning game. Some members have made their own games that are based on AoS, but the standard game is simply unplayable.
Well, let me put it this way, I _love_ Kings of War and it is simply one of my favorite rulesets in the history of the universe. I've been playing it for three years. It exercises the tactical portions of my brain most satisfyingly. It's one of the most balanced rulesets ever made. It revitalized my interested in mass combat games after I stopped playing Warhammer when 8th edition came out - and I bought roughly a half dozen entirely new armies just to model and play with just for KoW in addition to my 6th/7th ed Warhammer armies.
But, I also enjoy Age of Sigmar. When my friends come over and want to have a beer, AoS comes out and there's a lot of laughing and shouting and dice rolling. It's one of the best beer and pretzels rulesets ever written. This is after I hated it when it first came out - the simplicity of it won me over (and I am currently collection a Stormcast Eternals and Nurgle army for AoS)
So, it depends on what you'd prefer! Or, play both, like me!
judgedoug wrote: It's one of the best beer and pretzels rulesets ever written.
No, it's one of the worst, because it's virtually unplayable "out of the box". A good beer and pretzels ruleset does not require you to create extensive ban lists, constantly worry about if your choices are too powerful, house-rule things that are stupid RAW, etc. It's certainly possible to make a good beer and pretzels fantasy wargame, but AoS is not that game.
judgedoug wrote: It's one of the best beer and pretzels rulesets ever written.
No, it's one of the worst, because it's virtually unplayable "out of the box". A good beer and pretzels ruleset does not require you to create extensive ban lists, constantly worry about if your choices are too powerful, house-rule things that are stupid RAW, etc. It's certainly possible to make a good beer and pretzels fantasy wargame, but AoS is not that game.
You don't have to worry about any of those things if you stop trying to pretend that the game must be a fair contest of skill between evenly matched opponents. AOS isn't that, but it is fun if you game for the journey and not the result.
judgedoug wrote: It's one of the best beer and pretzels rulesets ever written.
No, it's one of the worst, because it's virtually unplayable "out of the box". A good beer and pretzels ruleset does not require you to create extensive ban lists, constantly worry about if your choices are too powerful, house-rule things that are stupid RAW, etc. It's certainly possible to make a good beer and pretzels fantasy wargame, but AoS is not that game.
Technically no game that requires you to glue models together, let alone paint them should be considered beer and pretzels.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: You don't have to worry about any of those things if you stop trying to pretend that the game must be a fair contest of skill between evenly matched opponents. AOS isn't that, but it is fun if you game for the journey and not the result.
It's very hard to enjoy the journey when one side mercilessly slaughters the other, and all you get to do is roll dice to see how many turns it takes before all of your models are removed. You can maybe argue that a beer and pretzels game doesn't demand the fine points of competitive balance, but it really needs to be a game, not an execution.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
BobtheInquisitor wrote: An exciting or memorable death is often preferred to a successful play through.
Being wiped off the table with overwhelming force is hardly exciting or memorable. And that's what AoS encourages.
@OP - no, you should not re-base your models - that would be foolish.
There are 3 choices, each with their own Pros & Cons
1. AOS - this is the GW default. AoS plays like WFB, but is a simple skirmish game, greatly simplified for gaks & grins (4 pages of core rules, but lots of special rules on the units). Take what you like, play what you like, it's easy & fun. Newbie friendly. NO competition support whatsoever.
2. KoW - this is largely where America is going. It's a pure block units battle game, and arguably more streamlined than AoS overall (simple rules, extremely generic units). Models don't matter at all, and it doesn't really match the GW stuff.
3. Ninth Age - this is where Europe is going. It's a fan-write of WFB, a true successor to WFB8, with complex rules but somewhat simplified units.
Overall, Americans are doing the stupidest thing, abandoning GW out of pique, and hoping Mantic will save them (Mantic won't, BTW). The Europeans are a quite bit smarter about this, abandoning AoS because it's clearly not (and deliberately designed not to be) a tournament-oriented system. The Casuals are simply playing AoS, even though GW failed to sufficiently simplify and genericize the unit rules.
However, none of this really matters. If you play, you will simply play whatever your friends play.
At least as long as you have experienced players around to help the newbie deal with the complete lack of balance. If you just try to drop newbies into the game without any help (or, worse, put them in an environment where people want to get easy wins instead of helping new players) the results will not be good.
Overall, Americans are doing the stupidest thing, abandoning GW out of pique, and hoping Mantic will save them (Mantic won't, BTW).
I don't get this at all. People aren't abandoning GW out of pique, they're doing it because AoS is unplayable garbage and WHFB is no longer supported or available to buy. People have no obligation to move to a new GW game just because GW published a game they used to play.
And that's much of the problem. AoS would be a *far* superior game if the units were designed like KoW, with the occasional generic special rule sprinkled here and there.
As KK notes, GW failed badly, by not going far enough in streamlining AoS.
How on earth do you figure a skirmish games plays more like a mass battle than a different mass battle game would play like the first mass battle game?
I'll give you that is has the same focus on heroes and powerful magic, but the core of WHFB was maneuvering blocks of troops in formation.
How on earth do you figure a skirmish games plays more like a mass battle than a different mass battle game would play like the first mass battle game?
I'll give you that is has the same focus on heroes and powerful magic, but the core of WHFB was maneuvering blocks of troops in formation.
That is a very deliberately obtuse way of saying "I don't understand.". Anyhow, for me, AoS has the same bulk movement, the same workflow, the same tracking of special rules, the same tracking of individual models as WFB. AoS feels like playing WFB, just less messy because there are zero cross-references or lookups.
WFB has *never* been about blocks. WFB has always been about individual models. That's why WFB and AoS models are wound counters; the only difference is that AoS is truer to being a per-model game. The only block aspect of WFB is non-Skirmisher movement. Everything else might as well be 40k.
KOW is a pure block game. Blocks move and blocks fight and blocks die. You never reduce or erode a block in KoW. KoW blocks don't need individual models at all. A 1/2" thick wooden block with the appropriate equipment on top is generally sufficient (and superior) to using WFB models.
It's a minor point in terms of what is the best game, but what kind of company do you want to support ?
One for whom the only prerogative is sales volumes of the miniatures and resolutely ignore any feedback from fans, actively try and undermine fan communities and websites with legal C&D notices, and have basically destroyed the tournament scene for WHFB through their actions?
For an industry that has traditionally been small, personable and relaxed (based as it is on people's enjoyment of gaming and creativity) GW's behaviour has been ugly and there is no sign that they will become any less voracious. If anything it is becoming more extreme, as evident by them torpedoing one of their core games and replacing it. I could add another 10 examples.
Mantic are certainly not without fault and have had a lot of teething problems but because they constantly go through feedback processes with their rules and engage with their playerbase you get the feeling that they are at least trying to make better games, not just fleece the people that play them. They are a minnow and trying to grow and because of that can't afford to behave like dicks! There is no chance that they will suddenly turn around and remove KoW from sale, for AoS you will never have that certainty that you won't be left high and dry with a game that's suddenly not being supported or developed.
How on earth do you figure a skirmish games plays more like a mass battle than a different mass battle game would play like the first mass battle game?
I'll give you that is has the same focus on heroes and powerful magic, but the core of WHFB was maneuvering blocks of troops in formation.
That is a very deliberately obtuse way of saying "I don't understand.". Anyhow, for me, AoS has the same bulk movement, the same workflow, the same tracking of special rules, the same tracking of individual models as WFB. AoS feels like playing WFB, just less messy because there are zero cross-references or lookups.
WFB has *never* been about blocks. WFB has always been about individual models. That's why WFB and AoS models are wound counters; the only difference is that AoS is truer to being a per-model game. The only block aspect of WFB is non-Skirmisher movement. Everything else might as well be 40k.
KOW is a pure block game. Blocks move and blocks fight and blocks die. You never reduce or erode a block in KoW. KoW blocks don't need individual models at all. A 1/2" thick wooden block with the appropriate equipment on top is generally sufficient (and superior) to using WFB models.
WHFB had problems with counting it's soldiers as individuals for some reason but you couldn't break your individual soldiers out and run off in 8 different directions. 8th ed at least WAS block movement game, even if it had a weird amount of model-by-model tracking added on top.
I agree that WFB is a wierd hybrid game of blocks and individuals - that's why KK calls it "mass skirmish", and I agree with that labeling.
I played very little of 8th, preferring 6E/7E - and not just because that's the last edition in which my Dogs of War were a legit, recognized army. I quit playing WFB after a few deeply unsatisfying games of 8E.
For how I personally conceive of WFB, something like AoS suits me better than KoW - at least I can field my homebrew DoW in AoS without worrying that I've done something unfair.
I can only speak from experience with AoS, since I don't know anybody who has played KoW. AoS is very simple, but it still has depth. I suspect people who talk about "pushing models around and making pew-pew noises" have not played it, or only played a couple of games. It's a wargame, plain and simple. It has simple base rules but complex unit rules, it has tactics, it has unit synergies and interactions that require strategic thinking. Tournaments are playing it and finding it quite worthy of competitive play. It's also tons of fun. If you want to use points, there are many systems out there, the most popular being Azyr, PPC and AoS Independent UK comp. Scenarios are key to the enjoyment of the game, whether they be simple objective-based scenarios a la 40k or more involved narrative scenarios. I can't recommend it highly enough.
No it isn't. It's an exercise in spending the most money on Games™ Workshop™ Products™. Even if you ignore the literal auto-win armies* AoS has no mechanism for ensuring remotely equal forces besides hoping that both players spend relatively equal amounts of money on the game. You don't get to call your product a wargame, or even a game at all, if the best strategy is to simply spend more money than your opponent.
*As in "I deploy my army. I win". I am not exaggerating.
Tournaments are playing it and finding it quite worthy of competitive play.
No they aren't. No legitimate tournament is playing AoS. Some tournaments are playing their own games that are based on some of the AoS rules, but that's not the same thing.
I won't bother responding to the first part of your post. As to the second part, I see you're american, it's mainly being played in UK tournaments. And yes, they are "legitimate" whatever that means?
Mymearan wrote: I won't bother responding to the first part of your post. As to the second part, I see you're american, it's mainly being played in UK tournaments. And yes, they are "legitimate" whatever that means?
So people in the UK are literally playing AoS as-written? No point system? No balance of any kind? It's perfectly legal to fill your entire deployment zone with the most powerful character models (if you can afford to buy them), or bring literal auto-win armies?
Mymearan wrote: They aren't, just like no one is playing WHFB or 40k as-written in tournaments either.
No, but at least WHFB and 40k are mostly playable as-written and just need a bit of fine-tuning. Creating a functioning version of AoS requires writing the entire half of the rules that GW didn't bother with, on top of fixing the same kind of individual-unit issues that WHFB and 40k have.
- An extensive FAQ (24 pages for Adepticon)
- Restrictions on individual units
- Restrictions on army construction (limiting number of detachments, formations etc)
- Complete removal of Unbound (a HUGE rules change)
- Custom scenarios
As for WHFB, an example would be Swedish comp, an 84-page document that is essentially another layer on top of the existing points system.
I wouldn't call any of those "a bit of fine-tuning" to be honest.
Even if I agreed with you, it wouldn't bother me. The changes have been made, lots of people use them, I use them, it works great. What I care about is playing the game, and that works just as well with these custom points systems, in fact it probably works better than an official system would, if their previous efforts are anything to go by.
- An extensive FAQ (24 pages for Adepticon)
- Restrictions on individual units
- Restrictions on army construction (limiting number of detachments, formations etc)
- Complete removal of Unbound (a HUGE rules change)
- Custom scenarios
And AoS has to have all of these things, plus a lot more.
As for WHFB, an example would be Swedish comp, an 84-page document that is essentially another layer on top of the existing points system.
Swedish comp is stupid and irrelevant. We shouldn't be talking about bad tournaments here.
I wouldn't call any of those "a bit of fine-tuning" to be honest.
They really are. The page count might be long because of the sheer size of 40k, but the goal is to take a game that is already playable (if unbalanced) and turn it into a balanced tournament game. With AoS you have to do a lot of work just to get the game to a point where you can even consider playing it. Forget fine-tuning for perfect balance, you're just trying to make the game function.
Even if I agreed with you, it wouldn't bother me. The changes have been made, lots of people use them, I use them, it works great. What I care about is playing the game, and that works just as well with these custom points systems, in fact it probably works better than an official system would, if their previous efforts are anything to go by.
The point is that the game is no longer AoS. You can't play AoS "out of the box", so the question is not "AoS vs. KoW" it's "WHFB is gone and AoS is unplayable, which non-AoS game do you want to play".
3. Ninth Age - this is where Europe is going. It's a fan-write of WFB, a true successor to WFB8, with complex rules but somewhat simplified units.
[...]
However, none of this really matters. If you play, you will simply play whatever your friends play.
Agree with the last point, but there is not only 9th Age in Europe. We have also WarhammerCE, FluffHammer, Warhammer Darkness Edition, and KoW. No one can say which System will make it in the end.
9th Age is doing their Beta test at the moment and they are talking about a 10th Age now of being the real goal because 9th will just be a FAQ Edition to have something ready for the ETC (at least this is what some people which are involed in the project are saying).
The others are older because they started their work during Warhammer EndTimes and have finished rules and army lists. But because they were not hyped by the ETC players they are more or less unknown outside their local groups.
Peregrine, at this point we're arguing semantics. You can call AoS+comp "non-AoS" if you want, and call WHFB/40k+comp "a bit of fine-tuning" if you want, but what's the point? People play it and enjoy it, no matter what you call it. Why do you care?
Mymearan wrote: Peregrine, at this point we're arguing semantics. You can call AoS+comp "non-AoS" if you want, and call WHFB/40k+comp "a bit of fine-tuning" if you want, but what's the point? People play it and enjoy it, no matter what you call it. Why do you care?
The point is that people are talking about AoS vs. KoW like you can just decide "I'm going to play AoS" and have a functioning game. You can't. You have to pick which AoS variant you want to use, and you have to get everyone else in your group to agree to use the same version.
Mymearan wrote: Peregrine, at this point we're arguing semantics. You can call AoS+comp "non-AoS" if you want, and call WHFB/40k+comp "a bit of fine-tuning" if you want, but what's the point? People play it and enjoy it, no matter what you call it. Why do you care?
The point is that people are talking about AoS vs. KoW like you can just decide "I'm going to play AoS" and have a functioning game. You can't. You have to pick which AoS variant you want to use, and you have to get everyone else in your group to agree to use the same version.
Well you certainly can play it without using a points system. I have and enjoyed it. The only house rules used were to measure from bases instead of models, which is a pretty small change. So it's not unplayable by any means. But yes, generally you would want to use a comp. Might be a problem in a FLGS setting, but I wouldn't know since I have a group.
AoS is a complete and playable fantasy battle game out of the box.
It has rules for unit composition, army selection, terrain set up and effects, deployment, turn sequence, movement, fighting, magic, and victory conditions. There are playable wargames with fewer rules that that.
What's there could have been simplified, and other rules could have been included to give more options, but what is there works within its own ambit.
You may not like it, you may not want to play it, but to say it is unplayable is incorrect and detracts from any arguments about the virtues and vices of the AoS rules and the many alternatives.
I fear the 9th age (etc) initiatives Europe is working with will be difficult to maintain in the long run, even if one of them becomes dominant. I have noted this earlier - that the whole community might fragment into different successors systems, or, if they settle on one, might start having problems with either the system becoming static or not having the necessary resources to maintain a living scene of the same size. This isn't Blood Bowl, after all.
Kilkrazy wrote: You may not like it, you may not want to play it, but to say it is unplayable is incorrect and detracts from any arguments about the virtues and vices of the AoS rules and the many alternatives.
Fair enough. You can play it out of the box, with like minded players, but as you'll be able to tell by the number of patches created for it, it's not a particularly clear experience.
TheAuldGrump wrote:You do realize that your disagreement is only making AoSmore redundant, yes?
Are you saying that's a bad thing?
judgedoug wrote:I like and play both.
Well, let me put it this way, I _love_ Kings of War and it is simply one of my favorite rulesets in the history of the universe. I've been playing it for three years. It exercises the tactical portions of my brain most satisfyingly. It's one of the most balanced rulesets ever made. It revitalized my interested in mass combat games after I stopped playing Warhammer when 8th edition came out - and I bought roughly a half dozen entirely new armies just to model and play with just for KoW in addition to my 6th/7th ed Warhammer armies.
Have you played anything else? Something a bit more back-and-forth than IGOUGO? Something where the simple placement of units can affect how well an adjacent unit does? Something where commanders command, rather than run around roaring and tw... swatting things? No games of HC from the hallowed and beatificent Warlord Games?
KoW improves on WFB by introducing unit elements and nerfing magic, but in many ways it hasn't moved much beyond the 'avoid spears if you're cavalry and hit 'em in the flank' tactics of the latter, that other block manoeuvre games start with. (The most interesting tactical innovation is the optional chess clock thing)
Which, I guess, is why it's so popular.
BobtheInquisitor wrote:AOS isn't that, but it is fun if you game for the journey and not the result.
And thinking about your moves, deciding which manoeuvres will be best rewarded by the mechanics, watching your plan come together... is not that?
JohnHwangDD wrote:
There are 3 choices
Hey! Is this thing on?
Overall, Americans are doing the stupidest thing, abandoning GW out of pique, and hoping Mantic will save them (Mantic won't, BTW).
Not that I necessarily disagree, but why not?
If you play, you will simply play whatever your friends play.
Why is everyone here always the guy that goes along with what their friends are doing? Why don't those friends who steer the gaming choices ever post here?
jonolikespie wrote:
How on earth do you figure a skirmish games plays more like a mass battle than a different mass battle game would play like the first mass battle game?
What John already said: Warhammer was never a mass battle, unit block, grand manoeuvre game - it was just dressed up like one.
Mymearan wrote:It has simple base rules but complex unit rules, it has tactics
That seems like a contradiction in terms. Most tactical games do it the other way, so to speak: deeper basic mechanics, some universal special rules, and very few unique unit rules.
Or do you mean 'tactics' in the same way as, say, the '40K tactics' board? 'Cos the first part of your line does sound like a basic description of that game.
it has unit synergies and interactions that require strategic thinking.
Oh, 'unit synergies'. You do mean it that way, and like Warmachine and Malifaux: 'strategic' listbuilding to make sure you bring the right units to pull off the right combo of special rules.
I'm interested to know how that squares with the freewheelin' 'journey' of AoS.
Vermis wrote: Have you played anything else? Something a bit more back-and-forth than IGOUGO?
Oooh! Sounds like AoS with its interesting activation mechanic in the combat phase and the initiative roll off for each battle round!
I find it so weird that people defend or even like this. In my mind it is purely bad game design, subjectively because I dislike so much randomness but objectively it's even worse as a player can end up sitting their through 2 of the opponent's turns, simply removing models and downright bored while he waits twice as long for his turn.
So people in the UK are literally playing AoS as-written? No point system? No balance of any kind? It's perfectly legal to fill your entire deployment zone with the most powerful character models (if you can afford to buy them), or bring literal auto-win armies?
They will be at the events at WHW, but they've just been events rather than tournaments from what I can tell.
And that's much of the problem. AoS would be a *far* superior game if the units were designed like KoW, with the occasional generic special rule sprinkled here and there.
As KK notes, GW failed badly, by not going far enough in streamlining AoS.
Nope!
Age Of Random Rules plays like two kids with a pile of minis pushing them at each other and rolling dice.
In the sense of manuevering large forces on a battlefield, Kings of War plays a lot more like Warhammer than Age of Stockholders does.
But with better rules than Warhammer has seen in several editions.
And with the magical ability to have an entire evening of games without any rules arguments.
And an actual attempt at balance. (Age of Sigmar does not even make a token attempt at balance.)
Yep, Kings of War is obviously the worst choice for Americans to make....
I also suspect that you overstate the popularity of Ninth Age in Europe....
The Auld Grump - who started switching to Kings of War during 7th edition Warhamer.
I looked into KoW 1st edition, but sadly nobody around here knows or cares (it's either WMH or 40k) so nobody was interested, but it looks like a wargame done like other wargames, in that it's base size a la historical gaming. You don't need individual models, you can do "diorama" type bases like you see in most (all?) historical rulessets. That's a bonus to me, also the rules (1st edition) seemed pretty balanced and flexible.
AoS just looks odd. It's a GW game done in a GW style, meant to be played in the GW way so it's something that collectors/hobbyists can whip up when they get together to oggle their pretty GW miniatures. And that to me isn't a real game at all or a good game.
And that's much of the problem. AoS would be a *far* superior game if the units were designed like KoW, with the occasional generic special rule sprinkled here and there.
As KK notes, GW failed badly, by not going far enough in streamlining AoS.
Nope!
Age Of Random Rules plays like two kids with a pile of minis pushing them at each other and rolling dice.
In the sense of manuevering large forces on a battlefield, Kings of War plays a lot more like Warhammer than Age of Stockholders does.
But with better rules than Warhammer has seen in several editions.
And with the magical ability to have an entire evening of games without any rules arguments.
And an actual attempt at balance. (Age of Sigmar does not even make a token attempt at balance.)
Yep, Kings of War is obviously the worst choice for Americans to make....
I also suspect that you overstate the popularity of Ninth Age in Europe....
The Auld Grump - who started switching to Kings of War during 7th edition Warhamer.
Peregrine, do you consider tournament style the only way to play?
Vermis, the tactics, mechanics, and synergy are all part of the journey regardless of whether you are playing to win or to build a narrative.
There's an old saying that the object of a game is to win, but the point of a game is to have fun. Some people see AOS that way, but I don't. I think they've made the object having fun...and maybe missing the point.
Honestly, I'm pretty much done defending AOS, though. I've always preferred a more cooperative, narrative, RPGish approach to board games and wargames, an approach where AOS isn't terminally flawed. For wargamers, coming from the other direction, it's poison of the soul.
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I've always preferred a more cooperative, narrative, RPGish approach to board games and wargames, an approach where AOS isn't terminally flawed.
Except for the fact that there are plenty of other fantasy skirmish games that do cooperative, narrative, and RPGish approaches far better than AoS does.
infinite_array wrote: Except for the fact that there are plenty of other fantasy skirmish games that do cooperative, narrative, and RPGish approaches far better than AoS does.
Yeah, I really don't get why anyone would say that AoS is great for RPG-style gaming. Where's the ability to have your character(s) grow as you continue the story? Where's the ability to work together with your fellow players instead of just slaughtering them until you achieve the game objectives? AoS doesn't have RPG elements built into the rules, it's just so inexcusably bad that the only way to even attempt to play it is to come up with a story first so that you limit the amount of rule abuse people can get away with.
Well. Now that we have all been fully informed what terrible games AoS, KoW and WHoFB are, I would like to suggest that the OP takes a look at the rather jolly Hordes Of The Things fantasy rules.
3. Ninth Age - this is where Europe is going. It's a fan-write of WFB, a true successor to WFB8, with complex rules but somewhat simplified units.
[...]
However, none of this really matters. If you play, you will simply play whatever your friends play.
Agree with the last point, but there is not only 9th Age in Europe. We have also WarhammerCE, FluffHammer, Warhammer Darkness Edition, and KoW. No one can say which System will make it in the end.
9th Age is doing their Beta test at the moment and they are talking about a 10th Age now of being the real goal because 9th will just be a FAQ Edition to have something ready for the ETC (at least this is what some people which are involed in the project are saying).
The others are older because they started their work during Warhammer EndTimes and have finished rules and army lists. But because they were not hyped by the ETC players they are more or less unknown outside their local groups.
I get that there are loads of others (you could even play Chainmail), but they really don't matter any more. ETC unanimously backed and committed to Ninth, so that will be the winner, because it will have the highest profile games and events around it. Personally, I'm really curious to see when DoW get their list - I'm really looking forward to it.
To get back to rules discussion, the alternate activation of units in melee is one of the better rules in AoS.
The IGOUGO with initiative rolls each turn is one of the worst, though, because it sets up the possibility of one side getting two whole turns at a crucial point of the battle before the other side can reply.
Kaptajn Congoboy wrote: I fear the 9th age (etc) initiatives Europe is working with will be difficult to maintain in the long run,
Considering how much effort goes into maintaining FAQs and such for Tournaments, I can't see Ninth being very much different. ETC does this little dance every year, and they've been going strong for several years. Their governance is quite good. I have a lot of faith that Ninth being the "house" ruleset for ETC is going to keep it alive for a very long time.
____
Overall, Americans are doing the stupidest thing, abandoning GW out of pique, and hoping Mantic will save them (Mantic won't, BTW).
Not that I necessarily disagree, but why not?
If you play, you will simply play whatever your friends play.
Why is everyone here always the guy that goes along with what their friends are doing? Why don't those friends who steer the gaming choices ever post here?
Dude, the open mic was hot, and I just wandered up.
Mantic needs to make their own Fantasy game, and divorce from GW. Yes, it's good that their game was broadly compatible with WFB, but it can't be WFB. People expecting KoW to support all of GW's myriad WFB whatnots are bound to be disappointed. Right now, Mantic is in this wierd place of trying to put a twist on GW's WFB Armies so they can capture all of the disgruntled ex-GW players, but that just doesn't work from a long term business standpoint, because it just becomes a lot of work to sell a single rulebook & armybook, without any follow-on minis sales.
If he were the Alpha telling the Betas what to play, he wouldn't be asking the question!
ETC unanimously backed and committed to Ninth, so that will be the winner, because it will have the highest profile games and events around it. .
No.
This is only relevant for those who want to play there. The rest ignores it
Like before, the ETC Warhammer restriction and FAQ's were not used outside the ETC in most countries and then only for qualifying/training events.
9th Age has some tournaments here, but not more than 8. edition warhammer or Kings of War.
Maybe this will change when there are more than just beta rules, but for the moment most not ETC players ignore it.
PS: This is only about the German/Austrian scene which I know best
BobtheInquisitor wrote: I've always preferred a more cooperative, narrative, RPGish approach to board games and wargames, an approach where AOS isn't terminally flawed.
Except for the fact that there are plenty of other fantasy skirmish games that do cooperative, narrative, and RPGish approaches far better than AoS does.
Are you talking about obscure rulesets I've never heard of or which I would have to buy independently from a starter box of minis?
Still, I'm interested. Please tell me which games are cooperative, narrative and easy to learn.
Kilkrazy wrote: To get back to rules discussion, the alternate activation of units in melee is one of the better rules in AoS.
The IGOUGO with initiative rolls each turn is one of the worst, though, because it sets up the possibility of one side getting two whole turns at a crucial point of the battle before the other side can reply.
Actually, the random Initiative for Igo-Ugo is secretly one of the better features of AoS, very much akin to the alternate activiation of melee units. The initiative reversal mitigates the advantage of going first because there should eventually be a double turn to balance it. The other thing is that it brings strategic uncertainty into the game, which becomes a risk-reward thing at a high level. Personally, I think that the player who went second should win the ties, to have more double turns.
Look at the following sequence: AB - AB - AB - AB - AB - AB. Strict alternation, and A always acts first. There is a clear, and persistent tempo benefit to being player A, with the same downside for player B. Especially in a game in which forces attrit.
Now consider this sequence: AB-BA - AB-BA - AB-BA This is a reversing alternation, a 2-player serpentine. Here the advantage to being player A is not as great, as B is the first to get doubled turns.
Honestly, though, if we're serious about balancing, and having a fixed sequence, then it should be Thue-Morse alternation: AB-BA - BA-AB - BA-AB (AB-BA) This is (mathematically) the fairest way to even out the tempo, and it superscales the AB-BA pattern .
However, most people don't follow the math, so dicing is a good first step, and more in line with GW random.
Are you talking about obscure rulesets I've never heard of or which I would have to buy independently from a starter box of minis?
Oh hey, that's cool - movable goalposts! What a useful feature.
Still, I'm interested. Please tell me which games are cooperative, narrative and easy to learn.
Frostgrave, Open Combat, Otherworld, and Song of Blades and Heroes come to mind pretty quickly.
Of course, if you want to play in the Warhammer Fantasy World, there's always Mordheim.
And if you're like other AoS supporters and your definition of "easy to learn" rules means you can count the pages of core rules on one hand, then there's One Page Fantasy for bigger games, and One Page Skirmish for smaller games. Both of which, when including the full campaign rules, are four pages. Simple enough, right?
And that's much of the problem. AoS would be a *far* superior game if the units were designed like KoW, with the occasional generic special rule sprinkled here and there.
As KK notes, GW failed badly, by not going far enough in streamlining AoS.
Nope!
Age Of Random Rules plays like two kids with a pile of minis pushing them at each other and rolling dice.
In the sense of manuevering large forces on a battlefield, Kings of War plays a lot more like Warhammer than Age of Stockholders does.
But with better rules than Warhammer has seen in several editions.
And with the magical ability to have an entire evening of games without any rules arguments.
And an actual attempt at balance. (Age of Sigmar does not even make a token attempt at balance.)
Yep, Kings of War is obviously the worst choice for Americans to make....
I also suspect that you overstate the popularity of Ninth Age in Europe....
The Auld Grump - who started switching to Kings of War during 7th edition Warhamer.
But still a million times better, in my opinion, than Age of Stinkmore.
You see, Mantic has no real problem with folks using other companies' models with their rules - but GW does.
So insulting Mantic's models gains little to no traction. (And there are some lines of Mantic figures that I like better than the corresponding GW line - Undead in particular.)
Likewise, Mantic's rules are largely setting independent - so insulting the setting... matters not a whit.
And it seems that many, many people are willing to use non-Mantic models with the Kings of War rules - enough that Mantic is publishing a book to make it easier for folks to port over their existing armies.
For what it si worth, GWreally does not like folks using their models for other games - going so far as to send letters to game stores as far back as the nineteen nineties. (The local game store that received the letter promptly sent a letter back telling GW to go pound sand - once the models are sold there is no law that prevents folks from using them as they see fit - and plenty of laws stating that they CAN use them as they see fit.)
Heck, GW, in the past, has complained when folks have used GW miniatures to play otherGW games! (In White Dwarf - when folks were using Empire troops in Mordheim, and vise versa.)
But if you like plaing 'Age of Gak Rules' (to paraphrase your own reply) then go ahead and play - just because I think that they are a poor excuse used by GW for abandoning any pretense of rules development and balance does not mean that you can't enjoy the poorly written thing.
The point is to have fun.
Hell, I enjoyed the heck out of both The U.S. Marines vs. The Invasion of the Cheap Plastic Dinosaurs and Clay-o-Rama. (USMCvsTICPD was a game played with bags of cheap plastic toy soldiers and dinosaurs. Clay-O-Rama was wargaming rules for Play Doh.)
There, don't you feel better, now?
The Auld Grump - though, come to think of it, both of those games had better balance than Age of Sigmar... (They both had points rules for balance.)
*EDIT* Hmm, screwed the format up while trying to make this less pointed....
Kilkrazy wrote: To get back to rules discussion, the alternate activation of units in melee is one of the better rules in AoS.
The IGOUGO with initiative rolls each turn is one of the worst, though, because it sets up the possibility of one side getting two whole turns at a crucial point of the battle before the other side can reply.
Actually, the random Initiative for Igo-Ugo is secretly one of the better features of AoS, very much akin to the alternate activiation of melee units. The initiative reversal mitigates the advantage of going first because there should eventually be a double turn to balance it. The other thing is that it brings strategic uncertainty into the game, which becomes a risk-reward thing at a high level. Personally, I think that the player who went second should win the ties, to have more double turns.
Look at the following sequence:
AB - AB - AB - AB - AB - AB.
Strict alternation, and A always acts first. There is a clear, and persistent tempo benefit to being player A, with the same downside for player B. Especially in a game in which forces attrit.
Now consider this sequence:
AB-BA - AB-BA - AB-BA This is a reversing alternation, a 2-player serpentine. Here the advantage to being player A is not as great, as B is the first to get doubled turns.
Honestly, though, if we're serious about balancing, and having a fixed sequence, then it should be Thue-Morse alternation:
AB-BA - BA-AB - BA-AB (AB-BA)
This is (mathematically) the fairest way to even out the tempo, and it superscales the AB-BA pattern .
However, most people don't follow the math, so dicing is a good first step, and more in line with GW random.
One of the scariest initiative systems that I have ever seen in a wargame was in Soldier's Companion for Space: 1889.
The game used a stat called Coolness Under Fire.
Both sides would roll for initiative, and add their Coolness - the side that won would take all the phases in their turn - movement, shooting, and melee.
Then both sides would roll initiative, and add their Coolness.... So a veteran army, with a high Coolness, would go more often than an army comprised of Green troops - and could roll right over a much larger force.
I actually liked the system - veteran British troops could roll right over the Martian natives, but each Crown troop lost made the difference in numbers an ever present danger....
notprop wrote: If the aim of the game is to have fun then why do you feel it necessary to piss on someone else's chips?
Warmaster is bestest Fantasy battle anyway.
Pffft... you only say that because it's fun to play..... (I have a friend that still has and plays Battle Masters... and know a sizable group that still plays Battlesystem by TSR.)
I actually quite like Warmaster - and wish that more folks in my area still played it.
If I can find the figures, they would work just fine for Kings of War - there are a fair number of folks experimenting with variant scales. (Successful experiments, at that.)
Overall, Americans are doing the stupidest thing, abandoning GW out of pique, and hoping Mantic will save them (Mantic won't, BTW).
I'm sorry, but that statement is plain full of crap, and is an obvious argument-bait, as well.
I am to believe that I am being inherently stupid (like all Americans, obviously, because Europeans are "better") and at fault because when Warhammer Fantasy was changed to a mechanical format completely different from the reason I was playing Warhammer Fantasy, I became interested in a game that offered the "feel" that I wanted? That's insane.
Exactly how are the "Europeans" doing anything different, by making their own non-AoS rules to continue to play Warhammer models with, than people buying Kings of War to play with Warhammer models. GW models, non-GW rules in both cases.
You might as well look down on people who still like to play 2nd edition Warhammer 40K instead of 7th as "stupid", because they want something mechanically different in the universe/genre they like.
As for Mantic being doomed to fail us, Kings of War may be bland (I fully admit that I'm not a huge fan of how other than different special rules and some Nerve changes, most armies have pretty analogous units to each other) in some ways, but at least unlike GW rules, it works without the giant tomes of Errata and FAQ, usually issued two days after the release date (showing that all those flaws were fully known about before the public rules grognards even got a chance to find them). While there is a small amount of errata so far, Kings of War works better right out of the door than nearly anything I can think of from GW, and I have been with GW games for nearly 20 years.
And insulting the blandness of setting is a result of players who have always enjoyed being spoon-fed their games, especially younger ones (to risk insulting younger games, it's true). The majority of rulesets out there that are widely known by the gaming community as "good", like Song of Blades and Heroes/Gruntz/etc, and especially about 90% of 15mm gaming, do not have linked settings or starter sets, or sometimes not even "official" figures by the same company that puts out the rules.
And yes, Grump, I have gotten my wife to play Battlemasters over the years. My son is just under a year old, and in a couple years, it will be his first indoctrination to wargaming. .
I'll largely reiterate the things I said about AoS at the time of release:
There is no convincing evidence that AoS is anything but a low effort product, lacking in any depth, creativity or originality.
The basic rules have no emergent complexity, instead piling on heaps of individual special rules for almost every unit, barely reward any player interaction or decision making in favour of random dice rolls and homogenising the core statlines, have laughably vague deployment and victory conditions, and are full of holes and exploits that were discovered within hours of them being seen, such that it's possible to autowin the game, or make it thoroughly unenjoyable for both sides entirely by accident, since there's nothing to help players choose comparable forces, and different players will have a different idea of what a fun game is, since fun is subjective. Pick-up games, the kind that some wargames communities rely on (particularly in the US, as I understand) are all but impossible, since there is no guideline for what is a fair matchup and thus it is difficult to determine the reason for a win or a loss, making learning and improving one's play equally difficult. The idea that it has been deliberately designed for "narrative" or "just for fun" play is unsupported, sounding instead like vague excusess, as well as being outright wrong given that a balanced, clear and concise ruleset serves narrative play far better than a vague mess.
AoS is also not a co-operative game, and claiming it as one is a weak excuse for the game being practically non-functional without substantial modification and pre-game comprimise - the kind that even its staunchest defenders admit to doing. A wargame, where two opposing armies fight to achieve a predetermined victory condition, is not co-operative. A co-operative game has all players working toward the same goal against the game itself (such as Pandemic, for example). An RPG can be considered a co-operative experience, since the player goals are far more loose and centred around in-depth, character-focused storytelling. AoS is clearly not an RPG, either, since it does not share these traits.
The suggestion that Warhammer had to change in this way because it wasn't profitable enough in it's existing form is flawed, considering the reasons for that lack of spending - high price/low value boxes, detrimentally complex and random rules, and a high model count requirement are the prevailing criticisms. Instead of addressing those issues with WHFB, or publishing a smaller scale game alongside it (or both) GW decided to deliberately exclude customers in favour of trying to create a theoretical 'new niche' , and threw away the few strong factors the game still had - i.e. it's well developed lore and characters, and its relative ubiquity. The new background is vapid and childish in comparison to the Warhammer World, and at best reads like fan fiction. Terrible naming schema and whiter-than-white good guys who can't die are a tedium, porting Space Marines practically wholesale into a Fantasy setting (pretending that the new Sigmarite faction is anything else is disingenuous) is beyond lazy, and the 'legacy' army rules read like an insult, an expression of the contempt GW has for veterans by making the old armies one big joke, a series of jibes at the 'manchildren' they believe those customers to be, and a thinly veiled effort to try and exclude those forces in favour of the new, AoS-specific ones.
Implying that those who criticise "aren't the target market' doesn't make any sense, given that GW don't advertise outside their tiny niche-within-a-niche, that veteran players - the ones they greatly annoyed with the change - are the biggest source of word of mouth, and that any prospective wargamer will very quickly be put off by a game so lacking in substance, or even an attempt (much less a successful one) at balance to prevent the rules being abused. Having to finish a product to make it useable is not a feature, and I'd be compelled to ask why anyone would spend the time to do so (particularly the new players that this reboot is intended to recruit) What is there about AoS over other wargames that is going to appeal to them? Having to work out what's balanced against what is not going to appeal in the face of so many other games that are ready to play (without limiting players to 'starter scenarios' or 'quick-start' rules only) out of the box.
Let us also not forget the most damning evidence: that GW representatives at conventions over the course of the last six months have not been offering demo games, which makes one wonder if even they know how poorly it will stand up if shown directly alongside so many other miniature and board games.
Overall, Americans are doing the stupidest thing, abandoning GW out of pique, and hoping Mantic will save them (Mantic won't, BTW).
I'm sorry, but that statement is plain full of crap, and is an obvious argument-bait, as well.
Nomoreso that the constant stream of gak coming from the Anti-AoS morons on this site...
But you have a good deal less evidence supporting your claim.
Given that everything that I have heard about the sales of AoS has been... shall we say, less than a shining beacon of excellence.
People that do not like AoS are not morons - they have very good reasons for disliking the game.
It's nice that you can enjoy the thing - but do not confuse your liking the game with it being a good game.
I like Clay-O-Rama.
I do not pretend that Clay-O-Rama is a good game - just that it is a fun game for me when I have a can of Play Doh and a few bottles of beer.
You, on the other hand, are making the claim that everybody that does not dance to GW's tune and enjoy AoS, or does not turn to a fan made attempt to keep the abandoned Warhammer alive, are somehow lacking in intelligence, while you call those that turn to an active commercial product 'morons'.
Need I spell out how that makes me view your own intelligence?
A lot of people have good reason to think of Age of Sigmar as Age of Steaming Pile - the game may be fun, but the writers have made zero attempt at balance, and there is very little by way of depth to the game.
I think that the core difference may be that some people actually want a wargame, not just an excuse to push figures around, roll dice, and make 'pew pew' noises. (Yes, I know than many people do ignore the silly rules that show up on the scrolls - but the fact remains that GWdid put that silliness on the scrolls.)
I entered wargaming through historical miniatures - I do not need 'special' rules for each and every model on the table - and find that they detract from the game.
Overall, Americans are doing the stupidest thing, abandoning GW out of pique, and hoping Mantic will save them (Mantic won't, BTW).
I'm sorry, but that statement is plain full of crap, and is an obvious argument-bait, as well.
Nomoreso that the constant stream of gak coming from the Anti-AoS morons on this site...
Negative, unconstructive things are not justified just because other people are doing them.
The superhero deep down in me likes the aestetic of the Stormcast, but honestly I would rather field them as Ogres/Basileans in KoW if I could find a group. I think it'd be really cool.
To call AOS a "cooperative" game is inaccurate. It's still player vs player where one has to win in the end.
If you want a truely narrative and cooperative fantasy game, go to Kingdom of Death. That actually is cooperative and highly narrative. Not simple though.
AOS is a competitive game that maybe you and some like minded friends can make into something resembling a story, but it's like trying to pretend Justin Beiber is heavy metal.
Longstreet (ACW mass battles)
7TV (60s style Spy Fi skirmish)
Fistful of Kung Fu (Hong Kong action movie skirmish)
Dragon Rampant (Mediaeval based fantasy skirmish)
Ronin (Japanese ganbara film skirmish)
Doctor Who (the Crooked Dice skirmish game)
infinite_array wrote: Except for the fact that there are plenty of other fantasy skirmish games that do cooperative, narrative, and RPGish approaches far better than AoS does.
Yeah, I really don't get why anyone would say that AoS is great for RPG-style gaming. Where's the ability to have your character(s) grow as you continue the story? Where's the ability to work together with your fellow players instead of just slaughtering them until you achieve the game objectives? AoS doesn't have RPG elements built into the rules, it's just so inexcusably bad that the only way to even attempt to play it is to come up with a story first so that you limit the amount of rule abuse people can get away with.
Yeah, if I wanted tabletop RPG gaming I'd bust out something like WFRP 1st Ed which has a move stat and all the other stuff you need to literally play an RPG on the tabletop.
3. Ninth Age - this is where Europe is going. It's a fan-write of WFB, a true successor to WFB8, with complex rules but somewhat simplified units.
[...]
However, none of this really matters. If you play, you will simply play whatever your friends play.
Agree with the last point, but there is not only 9th Age in Europe. We have also WarhammerCE, FluffHammer, Warhammer Darkness Edition, and KoW. No one can say which System will make it in the end.
9th Age is doing their Beta test at the moment and they are talking about a 10th Age now of being the real goal because 9th will just be a FAQ Edition to have something ready for the ETC (at least this is what some people which are involed in the project are saying).
The others are older because they started their work during Warhammer EndTimes and have finished rules and army lists. But because they were not hyped by the ETC players they are more or less unknown outside their local groups.
I get that there are loads of others (you could even play Chainmail), but they really don't matter any more. ETC unanimously backed and committed to Ninth, so that will be the winner, because it will have the highest profile games and events around it. Personally, I'm really curious to see when DoW get their list - I'm really looking forward to it.
Is "selective reporting" on the Dakka bingo card? Yes, a significant chunk of the existing WHF teams will be playing 9th Age at ETC. However, there is also going to be a KoW Side Event with the aim to grow it into a full system in it's own right, and several "ETC Personalities" like Severin and Frederique will be playing KoW.
Longstreet (ACW mass battles)
7TV (60s style Spy Fi skirmish)
Fistful of Kung Fu (Hong Kong action movie skirmish)
Dragon Rampant (Mediaeval based fantasy skirmish)
Ronin (Japanese ganbara film skirmish)
Doctor Who (the Crooked Dice skirmish game)
And for smaller scale there are games like Zombicide - which is a blast.
But given that the point in AoS, as written, is to kill your opponent's models... cooperative play is more than a bit of a stretch.
I do wonder how AoS would have been received if it had been marketed as a new Specialist Game instead of as a replacement for a game that it bears little structural similarity to.
I would have thought that would be the more logical thing for them to have done - and not produced the backlash that they are facing from fans of maneuver based fantasy wargaming.
In some ways it has similarities with the backlash against Dungeons & Dragons 4th edition - though WotC did react by launching 5th well ahead of their planned schedule, and reversing some of the more... egregious aspects of 4th edition.
Are you talking about obscure rulesets I've never heard of or which I would have to buy independently from a starter box of minis?
Oh hey, that's cool - movable goalposts! What a useful feature.
How is that moving the goalposts? OP asks about two mainstream games that come in reasonably generous starter sets, and have active communities all over the world. Then Vermis and Auld start chiming in with the kinds of rule sets that have none of those things, rules that only grognards would know and love. The rule sets might be superior, but they don't come with shiny plastics, widespread community, or loss-leader Black Friday blowout sales. They are, in essence, talking to someone asking if he should read Dune or Ender's Game and telling him to go with Greg Egan. That's helpful in a way that isn't helpful.
Still, I'm interested. Please tell me which games are cooperative, narrative and easy to learn.
Frostgrave, Open Combat, Otherworld, and Song of Blades and Heroes come to mind pretty quickly.
Thanks! I've got SoBaH and Frostgrave on the list of games to try with the biy when he comes of age. I have honestly never even heard of the other two, and I've spent waaayyyy too much time on Dakka.
Of course, if you want to play in the Warhammer Fantasy World, there's always Mordheim.
Or WHFRP. Really, though, I just wanted to read about the Warhammer World, back when there were mysteries and destinies to unravel.
And if you're like other AoS supporters and your definition of "easy to learn" rules means you can count the pages of core rules on one hand, then there's One Page Fantasy for bigger games, and One Page Skirmish for smaller games. Both of which, when including the full campaign rules, are four pages. Simple enough, right?
Yes. That is what I mean. I want rules I can learn while my opponent sets up his army, not evening-ending FFG style textbooks. I'll check those games out.
Frostblade is pretty new. It being published by Osprey, well-known publishers of wargaming assistance books (campaigns, uniforms, and so on.) Having started with Field of Glory a few years ago, they have gone on to make a range of fairly simple softback rulebooks (Fistful of Kung Fu, Ronin, and others.)
Frostgrave is a higher production value book in hardback.
I doubt there are many games that you can learn while the other guy is setting up his army. AoS might just work, because if you are familiar with WHFB and 40K, the rules are very familiar. However army set up in AoS alternates between players so you would not have time to read the rules actually during deployment.
Mymearan wrote:It has simple base rules but complex unit rules, it has tactics
That seems like a contradiction in terms. Most tactical games do it the other way, so to speak: deeper basic mechanics, some universal special rules, and very few unique unit rules.
Or do you mean 'tactics' in the same way as, say, the '40K tactics' board? 'Cos the first part of your line does sound like a basic description of that game.
Not a question to me but I'd say
You can have simple rules and deep gameplay (KoW)
You can have complex rules and deep gameplay (Warmachine)
You can have complex rules and shalow gameplay (40k)
You can also have pretending-to-be simple mess of half arsed basic rules bloated by tons of meaningless special rules and gameplay so shallow that it's actualy the very bottom of the depth scale (AoS)
While I agree in essence, you may want to tone that down a shade.
I am, again, reminded of the depth of edition warring with 4th edition D&D. (Though in that case the opening salvos were fired by the publisher... a stupid move that GW has amazingly managed to avoid.)
Yes. That is what I mean. I want rules I can learn while my opponent sets up his army, not evening-ending FFG style textbooks. I'll check those games out.
Then you want a board game.
A hobby game I'd expect and want it to take a bit longer to work out. That's why it's a hobby and not say, a board game.
TheAuldGrump wrote: While I agree in essence, you may want to tone that down a shade.
I am, again, reminded of the depth of edition warring with 4th edition D&D. (Though in that case the opening salvos were fired by the publisher... a stupid move that GW has amazingly managed to avoid.)
The Auld Grump
That one article where they spent half of their bullet points trying to talk down WHFB (Averland is dead! Long live the floating islands of the Shimmertarn!) counts, I would think!
TheAuldGrump wrote: While I agree in essence, you may want to tone that down a shade.
I am, again, reminded of the depth of edition warring with 4th edition D&D. (Though in that case the opening salvos were fired by the publisher... a stupid move that GW has amazingly managed to avoid.)
The Auld Grump
That one article where they spent half of their bullet points trying to talk down WHFB (Averland is dead! Long live the floating islands of the Shimmertarn!) counts, I would think!
Managed to miss that - but then I haven't bothered with White Dwarf for a good long while.
I have no interest in Ninth Age, but I hope that it does well, as I have less than no interest in Age of Sigmar.
In general, I would much prefer to talk up Kings of War than talk down Age of Sigmar. (Looking to play against an old nemesis of mine next week - I fully expect him to clean my clock. Literally, since we will be having timed games. )
I'm warring internally whether to have the setting of my 15mm Kings of War homegames (mostly the wife and a couple friends) set in the Old World, or a more old-fashioned DnD fantasy setting I created for an RPG game I was going to run as my turn as my group's GM (Twilight Kin would be traditional black-skinned drow, etc).
And fair enough if people want to play games with special-rule synergy. That's one way to play. Done it meself. I know to my chagrin that one of the fastest ways to move C. 'Molasses' Hoffman in 1st ed Malifaux was to attach a Guardian to him and use their special drawn to metal and overprotective rules to 'slingshot' eachother across the board. And there were all the other rules that filled up their cards, that almost seemed to make the basic rules redundant. That seems to be what's happening with AoS, it's 4-page pdf, and all those warscrolls.
I don't know if I'd call it 'tactical', though. It seems more limited to listbuilding to make sure you have the right combination of models to have the right combination of special rules to pull off a fancy... combo... in-game, than not. (And to have just the right special rules you have to go and buy the right models...) You might call it strategic, in the sense of creating a plan beforehand, but in terms of making ad hoc decisions and resource management in-game...?
In Malifaux I think the most tactical elements are alternate model activation, management of your hand of cards, and soulstone use - all basic mechanics that are largely independent of the cardsful of unique abilities. (Even then I wasn't entirely jazzed by the way card duels pulled you away from the mini action) What about AoS? Just going by the 4-page pdf, there's the 'command' ability and the alternate activation of units already engaged. (Or near enough) It's... not much.
YMMV on the definition of tactics.
JohnHwangDD wrote:
Mantic needs to make their own Fantasy game, and divorce from GW. Yes, it's good that their game was broadly compatible with WFB, but it can't be WFB. People expecting KoW to support all of GW's myriad WFB whatnots are bound to be disappointed. Right now, Mantic is in this wierd place of trying to put a twist on GW's WFB Armies so they can capture all of the disgruntled ex-GW players, but that just doesn't work from a long term business standpoint, because it just becomes a lot of work to sell a single rulebook & armybook, without any follow-on minis sales.
Agreed pretty much, except on one point: it's a lot of work to give away rules and army lists, without any follow-on minis sales. Better for gamers, but maybe not so much if it eventually bites Mantic on the arse and the ingrained phobia of 'dead' games rears it's ugly head.
As I've said, KoW is a huge step up from WHFB in my opinion, but also that it's not far enough for my liking, for reasons I've hinted at in my last post in this topic. Fair enough in a way: I've seen a lot of Warhammer players spluttering and gnashing their teeth over the sheer temerity of unit elements and the lack of special rules for everything down to skavenslaves. Imagine if the changes were greater?
No need to imagine, though, for reasons I've given in my first post in this topic.
If he were the Alpha telling the Betas what to play, he wouldn't be asking the question!
True enough!
infinite_array wrote:
Of course, if you want to play in the Warhammer Fantasy World, there's always Mordheim.
I've got me Warmaster armies for playing in the Warhammer World with Mayhem rules, though I'm also interested in new Lords and Lands rules for playing in the Warhammer world, and there are a couple of others that've popped up IIRC. I also hope to break some 28mm Warhammer models out to play in the Warhammer world with Dragon Rampant rules. It might take a while - I've just taken receipt of some Heresy troopers and Star Wars first order snowspeeders for playing in the Warhammer 40K world with Victory Decision rules, and a bunch of historical 6mm minis for playing in the Warhammer 40K world with the NetE:A rules.
TheAuldGrump wrote: While I agree in essence, you may want to tone that down a shade.
I am, again, reminded of the depth of edition warring with 4th edition D&D. (Though in that case the opening salvos were fired by the publisher... a stupid move that GW has amazingly managed to avoid.)
The Auld Grump
That one article where they spent half of their bullet points trying to talk down WHFB (Averland is dead! Long live the floating islands of the Shimmertarn!) counts, I would think!
Managed to miss that - but then I haven't bothered with White Dwarf for a good long while.
I have no interest in Ninth Age, but I hope that it does well, as I have less than no interest in Age of Sigmar.
In general, I would much prefer to talk up Kings of War than talk down Age of Sigmar. (Looking to play against an old nemesis of mine next week - I fully expect him to clean my clock. Literally, since we will be having timed games. )
And fair enough if people want to play games with special-rule synergy. That's one way to play. Done it meself. I know to my chagrin that one of the fastest ways to move C. 'Molasses' Hoffman in 1st ed Malifaux was to attach a Guardian to him and use their special drawn to metal and overprotective rules to 'slingshot' eachother across the board. And there were all the other rules that filled up their cards, that almost seemed to make the basic rules redundant. That seems to be what's happening with AoS, it's 4-page pdf, and all those warscrolls.
I don't know if I'd call it 'tactical', though. It seems more limited to listbuilding to make sure you have the right combination of models to have the right combination of special rules to pull off a fancy... combo... in-game, than not. (And to have just the right special rules you have to go and buy the right models...) You might call it strategic, in the sense of creating a plan beforehand, but in terms of making ad hoc decisions and resource management in-game...?
In Malifaux I think the most tactical elements are alternate model activation, management of your hand of cards, and soulstone use - all basic mechanics that are largely independent of the cardsful of unique abilities. (Even then I wasn't entirely jazzed by the way card duels pulled you away from the mini action) What about AoS? Just going by the 4-page pdf, there's the 'command' ability and the alternate activation of units already engaged. (Or near enough) It's... not much.
YMMV on the definition of tactics.
Well there's nothing wrong with playing and liking Age of Sigmar. There's lot of wrong with releasing it though.
Tactics for me is the number of meaningful choices to make and how predictable the game is. AoS is imo on the level of battle part from Heroes of Might and Magic on pc, not nothing but also not much really and every other major tabletop game is more tacticaly demanding. I like to play HoM&M from time to time btw but I wouldn't like for example Age of Wonders (pc) to be stupifyed to its level and I surely wouldn't plan, build and paint dozens of model for it. It all depends of the context, if Age of Sigmar was released alongside the fixed whfb, I could probably look at it with that kind of patronising sympathy, a silly and overblown high fantasy take on warhamms and he man with rules good to play when I cross the 0.7L booze plus few beers threshold and multiplying ranks by files starts to get tricky. As the only warhammer fantasy proposition, nope.
I play and enjoy combo games as well, not my favourite but I can play everything including euro boardgames (that's really, really hard though heh). I don't think AoS is a good combo game though, I don't think it's good at anything tbh.
TheAuldGrump wrote: While I agree in essence, you may want to tone that down a shade.
I am, again, reminded of the depth of edition warring with 4th edition D&D. (Though in that case the opening salvos were fired by the publisher... a stupid move that GW has amazingly managed to avoid.)
The Auld Grump
That one article where they spent half of their bullet points trying to talk down WHFB (Averland is dead! Long live the floating islands of the Shimmertarn!) counts, I would think!
Managed to miss that - but then I haven't bothered with White Dwarf for a good long while.
I have no interest in Ninth Age, but I hope that it does well, as I have less than no interest in Age of Sigmar.
In general, I would much prefer to talk up Kings of War than talk down Age of Sigmar. (Looking to play against an old nemesis of mine next week - I fully expect him to clean my clock. Literally, since we will be having timed games. )
I'll largely reiterate the things I said about AoS at the time of release:
There is no convincing evidence that AoS is anything but a low effort product, lacking in any depth, creativity or originality.
The basic rules have no emergent complexity, instead piling on heaps of individual special rules for almost every unit, barely reward any player interaction or decision making in favour of random dice rolls and homogenising the core statlines, have laughably vague deployment and victory conditions, and are full of holes and exploits that were discovered within hours of them being seen, such that it's possible to autowin the game, or make it thoroughly unenjoyable for both sides entirely by accident, since there's nothing to help players choose comparable forces, and different players will have a different idea of what a fun game is, since fun is subjective. Pick-up games, the kind that some wargames communities rely on (particularly in the US, as I understand) are all but impossible, since there is no guideline for what is a fair matchup and thus it is difficult to determine the reason for a win or a loss, making learning and improving one's play equally difficult. The idea that it has been deliberately designed for "narrative" or "just for fun" play is unsupported, sounding instead like vague excusess, as well as being outright wrong given that a balanced, clear and concise ruleset serves narrative play far better than a vague mess.
AoS is also not a co-operative game, and claiming it as one is a weak excuse for the game being practically non-functional without substantial modification and pre-game comprimise - the kind that even its staunchest defenders admit to doing. A wargame, where two opposing armies fight to achieve a predetermined victory condition, is not co-operative. A co-operative game has all players working toward the same goal against the game itself (such as Pandemic, for example). An RPG can be considered a co-operative experience, since the player goals are far more loose and centred around in-depth, character-focused storytelling. AoS is clearly not an RPG, either, since it does not share these traits.
The suggestion that Warhammer had to change in this way because it wasn't profitable enough in it's existing form is flawed, considering the reasons for that lack of spending - high price/low value boxes, detrimentally complex and random rules, and a high model count requirement are the prevailing criticisms. Instead of addressing those issues with WHFB, or publishing a smaller scale game alongside it (or both) GW decided to deliberately exclude customers in favour of trying to create a theoretical 'new niche' , and threw away the few strong factors the game still had - i.e. it's well developed lore and characters, and its relative ubiquity. The new background is vapid and childish in comparison to the Warhammer World, and at best reads like fan fiction. Terrible naming schema and whiter-than-white good guys who can't die are a tedium, porting Space Marines practically wholesale into a Fantasy setting (pretending that the new Sigmarite faction is anything else is disingenuous) is beyond lazy, and the 'legacy' army rules read like an insult, an expression of the contempt GW has for veterans by making the old armies one big joke, a series of jibes at the 'manchildren' they believe those customers to be, and a thinly veiled effort to try and exclude those forces in favour of the new, AoS-specific ones.
Implying that those who criticise "aren't the target market' doesn't make any sense, given that GW don't advertise outside their tiny niche-within-a-niche, that veteran players - the ones they greatly annoyed with the change - are the biggest source of word of mouth, and that any prospective wargamer will very quickly be put off by a game so lacking in substance, or even an attempt (much less a successful one) at balance to prevent the rules being abused. Having to finish a product to make it useable is not a feature, and I'd be compelled to ask why anyone would spend the time to do so (particularly the new players that this reboot is intended to recruit) What is there about AoS over other wargames that is going to appeal to them? Having to work out what's balanced against what is not going to appeal in the face of so many other games that are ready to play (without limiting players to 'starter scenarios' or 'quick-start' rules only) out of the box.
Let us also not forget the most damning evidence: that GW representatives at conventions over the course of the last six months have not been offering demo games, which makes one wonder if even they know how poorly it will stand up if shown directly alongside so many other miniature and board games.
Kaptajn Congoboy wrote: I fear the 9th age (etc) initiatives Europe is working with will be difficult to maintain in the long run,
Considering how much effort goes into maintaining FAQs and such for Tournaments, I can't see Ninth being very much different. ETC does this little dance every year, and they've been going strong for several years. Their governance is quite good. I have a lot of faith that Ninth being the "house" ruleset for ETC is going to keep it alive for a very long time.
There is a world of difference between tweaking a game and keeping it alive and interesting. But we will see.
TheAuldGrump wrote: While I agree in essence, you may want to tone that down a shade.
I am, again, reminded of the depth of edition warring with 4th edition D&D. (Though in that case the opening salvos were fired by the publisher... a stupid move that GW has amazingly managed to avoid.)
The Auld Grump
That one article where they spent half of their bullet points trying to talk down WHFB (Averland is dead! Long live the floating islands of the Shimmertarn!) counts, I would think!
Managed to miss that - but then I haven't bothered with White Dwarf for a good long while.
I have no interest in Ninth Age, but I hope that it does well, as I have less than no interest in Age of Sigmar.
In general, I would much prefer to talk up Kings of War than talk down Age of Sigmar. (Looking to play against an old nemesis of mine next week - I fully expect him to clean my clock. Literally, since we will be having timed games. )
Good luck next week - I don't suppose you can be talked into doing some manner of battle report...?
I don't know, this is his first real big game of Kings of War - but he used to regularly trounce me at 40K. (Third edition - he had Imperial Guard, I had Dark Angels. His army was lots of squads and two Basilisks.)
Kaptajn Congoboy wrote: I fear the 9th age (etc) initiatives Europe is working with will be difficult to maintain in the long run,
Considering how much effort goes into maintaining FAQs and such for Tournaments, I can't see Ninth being very much different. ETC does this little dance every year, and they've been going strong for several years. Their governance is quite good. I have a lot of faith that Ninth being the "house" ruleset for ETC is going to keep it alive for a very long time.
There is a world of difference between tweaking a game and keeping it alive and interesting. But we will see.
I would argue that if a game is good, with fun, interesting rules and balanced lists, it doesn't need to be constantly tweaked to keep it interesting.
Yes. That is what I mean. I want rules I can learn while my opponent sets up his army, not evening-ending FFG style textbooks. I'll check those games out.
Then you want a board game.
A hobby game I'd expect and want it to take a bit longer to work out. That's why it's a hobby and not say, a board game.
Yes, that does sound like what I want. BoardGame rules for my miniature collection. I want to be able to play (a game) with them without wasting my precious hobby time pouring over rules that I'll likely only use thrice a year. Give me simple rules and shallow game play any day.
For me, the hobby is the assembling of minis, the conversions and kitbashes. Then comes the fluff or background. Then, maybe painting. Finally, a "beard" that adds a veneer of legitimacy to the minis rules. Yes, many gamers come into games for the rules first and foremost, but I doubt that number is as much the overwhelming majority as some in this thread seem to believe.
Sorry Plumbumbarum, that tactics ramble wasn't directed just at you, and certainly not as an argument; but thanks for the reply anyway. I agree with what you say.
Vermis wrote: Sorry Plumbumbarum, that tactics ramble wasn't directed just at you, and certainly not as an argument; but thanks for the reply anyway. I agree with what you say.
Oh no man I didn't take it as antagonistic or sth at all, very clear posting from you and I just wanted to add my view and elaborate. It's all good, except Age of Sigmar Sorry AoS guys, just had to post that.
So I've been away from the Warhammer community for a while. I left for the most part around the End of Times thing for two reasons, firstly I had no idea what was going on with AoS at the time (besides going to round bases), and I was going back to college at the time so figured I wouldn't give it too much focus anyway.
I've done some casual collecting, switching over to 40k in the meantime.
But I'm looking to return to Fantasy gaming. I'm trying to decide if I should consider going over to AoS (which in truth comes down to a singular question, should I rebase my models to round bases? I have an enormous amount and I'm not good at rebasing, but I like my models to be uniform in that way), or if I should make the jump a friend recommended and move instead to KoW?
How have things gone with the change to AoS? Are the community rejecting it or liking it?
And what's going on with KoW?
Should I instead buy square bases when I buy new models and transfer them on? Or if I'm going to rebase my models how best should I do it?
Thank you
Murdock129
This is not the ideal forum to ask for a neutral opinion on AoS, as you will probably have gathered by now.
Tannhauser42 wrote: Unless those rules were just there to deliberately embarrass the people still trying to use their WHFB armies in AoS and will not be put into any rules for new, AoS specific, releases... Either way I find it just devalues the hobby as a whole to be encouraging that kind of crap. I don't consider spending hours painting something or playing a game at a competitive level to be 'playing with little army men' or 'man dollies' or what have you and it is hard enough to get people outside the hobby to see the difference without those kinds of rules.
Why are you defending this? I don't give a gak why they did it, but they did it and it is ridiculous.
We aren't larpers you know? They could have just excluded those armies.
TheAuldGrump wrote: While I agree in essence, you may want to tone that down a shade.
I am, again, reminded of the depth of edition warring with 4th edition D&D. (Though in that case the opening salvos were fired by the publisher... a stupid move that GW has amazingly managed to avoid.)
The Auld Grump
That one article where they spent half of their bullet points trying to talk down WHFB (Averland is dead! Long live the floating islands of the Shimmertarn!) counts, I would think!
Managed to miss that - but then I haven't bothered with White Dwarf for a good long while.
I have no interest in Ninth Age, but I hope that it does well, as I have less than no interest in Age of Sigmar.
In general, I would much prefer to talk up Kings of War than talk down Age of Sigmar. (Looking to play against an old nemesis of mine next week - I fully expect him to clean my clock. Literally, since we will be having timed games. )
Good luck next week - I don't suppose you can be talked into doing some manner of battle report...?
I finally read that article.... They were really trying to roll the changes in glitter, weren't they? (See Desubot's sig for the reference. )
***
Had the battle... and we plan on a rematch later in the week, now that Joe knows what he is doing.
I pretty much won the battle in deployment, he was rusty, and put his artillery where it did him the least good. (He was looking more at defending his guns, rather than where they could lay down fire.)
Even so, I barely managed to eke out 10% win - if one of the units that I crushed hadn't had a magic item, then it would have been a tie. (The unit was protected by The Brew of Courage - in his head he was thinking that Undead had a fear effect, like they do in Warhammer. It still could have helped, but when he fell, it was a by a good deal more than the +1 bonus would have helped. For my part... after two turns of beating on the unit, and giving better than I got... rolling box cars when I needed a six to rout him was a bit of ironic timing. An average roll would have done it - and even with Headstrong he had been wavered for a turn.)
Instead of helping him, it gave me just enough to have a victory instead of a draw. (Kill! mission.)
Even though he lost, Joe said that if he had enjoyed Warhammer that much then he wouldn't have gotten out of it. (Sixth did him in - I forget why, but I think it was mostly because of the magic.)
