Talys wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If one summons and re-summons enough stuff (and it could be an awful lot of stuff), tabling should be a foregone conclusion.

If the game lasts forever, sure.

Technically, the most basic game lasts until someone is tabled...

Or a time limit is reached. Just say the game will last 2 hours. Now summon a bunch of stuff so I can get my victory!

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Or a time limit is reached. Just say the game will last 2 hours. Now summon a bunch of stuff so I can get my victory!

So you're changing the game for an advantage? Sounds like the WAAC mentality the game was supposed to get rid of.

Love the models, love the flow. Play it at a gamestore and have models for khorne and stormcast

Not changing the game, I have two hours to play. I tell you ahead of time. If you want to field an army so massive that you can't play in that time frame, that certainly isn't my fault.

Pretty sure time restriction is a viable reason why a player may not achieve a major victory, like the rules say can happen.

Me achieving a minor victory because you decided to dump 120 skeletons in front of my cavalry hoping to table me before time runs out sounds more like a tactical failure on your part than me being some kind of WAAC power gamer.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Not changing the game, I have two hours to play. I tell you ahead of time. If you want to field an army so massive that you can't play in that time frame, that certainly isn't my fault.

Pretty sure time restriction is a viable reason why a player may not achieve a major victory, like the rules say can happen.

Me achieving a minor victory because you decided to dump 120 skeletons in front of my cavalry hoping to table me before time runs out sounds more like a tactical failure on your part than me being some kind of WAAC power gamer.

so... I cant just bring whatever I want. I need restrictions. Hmmm...interesting.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I've said it before. If you want a balanced game, AOS isn't it.

While I agree, I am curious what game people would suggest if I wanted a balanced game? I know Warmachine isn't balanced, but I have two unopened boxes of X-Wing miniatures (got 'em on clearance at Target).

Dreadnok89 wrote:
Love the models, love the flow. Play it at a gamestore and have models for khorne and stormcast

I must say, the flow was much smoother than I expected reading the 4-page rules. It contributed to high marks from me for the "fun factor", all else aside.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 MWHistorian wrote:
so... I cant just bring whatever I want. I need restrictions. Hmmm...interesting.

You can bring $10,000 worth of models if you want But unless the other person owns as many models as you, and has a big enough table to field them, and wants to play such a game... then you have to play a subset of the models you bring.

What it boils down to is two groups who are offended by two sides of the same coin: One group, that they may not play the models they want because those aren't effective enough; the other group, that they many not play the models they want because they are too effective.

I am having a great fun with it! Finally I can collect a fantasy army with a full vampire force! And I bought konrad and painted him up because of his funny rule and when I played yesterday he was busy running around trying to kill stuff but he was too slow to keep up. And when I finally was able to use his ability, he piled in and was unable to touch any enemy.

I'm currently using the clash of swords point system with my friends and its pretty well balanced and we love it.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I've said it before. If you want a balanced game, AOS isn't it.

While I agree, I am curious what game people would suggest if I wanted a balanced game? I know Warmachine isn't balanced, but I have two unopened boxes of X-Wing miniatures (got 'em on clearance at Target).

It's a darn sight better balanced than anything GW puts out. I'd say its an acceptable level of balance, especially after the massive errata they put out this week.
Infinity and Malifaux are also great with balance.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I've said it before. If you want a balanced game, AOS isn't it.

While I agree, I am curious what game people would suggest if I wanted a balanced game? I know Warmachine isn't balanced, but I have two unopened boxes of X-Wing miniatures (got 'em on clearance at Target).

It's a darn sight better balanced than anything GW puts out. I'd say its an acceptable level of balance, especially after the massive errata they put out this week.
Infinity and Malifaux are also great with balance.

Are you suggesting that, in Warmachine, any two armies of equal point values are roughly comparable when it comes to achieving victory? If not, what other definition of "balanced" are you suggesting?

 Sqorgar wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I've said it before. If you want a balanced game, AOS isn't it.

While I agree, I am curious what game people would suggest if I wanted a balanced game? I know Warmachine isn't balanced, but I have two unopened boxes of X-Wing miniatures (got 'em on clearance at Target).

It's a darn sight better balanced than anything GW puts out. I'd say its an acceptable level of balance, especially after the massive errata they put out this week.
Infinity and Malifaux are also great with balance.

Are you suggesting that, in Warmachine, any two armies of equal point values are roughly comparable when it comes to achieving victory? If not, what other definition of "balanced" are you suggesting?

well thought out armies, yes.

MWHistorian wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I've said it before. If you want a balanced game, AOS isn't it.

While I agree, I am curious what game people would suggest if I wanted a balanced game? I know Warmachine isn't balanced, but I have two unopened boxes of X-Wing miniatures (got 'em on clearance at Target).

It's a darn sight better balanced than anything GW puts out. I'd say its an acceptable level of balance, especially after the massive errata they put out this week.
Infinity and Malifaux are also great with balance.

Are you suggesting that, in Warmachine, any two armies of equal point values are roughly comparable when it comes to achieving victory? If not, what other definition of "balanced" are you suggesting?

well thought out armies, yes.

Then that means there is no internal balance. The balance comes when both armies collate equal number of points and have a equal chance excluding the individual players' skills no matter what they field.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Not changing the game, I have two hours to play. I tell you ahead of time. If you want to field an army so massive that you can't play in that time frame, that certainly isn't my fault.

Pretty sure time restriction is a viable reason why a player may not achieve a major victory, like the rules say can happen.

Me achieving a minor victory because you decided to dump 120 skeletons in front of my cavalry hoping to table me before time runs out sounds more like a tactical failure on your part than me being some kind of WAAC power gamer.

so... I cant just bring whatever I want. I need restrictions. Hmmm...interesting.

No, you can bring whatever you want. After I leave you could play a larger game against someone with more time and/or models. No math, no adjustment of points, no tweaking of your list. Just start putting down minis and say "Go!"

The one who finishes deploying first gets to decide first turn. That should always be taken into account when deciding how many bodies to put on the table.

 MWHistorian wrote:
well thought out armies, yes.

So, it is only balanced with players who are operating a peek proficiency. So, are there units which are effectively never chosen or units that are chosen so frequently that they are basically auto-include? How much knowledge of the game do I require to build a "well thought out army"? Do I need to be intimately familiar with all the units in my faction? All the units in other people's faction? Do I need to be aware of certain lists I might go against, or particular strategies for specific unit combinations? How long do I have to player Warmachine before I am capable of creating a "well thought out army"? One game? Ten games? Six months? Two years? Possibly never?

In other words, how much player skill is required for the game to be balanced? How many unbalanced games must I play before I can hope to have balanced one? An how sure is it that I will find another player with enough skill to create a well thought out army, instead of finally getting the competency necessary to enjoy the game, only to have opponents who haven't put their two years in yet to reach that level?

Warmachine is only balanced at the tournament level, and only then, there are only a handful of viable army lists. Anything less is just, what, teachable moments?

Sqorgar wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
well thought out armies, yes.

So, it is only balanced with players who are operating a peek proficiency. So, are there units which are effectively never chosen or units that are chosen so frequently that they are basically auto-include? How much knowledge of the game do I require to build a "well thought out army"? Do I need to be intimately familiar with all the units in my faction? All the units in other people's faction? Do I need to be aware of certain lists I might go against, or particular strategies for specific unit combinations? How long do I have to player Warmachine before I am capable of creating a "well thought out army"? One game? Ten games? Six months? Two years? Possibly never?

In other words, how much player skill is required for the game to be balanced? How many unbalanced games must I play before I can hope to have balanced one? An how sure is it that I will find another player with enough skill to create a well thought out army, instead of finally getting the competency necessary to enjoy the game, only to have opponents who haven't put their two years in yet to reach that level?

Warmachine is only balanced at the tournament level, and only then, there are only a handful of viable army lists. Anything less is just, what, teachable moments?

Exactly! That makes it better for someone new to join AoS compared to warmahordes. You don't normally play a new game thinking I wanna get owned to get better, you see this new game and say, hey, this looks fun. I'll try it!

 Sqorgar wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
well thought out armies, yes.

So, it is only balanced with players who are operating a peek proficiency. So, are there units which are effectively never chosen or units that are chosen so frequently that they are basically auto-include? How much knowledge of the game do I require to build a "well thought out army"? Do I need to be intimately familiar with all the units in my faction? All the units in other people's faction? Do I need to be aware of certain lists I might go against, or particular strategies for specific unit combinations? How long do I have to player Warmachine before I am capable of creating a "well thought out army"? One game? Ten games? Six months? Two years? Possibly never?

In other words, how much player skill is required for the game to be balanced? How many unbalanced games must I play before I can hope to have balanced one? An how sure is it that I will find another player with enough skill to create a well thought out army, instead of finally getting the competency necessary to enjoy the game, only to have opponents who haven't put their two years in yet to reach that level?

Warmachine is only balanced at the tournament level, and only then, there are only a handful of viable army lists. Anything less is just, what, teachable moments?

You have a twisted and inaccurate view of warmachine. All I was saying was that you cant slap any models together but if you put some thought into your list you can make anything work. Im a guy that uses man o' wars and mariners. If you dont put effort into your list, you're going to have a hard time. That said, a bad player with a good list will lose to a good player with a bad list. Player skill is by far the largest factor in determining the winner. Id say that's a good indicator of balance.

bleak wrote:

Sqorgar wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
well thought out armies, yes.

So, it is only balanced with players who are operating a peek proficiency. So, are there units which are effectively never chosen or units that are chosen so frequently that they are basically auto-include? How much knowledge of the game do I require to build a "well thought out army"? Do I need to be intimately familiar with all the units in my faction? All the units in other people's faction? Do I need to be aware of certain lists I might go against, or particular strategies for specific unit combinations? How long do I have to player Warmachine before I am capable of creating a "well thought out army"? One game? Ten games? Six months? Two years? Possibly never?

In other words, how much player skill is required for the game to be balanced? How many unbalanced games must I play before I can hope to have balanced one? An how sure is it that I will find another player with enough skill to create a well thought out army, instead of finally getting the competency necessary to enjoy the game, only to have opponents who haven't put their two years in yet to reach that level?

Warmachine is only balanced at the tournament level, and only then, there are only a handful of viable army lists. Anything less is just, what, teachable moments?

Exactly! That makes it better for someone new to join AoS compared to warmahordes. You don't normally play a new game thinking I wanna get owned to get better, you see this new game and say, hey, this looks fun. I'll try it!

Actually, that's what I generally tell people about about Warmahordes Even if you're playing the nicest guy in the world, he knows that for you to get better at the game, you need to learn about what nasty combos can do and the force multipliers of feats and spells. So you're going to lose a lot of games at first. If you don't, you aren't learning a lot. (Theoretically, you could have an entire group of laid back guys playing PP games, but I've yet to encounter such a thing }. WMH has a steep learning curve. It also has a lot of stuff that doesn't work well, and no one plays, and groupls of models that don't work well together. Learning the synergies, combos, and strategies is a Huge part of the game, at most any level.

I've always viewed WMH as having a balance simply because most everything is unbalanced In some ways AOS resembles this. Suddenly every unit has some special rule or another.

 MWHistorian wrote:
You have a twisted and inaccurate view of warmachine.

There's a reddit thread called I've Been Told It Takes Two Years to Learn, and while most people in that thread don't agree with the time limit, there are many stories of people who lost every game in the first few months/years they played. So I don't think I'm too far off in how Warmachine is seen, even by other Warmachine players. I was also told that it takes about a year or so to get good enough at the game that you win more often than you lose. And what that tells me is that points are not a balancing mechanism, or at least not a balancing mechanism that factors into balance until many other factors have balanced out first. In short, the game must already be balanced before the game can be balanced (by points).

Now, balance is one of those weird words, like gameplay, that seems to mean something important, but it doesn't actually mean anything at all. Ask ten people what it means and you'll get eleven answers. Warmachine is balanced if. As in, it is balanced if you do this, or if you do that, and because this and that are things only experienced players know to do, the vast majority of inexperienced players do not enjoy balanced games. Therefore, as far as I'm concerned as an inexperienced player, Warmachine is not balanced.

That said, a bad player with a good list will lose to a good player with a bad list. Player skill is by far the largest factor in determining the winner. Id say that's a good indicator of balance.

I don't actually think that's true I think it depends on your definition of good or bad player. If you are suggesting that a good player is one with extensive experience and knowledge of game - but not necessarily smart or capable in other respects, then I agree. An inexperienced player will never win against an experienced player. Experience is so important, I'm not sure anything else in Warmachine actually matters until such point that you have enough experience (complete mastery) over every unit, ability, and synergy.

That's not to say that a game can't be based on experience, but I think it is less important in other games. In Chess, for example, a grand master will mop the floor with you. But most of the time, you can play someone else who hasn't dedicated their life to the game, have a good time, and potentially win.

 Sqorgar wrote:

That said, a bad player with a good list will lose to a good player with a bad list. Player skill is by far the largest factor in determining the winner. Id say that's a good indicator of balance.

I don't actually think that's true

Can I ask how much experience you have with warmachine then?

Request thread title change:

Warmachine - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews

Did anyone here attend the 60 player AoS tournament at firestorm?

 Sqorgar wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
well thought out armies, yes.

So, it is only balanced with players who are operating a peek proficiency. So, are there units which are effectively never chosen or units that are chosen so frequently that they are basically auto-include? How much knowledge of the game do I require to build a "well thought out army"? Do I need to be intimately familiar with all the units in my faction? All the units in other people's faction? Do I need to be aware of certain lists I might go against, or particular strategies for specific unit combinations? How long do I have to player Warmachine before I am capable of creating a "well thought out army"? One game? Ten games? Six months? Two years? Possibly never?

In other words, how much player skill is required for the game to be balanced? How many unbalanced games must I play before I can hope to have balanced one? An how sure is it that I will find another player with enough skill to create a well thought out army, instead of finally getting the competency necessary to enjoy the game, only to have opponents who haven't put their two years in yet to reach that level?

Warmachine is only balanced at the tournament level, and only then, there are only a handful of viable army lists. Anything less is just, what, teachable moments?

What an utterly silly way to try to define "balance". By the above, the only really "balanced" game would be decided by one 50-50 coin flip. By the above, chess is unbalanced since a grandmaster will beat a novice every time. It's kinda absurd to insist that "Balance" means that either player has exactly the same chance to win no matter what.

I'd argue that an externally balanced game is one where player skill drives the outcome, and where players of roughly equal have a roughly equal chance of winning. And an internally balanced game is one where units and/or models within each faction/side have a cost/availability commensurate with their effectiveness. Not sure AoS meets either criteria, but it certainly fails the latter...

What you are talking about is the learning curve required to figure out the game, not how balanced the game is. AoS definitely has a lower learning curve than infinity, Malifaux, or Warmahordes. But, hey, Chutes and Ladders has a pretty low learning curve too. Doesn't make it a game I'm interested in playing...

Valete,

JohnS

 Motograter wrote:
Did anyone here attend the 60 player AoS tournament at firestorm?

Where there any army selection house rules?

 cygnnus wrote:

What an utterly silly way to try to define "balance".

My point, and utterly naked attempt to get this thread back on track, is if you ask 10 people what balance means, you'll get 11 answers. Warmachine has points, but the points do not balance the game. The game is balanced entirely around memorizing every available unit. You could learn every Cryx unit and Menoth unit and have great Cryx vs Menoth games, but if you then went up against a Retribution unit, you'd probably not have a particularly balanced game. Early on, when you are unfamiliar with units, you are more likely to be destroyed by forgetting one of the 10 special abilities on one of the 10 special units than actually making poor strategic decision. "Oh yeah, that guy has weapon master", "oh yeah, that guy ignores concealment". "Oh yeah, the Black 13th Gun Mage unit is a bunch of dicks".

And the thing is, Age of Sigmar does some of the same stuff. "Oh, that guy gets to roll ones". "Oh, the dragons on that scenery can come alive and eat models". "Oh, d3 MORTAL damage."

However, I don't think AoS is quite as bad about it because the majority of the skills and interaction are one sided. Conflict in AoS doesn't really require interaction between the units. The skills that affect my rolls only affect my rolls and the skills that affect your rolls only affect your rolls (exception is rend). Knowing that you reroll 1s only affects you, and there's not really a strategy your enemy can plan around it. It just means that your guy is a little bit tougher. While the stats do matter, the more general feel from them is that just make the unit tougher or weaker.

In Warmachine, you have a unit in melee, in cover, suffering from an enemy spell, creating three or four different modifiers to one's DEF, and another three or four modifiers to ARM. Oh you have a +2 shield that increases your ARM, but not if attacked in the back arc. And then the enemy has a spell which increases it's to hit roll +2, has a boosted hit roll, and just charged. The single mathematical equation of 2d6 + MAT > DEF is suddenly 2d6 + 1d6 + MAT + 2 >= DEF + 4 + 3 - 2. You have to be know what the hell is going on - forgetting even one of these factors when your opponent doesn't pretty much will cost you the game. That's why I consider Warmachine unbalanced (especially points) for anyone who isn't intimately familiar with every rule, unit, and synergy. Two inexperienced players won't even be playing with all the rules, or using them correctly. It's literally impossible for them to do. I've played with veterans who still have to consult the (95pg) rulebook.

So, I think Age of Sigmar is balanced more towards pick up games against unfamiliar units. The math is not as susceptible to minmaxing, few of the special abilities cross the table, and you can get by just knowing the general information about the units in order to make strategic decisions. No doubt at high levels of play, with players who have dedicated their lifes to eking out efficiency from every little minutiae, the experience will be a bit different. But two inexperienced players, knowing just a broad overview of the units, can experience a game in which they can win through planning and guile.

It's kinda absurd to insist that "Balance" means that either player has exactly the same chance to win no matter what.

Well, that's one type of balance, isn't it? I'm not suggesting it is the only type of balance. I'm suggesting that balance is simply the fulcrum around which play is designed. For some games, that fulcrum is one thing (having a good time? Having a chance to win?), and in other games it is something else (experience? Equivalent forces? Math degrees?). Obviously, different people prefer different types of balance - so any appeal to one specific type when suggesting AoS is unbalanced is a bit misleading.

What you are talking about is the learning curve required to figure out the game, not how balanced the game is. AoS definitely has a lower learning curve than infinity, Malifaux, or Warmahordes. But, hey, Chutes and Ladders has a pretty low learning curve too. Doesn't make it a game I'm interested in playing...

That's a pretty unfair comparison. Chutes and Ladders is a roll and move game - a game in which you can have no strategy and are completely at the mercy of the dice. In that situation, you really might as well just roll a dice to decide the winner. But Chutes and Ladders is a game made for kids, and the fulcrum of design is built around creating tension around the dice rolls. Ooh, if I get a 2, I win! Dagnabbit! A 1.

Age of Sigmar's design fulcrum is built around maneuvering. Arguably, nothing else in the game is as fundamental to one's ability to win, even the units you pick (so far, at least). The game is built in such a way as to provide a random battlefield and various threat zones to make the decisions made around maneuvering more interesting.

Excellent piece of writing

I'm completely new to Warhammer in general. I'm building up a Skitarii army at the moment and didn't exactly plan on playing AoS, but I played a quick game with a guy yesterday afternoon. It only took me two turns to understand how to play. This guy came in with two small armies (one orcs and one dwarfs) that he intended to be balanced against one another. I used his dwarfs, and he used his orcs. It was a ton of fun, from the perspective of a new player. I played WWII wargames like Angriff back when I was in middle school, and those were just too complicated to play all that often for middle school me and they took forever for me to learn how things worked. Now I learned how to play AoS within 45 minutes and realized how fun it is, and I'm considering starting up a small AoS army too.

Just figured I'd throw in my thoughts as a new player since this just looks like a 31 page QQ thread for people who have played for a good while.

Well, the AoS discussions here at the Tactics and Army Lists boards are a bit flat if you ask me.
Especially, there are basically no army lists posted. I guess mainly due to lack of FOC

Rhah817 wrote:
I'm completely new to Warhammer in general. I'm building up a Skitarii army at the moment and didn't exactly plan on playing AoS, but I played a quick game with a guy yesterday afternoon. It only took me two turns to understand how to play. This guy came in with two small armies (one orcs and one dwarfs) that he intended to be balanced against one another. I used his dwarfs, and he used his orcs. It was a ton of fun, from the perspective of a new player. I played WWII wargames like Angriff back when I was in middle school, and those were just too complicated to play all that often for middle school me and they took forever for me to learn how things worked. Now I learned how to play AoS within 45 minutes and realized how fun it is, and I'm considering starting up a small AoS army too.

Just figured I'd throw in my thoughts as a new player since this just looks like a 31 page QQ thread for people who have played for a good while.

Nice, I also play 40k and now am joining Aos as well! What army do you fancy at the moment?

 wuestenfux wrote:
Well, the AoS discussions here at the Tactics and Army Lists boards are a bit flat if you ask me.
Especially, there are basically no army lists posted. I guess mainly due to lack of FOC

Army lists are tricky really as there are so many ways of setting up a game - at the moment with follow the following formula - work out some basic army composition rules and make up a list.

So far we have been experimenting with learning games based around the below – but we want to go bigger 

up to 2 Heroes (no more than 5 wounds)
up to 1 monster or warmachine
up to 4 other units (of upto 20 wounds)

last game we had had the following two armies - published in our forum before the game

Lady Choine, Nuncio of the Lahmian Sisterhood, Vampire Lady on nightmare (Hero 1)
Sabine (190pts) Blood-Daughter of Lady Choine, Vampire Lady on foot (Hero 2)
Crimson Company, 10 Black Knights with Hell Knight, Standard Bearer and Horn Blower (Unit 1)
Eternal Guardians, 20 Skeleton Spearmen with Champion, Hornblower Standard and Tomb Shields (UInit 2)
Host of the lost, 20 Skeleton Swordsmen with Champion, Hornblower Standard and Tomb Shields (Unit 3)
The Black Crusade, 5 Blood Knights with Kastallan, Standard Bearer and Horn Blower (unit 4)
Kihals the Lost, Vagulf (Monster)

versus

Dwarf Lord Gruntrek Grudgebearer
Dunesmith Snorlek Vapenskaperen
GrudgeBearers Clan Guard 20 Hammerers Full Command
Clan Kuše 20 Dwarf Quarrellers Full Command
Clan Zbrane 20 Dwarf Thunderers Full Command
Grudgerbearers Sköld 20 Dwarf Ironbreakers Full Command
Old Flammekasteren Dwarf Flame Cannon.

good game was had by both players. But both of us could have changed lots of things and still been effective...............and we have not even got into mixing up stuff from different lists.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 cygnnus wrote:

What an utterly silly way to try to define "balance".

My point, and utterly naked attempt to get this thread back on track, is if you ask 10 people what balance means, you'll get 11 answers. Warmachine has points, but the points do not balance the game. The game is balanced entirely around memorizing every available unit. You could learn every Cryx unit and Menoth unit and have great Cryx vs Menoth games, but if you then went up against a Retribution unit, you'd probably not have a particularly balanced game. Early on, when you are unfamiliar with units, you are more likely to be destroyed by forgetting one of the 10 special abilities on one of the 10 special units than actually making poor strategic decision. "Oh yeah, that guy has weapon master", "oh yeah, that guy ignores concealment". "Oh yeah, the Black 13th Gun Mage unit is a bunch of dicks".

And the thing is, Age of Sigmar does some of the same stuff. "Oh, that guy gets to roll ones". "Oh, the dragons on that scenery can come alive and eat models". "Oh, d3 MORTAL damage."

However, I don't think AoS is quite as bad about it because the majority of the skills and interaction are one sided. Conflict in AoS doesn't really require interaction between the units. The skills that affect my rolls only affect my rolls and the skills that affect your rolls only affect your rolls (exception is rend). Knowing that you reroll 1s only affects you, and there's not really a strategy your enemy can plan around it. It just means that your guy is a little bit tougher. While the stats do matter, the more general feel from them is that just make the unit tougher or weaker.

In Warmachine, you have a unit in melee, in cover, suffering from an enemy spell, creating three or four different modifiers to one's DEF, and another three or four modifiers to ARM. Oh you have a +2 shield that increases your ARM, but not if attacked in the back arc. And then the enemy has a spell which increases it's to hit roll +2, has a boosted hit roll, and just charged. The single mathematical equation of 2d6 + MAT > DEF is suddenly 2d6 + 1d6 + MAT + 2 >= DEF + 4 + 3 - 2. You have to be know what the hell is going on - forgetting even one of these factors when your opponent doesn't pretty much will cost you the game. That's why I consider Warmachine unbalanced (especially points) for anyone who isn't intimately familiar with every rule, unit, and synergy. Two inexperienced players won't even be playing with all the rules, or using them correctly. It's literally impossible for them to do. I've played with veterans who still have to consult the (95pg) rulebook.

So, I think Age of Sigmar is balanced more towards pick up games against unfamiliar units. The math is not as susceptible to minmaxing, few of the special abilities cross the table, and you can get by just knowing the general information about the units in order to make strategic decisions. No doubt at high levels of play, with players who have dedicated their lifes to eking out efficiency from every little minutiae, the experience will be a bit different. But two inexperienced players, knowing just a broad overview of the units, can experience a game in which they can win through planning and guile.

It's kinda absurd to insist that "Balance" means that either player has exactly the same chance to win no matter what.

Well, that's one type of balance, isn't it? I'm not suggesting it is the only type of balance. I'm suggesting that balance is simply the fulcrum around which play is designed. For some games, that fulcrum is one thing (having a good time? Having a chance to win?), and in other games it is something else (experience? Equivalent forces? Math degrees?). Obviously, different people prefer different types of balance - so any appeal to one specific type when suggesting AoS is unbalanced is a bit misleading.

What you are talking about is the learning curve required to figure out the game, not how balanced the game is. AoS definitely has a lower learning curve than infinity, Malifaux, or Warmahordes. But, hey, Chutes and Ladders has a pretty low learning curve too. Doesn't make it a game I'm interested in playing...

That's a pretty unfair comparison. Chutes and Ladders is a roll and move game - a game in which you can have no strategy and are completely at the mercy of the dice. In that situation, you really might as well just roll a dice to decide the winner. But Chutes and Ladders is a game made for kids, and the fulcrum of design is built around creating tension around the dice rolls. Ooh, if I get a 2, I win! Dagnabbit! A 1.

Age of Sigmar's design fulcrum is built around maneuvering. Arguably, nothing else in the game is as fundamental to one's ability to win, even the units you pick (so far, at least). The game is built in such a way as to provide a random battlefield and various threat zones to make the decisions made around maneuvering more interesting.

I think you're confusing the terms "simplicity" and "balance." Yes, AOS is more simple than Warmachine. No one's arguing that.
Is it more balanced? Inherently not at all. If you want balance, you have to make up your own way to do it.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 cygnnus wrote:

What an utterly silly way to try to define "balance".

My point, and utterly naked attempt to get this thread back on track, is if you ask 10 people what balance means, you'll get 11 answers. ...
...

That is merely your assertion.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
My point, and utterly naked attempt to get this thread back on track, is if you ask 10 people what balance means, you'll get 11 answers. ...
...

That is merely your assertion.

I feel pretty comfortable making it, but it should be easy enough to check. Ten people in this thread: Define balance.

Wikipedia can start: "In game design, balance is the concept and the practice of tuning a game's rules, usually with the goal of preventing any of its component systems from being ineffective or otherwise undesirable when compared to their peers. An unbalanced system represents wasted development resources at the very least, and at worst can undermine the game's entire ruleset by making important roles or tasks impossible to perform."

(That doesn't seem like how it is used in this thread. By this definition, WM has many ineffective and undesirable units when compared to their peers.)

@Kilkrazy, Sqorgar -

There aren't an infinite number of meanings to balance, but it CAN mean a few different things. To mention a few:

- It can mean that both people have armies that are squarely matched with each other, generally speaking, but not necessarily in a specific scenario.

- It can mean that both people have armies that are evenly matched in the specific scenario being played, accounting for advantages to one army or the other offered by the scenario.

- It can mean both people have an equal opportunity to build an evenly matched army, but the two armies need not be evenly matched at the time the game starts.

- It can mean that both people are equally challenged to win the game.

- It can mean that army options are assigned values and that the additive totals of the two armies are equal.

I'm sure there are more!

For me, personally, as I mentioned in the other thread, I desire an equal challenge for both players. If, given that both people are familiar with the game and know the rules, if they try their best, they should both have an equal chance to win the game, based on good decision making and a little bit of luck.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
My point, and utterly naked attempt to get this thread back on track, is if you ask 10 people what balance means, you'll get 11 answers. ...
...

That is merely your assertion.

I feel pretty comfortable making it, but it should be easy enough to check. Ten people in this thread: Define balance.

Wikipedia can start: "In game design, balance is the concept and the practice of tuning a game's rules, usually with the goal of preventing any of its component systems from being ineffective or otherwise undesirable when compared to their peers. An unbalanced system represents wasted development resources at the very least, and at worst can undermine the game's entire ruleset by making important roles or tasks impossible to perform."

(That doesn't seem like how it is used in this thread. By this definition, WM has many ineffective and undesirable units when compared to their peers.)

Where in the world do you get your WMH information? There's only a handful of units that are considered useless, and even then, most of them can be put to use in the right list. (Especially after this week's major errata) I use Marineers for heaven's sake. If you're talking super tournament list kinda stuff? I don't know. I don't play tournaments.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Where in the world do you get your WMH information? There's only a handful of units that are considered useless, and even then, most of them can be put to use in the right list. (Especially after this week's major errata) I use Marineers for heaven's sake. If you're talking super tournament list kinda stuff? I don't know. I don't play tournaments.

Didn't they just release errata which totally gimped Haley 2 and 3, and Gorman's blind abilityl - to the collective cheers of damn near everyone?

Also, two people in and 6 definitions of game balance.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

Where in the world do you get your WMH information? There's only a handful of units that are considered useless, and even then, most of them can be put to use in the right list. (Especially after this week's major errata) I use Marineers for heaven's sake. If you're talking super tournament list kinda stuff? I don't know. I don't play tournaments.

Didn't they just release errata which totally gimped Haley 2 and 3, and Gorman's blind abilityl - to the collective cheers of damn near everyone?

Also, two people in and 6 definitions of game balance.

Is the fact that PP did an errata that made the game more balanced supposed to be a criticism? They work to make the game balanced, unlike GW. Yes.

 MWHistorian wrote:
Is the fact that PP did an errata that made the game more balanced supposed to be a criticism? They work to make the game balanced, unlike GW. Yes.

The opposite could be argued too: "I bought 7 wave serpents, and now they are useless."

I'm not really a fan of official game rebalancing between editions. Nor am I a fan of changing the balancing formula mid edition (like GW does).

My preference is to make your bed and sleep in it -- live with it til the next edition or units update, at least 12 months in, so that if anyone buys models to play it, they get to use them. If players don't like the way it's balanced, it's trivial to just... change it

A possible compromise would be to have official rules, and then experimental rules (like the Forge World new units). Then, the experimental rules could be "take it or leave it".

I take back what I said. Balance isn't an illusion. It's a faith.

And that makes Age of Sigmar heretical.

Sqorgar wrote:Didn't they just release errata which totally gimped Haley 2 and 3, and Gorman's blind abilityl - to the collective cheers of damn near everyone?

Talys wrote:The opposite could be argued too: "I bought 7 wave serpents, and now they are useless."

That is legitimately one of the most absurd things I have seen in regards to this whole 'balance' topic.

Haley2 was considered the most blatantly OP thing in the whole game, yet was far from unbeatable and was not sweeping tourneys. She was not totally gimped, she is not 'useless', she was lowered to in line or still only 'just' above average. And as you said, it was to the cheers of the community!

How the hell can you try and twist that into a bad thing???

By the way, that same errata buffed all of 3 units as well, all three of which were considered (almost) unplayable (in a tourney environment).

I haven't entirely been able to wrap my head around this errata myself honestly, because it still shocks me that they only nerfed OP units, and only buffed underpowered units. After so long with GW as the standard I simply never thought that could happen.

 Talys wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
Is the fact that PP did an errata that made the game more balanced supposed to be a criticism? They work to make the game balanced, unlike GW. Yes.

The opposite could be argued too: "I bought 7 wave serpents, and now they are useless."

I'm not really a fan of official game rebalancing between editions. Nor am I a fan of changing the balancing formula mid edition (like GW does).

My preference is to make your bed and sleep in it -- live with it til the next edition or units update, at least 12 months in, so that if anyone buys models to play it, they get to use them. If players don't like the way it's balanced, it's trivial to just... change it

A possible compromise would be to have official rules, and then experimental rules (like the Forge World new units). Then, the experimental rules could be "take it or leave it".

Certainly that wave serpent thing could happen. And you could pick another straw man to use as well if you like. Straw men are straw men, you set them up so you can knock them down. The actual situation referenced was specific and popular, and a real attempt at balance and not just nerfing. So your alternate example is irrelevant and a poor method of debate.

I also do not see why you're against living rulebooks and army lists, its certainly a far easier method of balance than with static editions. Why should people have to live with poorly balanced codex for years? (12 months my green butt, maybe if you're space marines). Why is that fun or good game design? Ask Bretonians what its like to not get a codex for a decade.

But as a matter of fact, AoS is in prime position to BE a living rulebook with regular balance changes and updates. As the rules are all free and online, the warscrolls are free and online, GW has the option of regularly updating them to improve the game as it develops. This would be a brilliant feature. Of course, GW has shown zero inclination into doing something of that sort, so I doubt they will. But they have the option, and I must admit that is a positive feature of AoS. It remains to be seen if they'll take advantage of it.

 MWHistorian wrote:
You have a twisted and inaccurate view of warmachine. All I was saying was that you cant slap any models together but if you put some thought into your list you can make anything work. Im a guy that uses man o' wars and mariners. If you dont put effort into your list, you're going to have a hard time. That said, a bad player with a good list will lose to a good player with a bad list. Player skill is by far the largest factor in determining the winner. Id say that's a good indicator of balance.

Actually, it's an indicator of the extent to which skill matters. Being a skill-based game has little to do with overall balance, though.

If we were equally skilled WMH players, and I selected my list randomly, whereas you curated your list:
a) it'd be a toss-up (strict internal and external balance);
b) you'd be at a strong advantage (limited balance among "competitive" units, only); or
c) I wouldn't have any chance of winning (unbalanced).

Which is it?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
You have a twisted and inaccurate view of warmachine. All I was saying was that you cant slap any models together but if you put some thought into your list you can make anything work. Im a guy that uses man o' wars and mariners. If you dont put effort into your list, you're going to have a hard time. That said, a bad player with a good list will lose to a good player with a bad list. Player skill is by far the largest factor in determining the winner. Id say that's a good indicator of balance.

Actually, it's an indicator of the extent to which skill matters. Being a skill-based game has little to do with overall balance, though.

If we were equally skilled WMH players, and I selected my list randomly, whereas you curated your list:
a) it'd be a toss-up (strict internal and external balance);
b) you'd be at a strong advantage (limited balance among "competitive" units, only); or
c) I wouldn't have any chance of winning (unbalanced).

Which is it?

As you are generating the list randomly, its impossible for him to answer with those options. The game has far too much variety for him to say anything but what he said. A good player with a less competitive list will beat a bad player with a more competitive list. While I'm only a beginner at warmachine, I've been playing it long enough to see that its not just the individual units that matter, but the way you have them work together. Warmachine both has a strong tactical skill game, and a strong list building game. 40k and WFB are the same way, but to different degrees.

Many chess players will spot their opponent pieces at the beginning of a game to balance out their skill levels, and yet still win. It is not really much different. The standard chess "army list" is just identical for each player under normal circumstances.

I'm not asking about unequal skill levels. I'm asking about army balance assuming equal skill levels.

From what I read, WM is no better balanced than 40k or any other system - all have external balance issues with overpowered and/or undercosted units, along with internal balance issues for underpowered / overcosted units. It's just that the WM community believes that the external balance across the "competitive" combinations is "good enough".
____

Edit 8/24, as to not add new WM posts, per Manchu's warning...

It is telling that ever WM player dances around answering the question that I originally posited, with bland platitudes:
- WM requires "more" skill, and
- WM has "better" internal & external balance.
Those are both subjective and relative statements, comparing against a game that they openly vilify. They are, quite frankly worthless in assessing whether WM is objectively balanced, as I originally requested

All of them know, but none are willing to admit publicly that WM is NOT balanced. WM clearly has internal and external balance issues, like any other points-based system. For a game that says "Play like you got a pair", it is beyond pathetic that WM players can't simply admit that their game isn't (and will never be) perfect, that the fundamental balance isn't really any different than 40k or WFB8, aside from degree. I'd respect WM a lot more if their community wouldn't be so defensive about its warts and faults. But then, my persona and identity isn't wrapped around rejecting and vilifying GW in every single post and forum.

 argonak wrote:

 Talys wrote:

My preference is to make your bed and sleep in it -- live with it til the next edition or units update, at least 12 months in, so that if anyone buys models to play it, they get to use them. If players don't like the way it's balanced, it's trivial to just... change it

I also do not see why you're against living rulebooks and army lists, its certainly a far easier method of balance than with static editions. Why should people have to live with poorly balanced codex for years? (12 months my green butt, maybe if you're space marines). Why is that fun or good game design? Ask Bretonians what its like to not get a codex for a decade.

It may have something to do with the pressure of everyday life, how often a person plays etc. I remember as if it was yesterday when I bought the 6th ed SM codex and this year the new one just drops in and I'm all like "Whaaat? But it just came out gurl!!! Oh it's been 2 years already...". All in all I don't remember having even 5 games with it so It still felt very new. In a real world scenario, I guess there wouldn't be frequent updates, but for some people, that dedicate most of their time to painting, army composition etc. it could be frustrating to go to the club for their annual game and find that the game has changed.

 argonak wrote:

But as a matter of fact, AoS is in prime position to BE a living rulebook with regular balance changes and updates. As the rules are all free and online, the warscrolls are free and online, GW has the option of regularly updating them to improve the game as it develops. This would be a brilliant feature. Of course, GW has shown zero inclination into doing something of that sort, so I doubt they will.

To tell you the truth, while I appreciate FAQs and errata's it is very bothersome especially when the changes concern a big rule book or multiple units with already printed rules. Such things tend to bring down the value and usefulness of printed books. GW may be coming from that point of view.

 CoreCommander wrote:

 argonak wrote:

 Talys wrote:

My preference is to make your bed and sleep in it -- live with it til the next edition or units update, at least 12 months in, so that if anyone buys models to play it, they get to use them. If players don't like the way it's balanced, it's trivial to just... change it

I also do not see why you're against living rulebooks and army lists, its certainly a far easier method of balance than with static editions. Why should people have to live with poorly balanced codex for years? (12 months my green butt, maybe if you're space marines). Why is that fun or good game design? Ask Bretonians what its like to not get a codex for a decade.

It may have something to do with the pressure of everyday life, how often a person plays etc. I remember as if it was yesterday when I bought the 6th ed SM codex and this year the new one just drops in and I'm all like "Whaaat? But it just came out gurl!!! Oh it's been 2 years already...". All in all I don't remember having even 5 games with it so It still felt very new. In a real world scenario, I guess there wouldn't be frequent updates, but for some people, that dedicate most of their time to painting, army composition etc. it could be frustrating to go to the club for their annual game and find that the game has changed.

 argonak wrote:

But as a matter of fact, AoS is in prime position to BE a living rulebook with regular balance changes and updates. As the rules are all free and online, the warscrolls are free and online, GW has the option of regularly updating them to improve the game as it develops. This would be a brilliant feature. Of course, GW has shown zero inclination into doing something of that sort, so I doubt they will.

To tell you the truth, while I appreciate FAQs and errata's it is very bothersome especially when the changes concern a big rule book or multiple units with already printed rules. Such things tend to bring down the value and usefulness of printed books. GW may be coming from that point of view.

But see, that's where GW is in the perfect position. You already have to download warscrolls, and the rules are only four pages. Not bothersome at all! Just print them out again, and you're done.

Tomorrow GW could put points on all their warscrolls, and include an army building mechanic in the four page rules, and silence about 1/3 of the criticism AoS gets. And then they could promise to continually update those points to try and bring the game into further balance, silencing even MORE critics.

They wouldn't get rid of them all, because AoS is far too simplistic in comparison to WFB and that made a lot of people mad, but it would be definite improvements!

 argonak wrote:

But see, that's where GW is in the perfect position. You already have to download warscrolls, and the rules are only four pages. Not bothersome at all! Just print them out again, and you're done.

Tomorrow GW could put points on all their warscrolls, and include an army building mechanic in the four page rules, and silence about 1/3 of the criticism AoS gets. And then they could promise to continually update those points to try and bring the game into further balance, silencing even MORE critics.

They wouldn't get rid of them all, because AoS is far too simplistic in comparison to WFB and that made a lot of people mad, but it would be definite improvements!

The problem is that the four pages of rules are already included in multiple books along with more and more warscrolls with each new release. Eventually when all the ranges are renewed, all units will be presented both online and in some book or another. Any update in the online resources will result in discrepancy.

 CoreCommander wrote:

 argonak wrote:

But see, that's where GW is in the perfect position. You already have to download warscrolls, and the rules are only four pages. Not bothersome at all! Just print them out again, and you're done.

Tomorrow GW could put points on all their warscrolls, and include an army building mechanic in the four page rules, and silence about 1/3 of the criticism AoS gets. And then they could promise to continually update those points to try and bring the game into further balance, silencing even MORE critics.

They wouldn't get rid of them all, because AoS is far too simplistic in comparison to WFB and that made a lot of people mad, but it would be definite improvements!

The problem is that the four pages of rules are already included in multiple books along with more and more warscrolls with each new release. Eventually when all the ranges are renewed, all units will be presented both online and in some book or another. Any update in the online resources will result in discrepancy.

I don't see why that's a big problem? I have wfb 6th edition on my shelf, but I knew I needed 8th to play at the local store. If the store says, "hey, make sure to download the free rules and warscroll updates to stay current!" people will. or they won't if they don't want to, but hell i can go play 3rd edition if i can find an opponent. And for the rules seriously, its four pages. Who cares if they're already in a book? Print them out. it takes like a minute. hell if we were playing I'd print you out a copy. What's the big deal?

Maybe I'm wrong though, are they not putting the new unit warscrolls on the web page? I haven't been paying attention, but I thought all warscrolls were going to be free from now on, and the books were just fluff. I didn't think they were going to be selling army lists anymore. If that's the case, then I'm off base.

 argonak wrote:

I don't see why that's a big problem? I have wfb 6th edition on my shelf, but I knew I needed 8th to play at the local store. If the store says, "hey, make sure to download the free rules and warscroll updates to stay current!" people will. or they won't if they don't want to, but hell i can go play 3rd edition if i can find an opponent. And for the rules seriously, its four pages. Who cares if they're already in a book? Print them out. it takes like a minute. hell if we were playing I'd print you out a copy. What's the big deal?

Your example is not quite accurate as the previous editions came with an approximately identifiable line of books which, while not updated en masse, were still consistently intended to be used with the same core book and as such were largely self-sufficient functional branches of their own. If you're doing a massive update consistency would demand that it would be done for everything - a new edition. When you're doing multiple small fixes for the same "edition" every printed book in the same edition suffers from it. Ofcourse it doesn't affect free users, but for those that shelled the 45 pounds, just to stick page after page of updated material, it may be frustrating...

P.S. I want to be sure that we're on the same page here. I am addressing patches to the game, addressing a current glaring issue, that is too early to be included in a new iteration of the tules, similar to what Privateer Press did a couple of days ago. The thing a "living rulebook", as you said, is meant to do.

Maybe I'm wrong though, are they not putting the new unit warscrolls on the web page? I haven't been paying attention, but I thought all warscrolls were going to be free from now on, and the books were just fluff. I didn't think they were going to be selling army lists anymore. If that's the case, then I'm off base.

They're mostly putting the new warcsrolls online as far as I know. Even the formations.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'm not asking about unequal skill levels. I'm asking about army balance assuming equal skill levels.

From what I read, WM is no better balanced than 40k or any other system - all have external balance issues with overpowered and/or undercosted units, along with internal balance issues for underpowered / overcosted units. It's just that the WM community believes that the external balance across the "competitive" combinations is "good enough".

But you can't talk about army balance without skill in warmachine. Some armies are good, but require high skill to use. There is no scatter eldar or 7th demons in warmachine. Plus even the most skew match ups can end up with a draw or win, because of scenario or caster kill. Match ups like IG vs dual skyhammer don't realy exist in WM. And if something is too good, it gets changed like pHaley just did.

What's the big deal?

Not all stores let people play with printed rules and not all people trust other enough for them to use rules in printed or digital form as those are too easy to change.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'm not asking about unequal skill levels. I'm asking about army balance assuming equal skill levels.

From what I read, WM is no better balanced than 40k or any other system - all have external balance issues with overpowered and/or undercosted units, along with internal balance issues for underpowered / overcosted units. It's just that the WM community believes that the external balance across the "competitive" combinations is "good enough".

You're reading the wrong things then.

I think Warmachine is starting to take over the topic (which was entirely my fault). My point in bringing it up was to underscore the idea that balance is an illusion and that rather than representing any sort of fairness, balance is more like the fulcrum around which the game design is focused. The fulcrum of design in both AoS and WM could not be any more different, and it is obvious that their respective game designers have very different visions for how they want to further develop the games.

The fact is, Warmachine is a different game than Age of Sigmar, and that's okay. Some people like one or the other; some people like both. Despite the miniature market being so tiny, I still think there's enough room for diversity in gaming experiences. You don't have to like or play Age of Sigmar, but if you don't, its players and popularity are really none of your concern.

I do proclaim, loudly and often, that there is a lot to like about Age of Sigmar. I personally love what it is, what it does, and especially what it doesn't. It's frustrating to be insulted frequently through ham-fisted insinuation that I must be simpled minded, but that doesn't change how I feel about the game - just my opinion of the people saying such cruel and infantile things.

Also, I think the Celestant Prime looks pretty sweet.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'm not asking about unequal skill levels. I'm asking about army balance assuming equal skill levels.

From what I read, WM is no better balanced than 40k or any other system - all have external balance issues with overpowered and/or undercosted units, along with internal balance issues for underpowered / overcosted units. It's just that the WM community believes that the external balance across the "competitive" combinations is "good enough".

Check your sources then, because you're very wrong.
Internally and externally WMH's balance is much better than anything done by GW.
No unit is useless or seen in every list and no one gets punished or rewarded for playing an army like in 40k. (CSM vs Eldar? LOL!)

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:
My point, and utterly naked attempt to get this thread back on track, is if you ask 10 people what balance means, you'll get 11 answers. ...
...

That is merely your assertion.

I feel pretty comfortable making it, but it should be easy enough to check. Ten people in this thread: Define balance.

Wikipedia can start: "In game design, balance is the concept and the practice of tuning a game's rules, usually with the goal of preventing any of its component systems from being ineffective or otherwise undesirable when compared to their peers. An unbalanced system represents wasted development resources at the very least, and at worst can undermine the game's entire ruleset by making important roles or tasks impossible to perform."

(That doesn't seem like how it is used in this thread. By this definition, WM has many ineffective and undesirable units when compared to their peers.)

Where in the world do you get your WMH information? There's only a handful of units that are considered useless, and even then, most of them can be put to use in the right list. (Especially after this week's major errata) I use Marineers for heaven's sake. If you're talking super tournament list kinda stuff? I don't know. I don't play tournaments.

So true . Remember how unplayable trenchers were. Haley3 pops out and they are suddenly ok.

While it is on-topic to compare AoS with WMH in terms of game design, please don't get too far afield discussing WMH or other games. Thanks!

(Newbie bravely posting in a slightly off-topic discussion, so play nice)

I think GW made a mistake by just focusing on just two factions over the course of this summer.

It leads to player fatigue and people will just get bored of the constant gold-pseudo-marines and move off to other systems.

Come on, GW. After the Tau release, roll out some big guns like the re-vamped Aelfs/ Duardin.

I'm eager to see how the Dwrafs have changed. 'Fyyre' Slayers taking gold from Chaos armies? Blasphemy. I hope this is not true and they are more traditional Dwarfs in AOS.

And hopefully, Druchii are a separate, Asur-hating army again. I'm still having whiplash when they joined up with High Elves during End Times and all sang Kumbaya around the campfire.

(*Shudder*).

Shadowstrife wrote:

I think GW made a mistake by just focusing on just two factions over the course of this summer.

They seem to be following a specific narrative, and central to the narrative is Sigmar and his followers taking back the mortal realms from the legions of Chaos. Judging by the campaign books that are being released, old units are being repackaged simultaneously with becoming important to the story. Nurgle units are repackaged and suddenly, there's a Nurgle campaign.

What this means is that, initially, there will be a slow transition into the full AoS world. However, it also means that when the new factions are revealed, it will likely coincide with an epic story in the fluff and associated, playable campaign. So it won't just be a release. It will be an event.

Since I'm new to the GW fold (and like the Stormcast), it's all fresh to me and I find it exciting. Introducing the fluff alongside the releases is very useful to me, as I don't find myself as lost like the time I decided to read a Gotrek and Felix story without knowing anything about the WFB world.

^^ When you explain it like this, I totally get GW taking the narrative angle.

But It would have been nice if they shook things up a bit within the narrative itself- it's nice to see the Sylvaneth holding out against Nurgle, which I guess is just a bookmark for a lager plot in one of the upcoming books.
(The new Wild Riders minis were great- hopefully they make a re-appearance.)

Shadowstrife wrote:


And hopefully, Druchii are a separate, Asur-hating army again. I'm still having whiplash when they joined up with High Elves during End Times and all sang Kumbaya around the campfire.

The way it was explained to me, it makes perfect sense that all is "right" in the Elven world.

as for the topic at hand, I am actually enjoying it a lot. There's not a ton of wasted space in rule books with tables to hit and wound, and what shooting attack hits on what, etc. So long as you keep your scrolls in some semblance of order while playing, it all goes pretty smoothly, even with the first couple games.

So, polling 3 local stores:

- One store says it has sold more starter boxes than it expected, a healthy number of sigmarites, and way more books than it expected. There is no organized play there, but the store owner is very happy with the sales.

- One store has a couple of groups playing it now, with its sales described by the manager as "so-so". When I asked about relative sales to other games, not as well as WMH (I assume, not as well as 40k), much better than any anything else, including XWing and Malifaux.

- One store's manager described it as "it's not where we'd like it to be." The manager told me there's essentially one guy who's bought a huge chunk of all their AoS sales -- a WMH convertee who has decided to go nuts and basically buy every box of Warhammer Fantasy miniature he can get his hands on. Tepid sales other than Stormcast Eternals and Starter Boxes. When I asked about compared to WHFB, he said that basically their FB sales were close to zero, so ANYTHING was an improvement.

I have not gone to the local GW store since AoS launch (it's not near my area, and I buy almost nothing there anyhow).

^ It will be interesting to see where AOS stands one year from now, and if it will be scaled-back in the event of a post- introduction lull.

That is, if the world is still here judging by these meteorite rumors...

Shadowstrife wrote:
^ It will be interesting to see where AOS stands one year from now, and if it will be scaled-back in the event of a post- introduction lull.

That is, if the world is still here judging by these meteorite rumors...

To be honest, I'd much rather not see these giant non-40k blobs of releases. I mean, at this point, I'm just dying for the Tau stuff! Yeah, I know, the Fantasy folks would say the same thing about months and months of 40k releases they care not for.

I'm sure that interest will drop significantly post-introduction, and plateau at some level. The only question is whether it will be above or below WHFB, and if it's above, whether it's enough for GW to continue supporting in the way of new models. It essentially costs them nothing to just print books and repack existing stuff.

I do believe that at some point, they'll add in some kind of "official tournament system", especially if sales are soft.

It will definitely be more popular among non-competitive players as it doesn't have the insane entry barrier WHFB used to have.

 Sigvatr wrote:
It will definitely be more popular among non-competitive players as it doesn't have the insane entry barrier WHFB used to have.

That's actually a point I'd like to dispute. I should be clear from the start here; I absolutely, 100% advocate WHFB being played at large sizes. I spent many years with the game and wouldn't consider anything below 1200pts to be indicative of how it's 'meant' to be played. Yes, the rules allowed you to slap 2 Core, a General and a Chaff piece together and call 300pts an army. But the game was designed to mix in BSB's, Magic, Monsters, War Machines....
I wholeheartedly agree that WHFB needed an investment to >2000pts if it was to be enjoyed 'properly'.

However, just because the small games did not work as well, is no criticism that they did not exist. You could certainly slap down an 'army' of 16 models in most cases and have a legal, ready-to-go force. The reason that players did not choose to do so is because the rules were written for a larger scale and while the game was possible at a small scale, it was better at the larger because that is when unit interaction and player decisions become more important than unit choice. Essentially you have fallback options for the mistakes you make in list-building because the restrictions are not so suffocating by moving beyond the bare minimum of the game's rules.

This is an argument that can be applied to Age of Sigmar too, and it's being held up as an advantage of the new game that I feel is totally unjustified. Just because you can choose to play a single box of infantry, does not mean that the game is as fun, challenging or worthwhile as a larger game. The Realmgate Wars has given some indication that 100 models is a good ballpark for the size of a 'typical' game- This is not a small force from a single box. This is going to be a size as large as anything built under 8th Edition. The difference is that with no FOC, the 8th Edition is 'forced' to include some bulk of Core units, so that ~50 of those models might be blander grunts where the Sigmar force can be all elites. But again, this is not an argument that the Sigmar force is cheaper, and in fact it's almost certainly going to cost more because of GW's wacky pricing for quality stats.

I think it's misleading to say that Age of Sigmar has a cheaper buy-in simply because your first 2 boxes can be anything you want, rather than the requirement for Core infantry. The final product is going to cost just as much and there is absolutely nothing I can see that makes a small AoS game better than a small WHFB game.

Mozzamanx wrote:


I think it's misleading to say that Age of Sigmar has a cheaper buy-in simply because your first 2 boxes can be anything you want, rather than the requirement for Core infantry. The final product is going to cost just as much and there is absolutely nothing I can see that makes a small AoS game better than a small WHFB game.

I agree with you on the "proper" WHFB point ranges.... However, I disagree with the part I left quoted. I can see this both ways, honestly. If you get some good opponents, extremely small games can be as fun/challenging as larger games. Honestly, a bad opponent is bad regardless of whether you're playing a 10 warscroll game, or a 4 warscroll game.

Where AOS can really come into its own is game 'variety'.

By that, I mean anything other than average games of pitched-battles and sieges. It would be great to see rules for a more diverse type of battle.

AoS is a lot cheaper than WHFB just because the rules and war scrolls are free. It would cost £80 (-ish ?) just to get the rulebook and an army book for WHFB, before buying a single figure.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
AoS is a lot cheaper than WHFB just because the rules and war scrolls are free. It would cost £80 (-ish ?) just to get the rulebook and an army book for WHFB, before buying a single figure.

This was the only way for GW to get AoS going.
Now we see that also 40k players get interested in AoS.

Personally I like age of sigmar I feel that in some ways it actually rewards bringing semi balanced lists (a mix of close combat and ranged attacks). Now as a dark elves player I'm happy that it allows me to bring alot of infantry with some cavalry chariots and warmachines mixed in and have a fun game. Now for example I had a game today 9 war scrolls I brought
Dread Lord on Cold One as my general
25 dreadspears with full command
25 dread spears with full command
10 dark shards
Reaper bolt thrower
Reaper bolt thrower
15 cold one knights
2 cold one chariots
5 warlocks
Now in 8th ed this list would not have worked most likely yet now it does. Overall I feel people should give the game a chance there's actually alot more strategy to it than you would think

AoS definitely has a lower 'buy in' than WFB - but that doesn't mean that a 'standard' game will necessarily be any smaller.
All it means is that if you bought (say) 2 units of 10 infantry and a character on foot, you'll be able to play a more flexible game with AoS than you would with WHFB.

Due to the nature of how units move and are organised, you don't need 'big' units to maximise them so AoS'll probably see more variety with comparable model counts between the two systems.
Whether this is enough in the long run, we'll see.

It's soooooo much cheaper. Standard games are closer to 1000pts of 8th from my experience. I don't think 100+ models will ever become a standard game size.

 Bottle wrote:
It's soooooo much cheaper. Standard games are closer to 1000pts of 8th from my experience. I don't think 100+ models will ever become a standard game size.

Moving 100+ models per side with no movement trays? No... I dare say that doesn't fit with a "fast and friendly" skirmish game.

Valete,

JohnS

So use a movement tray...hop on and off as needed.

Snapshot wrote:
So use a movement tray...hop on and off as needed.

Yeah... there's a guy in my store who runs an undead list that "starts" with two blocks of 100 skeletons... he runs them on trays, only moving them in for the "pile in" moves...

I'm all for AoS. I never played WHFB so I'm obviously unaware of the sting that came with the death of the old world , but I did love many of the novels set in that time.
While folks have left it provided a prime opportunity for me to jump into the fantasy scene by snatching up cheap VC force in need of some TLC. Using this army and a few addidtion I've been able to build a army to not only play various style but also have enough models that the wife has taken to having VC vs VC with me.
While it took her awhile to pick up 40k, the learning curve for her with AoS was nigh non existant. Now she has taken to beating me with my own army...

10/10 would let the missus beat me with my own models again

 Kilkrazy wrote:
AoS is a lot cheaper than WHFB just because the rules and war scrolls are free. It would cost £80 (-ish ?) just to get the rulebook and an army book for WHFB, before buying a single figure.

The books maybe cheaper, but the game isn't. Because there are more combinations and no points limits, you actualy need to buy just as many boxs as before.The difference is that when before one had to buy 5-6 boxs of the same models, now you need to buy 5-6 different boxs.

Idk If we count crew as well I fielded around 90 models yesterday was quite a fun game. Imho this game can work well for large amounts of models it's actually rather flexible

Mozzamanx wrote:


I think it's misleading to say that Age of Sigmar has a cheaper buy-in simply because your first 2 boxes can be anything you want, rather than the requirement for Core infantry. The final product is going to cost just as much and there is absolutely nothing I can see that makes a small AoS game better than a small WHFB game.

The primary difference is meta based really and has nothing to do with the rules. After so many years WHFB was established in a lot of places with a high point total/number of models as the baseline for the game. So sure people could play smaller battles if they wanted, but if they wanted to fully join in to a local WHFB meta they had to have an army of 2000 points or higher. That lead to a massive startup cost for new players. This was not because of the game rules being bad for small numbers of models, but the meta. As a new player you can't just jump into game day at the local store where all armies are multiple thousands of points with your 500 points and expect to be able to take part.

Now AoS comes out and the meta is starting around 10 to 20 models, so regardless of one of the campaign books talking about 100+ models being on the table, the baseline meta is for much smaller forces at this point, thus it IS cheap to start up AoS right now. That could change if it establishes itself and people adapt to it more and raise the number of models most places for bigger battles. Again, though, this has nothing to do with how the rules are written, but with how the game is played.

So whether it can change in the future right now AoS does have a much lighter startup cost than WHFB 8 did in most places, because right now the focus is on smaller forces. They already start way ahead of the curve by not needing to buy an $80 rulebook and a $50 army book before buying any miniatures either.

There is also the fact that you don't have to buy any of the books to play (legally, of course) so immediately you are saving $35 us per army book and about $80 on core rules. Now that cash can go into models

I've enjoyed AoS so far. What I haven't really enjoyed is house rules. Lots of the places I've played at have tried to enforce some sort of balancing and it never works. The most common one is a wound cap. Sounds good on paper, but I play Night Goblins and used to play Tomb Kings. When there's a '60 wound hardcap' or something my armies just crumble because, for example, 20 wounds worth of night goblins is not equal to 20 wounds of Sauras Warriors. It would seem, based on my experience and battle reports, lots of people haven't wrapped their heads around that concept yet.

Play the game as intended and don't be a dick then you got yourself a fun game, in my opinion.

On a final note, that's not to say there should not be balancing in competitive settings. I feel it's pretty essential there, but no in casual play.

 PaulTheFirewoodSalesman wrote:
I've enjoyed AoS so far. What I haven't really enjoyed is house rules. Lots of the places I've played at have tried to enforce some sort of balancing and it never works. The most common one is a wound cap. Sounds good on paper, but I play Night Goblins and used to play Tomb Kings. When there's a '60 wound hardcap' or something my armies just crumble because, for example, 20 wounds worth of night goblins is not equal to 20 wounds of Sauras Warriors. It would seem, based on my experience and battle reports, lots of people haven't wrapped their heads around that concept yet.

Play the game as intended and don't be a dick then you got yourself a fun game, in my opinion.

On a final note, that's not to say there should not be balancing in competitive settings. I feel it's pretty essential there, but no in casual play.

Yeah, my local store runs with a general "dont be a dick" rule, but most games are taken with Warscroll "balance". IE, both players typically set up their armies, and, as when I first started, one player adjusts his force up/down to roughly match the other player. Case in point, my last campaign game, I'm going up against a guy playing his Khorne army, who's had a couple three weeks longer in the campaign than me, and thus has more stuff available to him. Now, he could have run everything, and I'd play on the "Sudden Death" table, OR, as he did, he could cut out some stuff/numbers.


Only other "hard" house rule that we play by, is basically the same as every other card game, previous editions etc... and that is, named heroes are Unique and can only be taken once (So, if you have 2 Karl Franz on Deathclaw models, only 1 is KF, the other is a General or Wizard on Imp. Griffon)

Just read the fluff for the Celestsnt Prime. A warrior king and leader of men in a darkening time. The ultimate fate of Karl Franz, I suppose. Or it at least seems to imply it.

I haven't had chance to try it, but my local GW has been pushing more fantasy than they ever did during 8th. 40k is still more popular, but AoS is still a thing.

 Crazyterran wrote:
Just read the fluff for the Celestsnt Prime. A warrior king and leader of men in a darkening time. The ultimate fate of Karl Franz, I suppose. Or it at least seems to imply it.
.

IIRC in the end times Franz's soul is blasted apart, merged with Sigmar's, gone (or something) when he becomes the host of the wind of Heaven. It may be possible that Sigmar retained something of Franz to use later on, though...

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 PaulTheFirewoodSalesman wrote:
I've enjoyed AoS so far. What I haven't really enjoyed is house rules. Lots of the places I've played at have tried to enforce some sort of balancing and it never works. The most common one is a wound cap. Sounds good on paper, but I play Night Goblins and used to play Tomb Kings. When there's a '60 wound hardcap' or something my armies just crumble because, for example, 20 wounds worth of night goblins is not equal to 20 wounds of Sauras Warriors. It would seem, based on my experience and battle reports, lots of people haven't wrapped their heads around that concept yet.

Play the game as intended and don't be a dick then you got yourself a fun game, in my opinion.

On a final note, that's not to say there should not be balancing in competitive settings. I feel it's pretty essential there, but no in casual play.

Yeah, my local store runs with a general "dont be a dick" rule, but most games are taken with Warscroll "balance". IE, both players typically set up their armies, and, as when I first started, one player adjusts his force up/down to roughly match the other player. Case in point, my last campaign game, I'm going up against a guy playing his Khorne army, who's had a couple three weeks longer in the campaign than me, and thus has more stuff available to him. Now, he could have run everything, and I'd play on the "Sudden Death" table, OR, as he did, he could cut out some stuff/numbers.


Only other "hard" house rule that we play by, is basically the same as every other card game, previous editions etc... and that is, named heroes are Unique and can only be taken once (So, if you have 2 Karl Franz on Deathclaw models, only 1 is KF, the other is a General or Wizard on Imp. Griffon)

That seems like an awful lot of effort to achieve balance that supposedly isn't necessary in a casual game.
I'm a very casual player and balance to me is essential in having a fun game. My narrative is ruined when my awesome army gets wiped off the table on turn two just because my opponent's army is simply much much stronger than mine. (Not list building, but that army is just nigh unbeatable no matter what I do.)

Every game feels balanced to me. Everything dies. Pretty much every match I've had has ended (with a 5 or 6 turn limit) with a handful of models left. The game swings massively between the sides based on double turns etc.

I pretty much quit AoS when my opponent put a unit of halberdiers on the table and I was able to match it with like 3 trolls and a mangler squig. Which apparently gave him a huge model "advantage" allowing me to get an autowin when I destroyed his unit turn 1 with mangler squig.

^^^ agree, that's a stupid rule and we just ignore it.

Ironically, AoS was designed for smallerskirmish battles, but its sucks under 80 wound IMO. Things die or become combat ineffective too fast. I have been playing around 100+ wounds per side and it's really solid, very back and forth.
Also, it plays very quickly. I get 2 games of AoS in the time that I get 1 game of 8th ed in.

Still gripes me that we have to balance the game ourselves, but then again I do like just taking what you have, and getting to use everything your units CAN take instead if being like "Hmmm, ok do I take this upgrade at +1 points per model..." having no actual point limit is very freeing in terms of getting to actually play the units with all their bells and whistles.

This game has to go more objective based though. Straight slug fests are just dull after the first few games. Things like the flee mechanic are really big now and need to be considered more heavily in objective based games.

Been watching batreps using the big book and Ghal Maraz and those missions seem to add a lot to the game.

I have mixed feelings about it.

A a skirmish game using a far lower model count than Fantasy Battle, I would have expected more in depth rules befitting a smaller scale game. (In the same way that Necromunda had more in-depth rules than mainline 40k). But instead the ruleset is simpler. That doesn't exactly float my boat, but I have yet to play it, so maybe that simplification makes for a more fun game, if a less tactical one.

Model wise I'm not mad about the Stormcast. They're good models, but suffer from all being a bit "samey." The Khornate models look great, and the new Sylvaneth are stunning. Those treemen in particular are the best thing to come out of the design room in a while. Ordered the army set for no other reason than I liked the models.

 More Dakka wrote:


Been watching batreps using the big book and Ghal Maraz and those missions seem to add a lot to the game.

It is a bit dangerous to say this but I would opine that, as things stand, those scenarios are the way AoS is 'meant' to be played. If anyone reading this has just tried the four page rules and nothing else, all you have seen is the freeware demo. There is a massive game behind that waiting for you.

 MWHistorian wrote:

That seems like an awful lot of effort to achieve balance that supposedly isn't necessary in a casual game.
I'm a very casual player and balance to me is essential in having a fun game. My narrative is ruined when my awesome army gets wiped off the table on turn two just because my opponent's army is simply much much stronger than mine. (Not list building, but that army is just nigh unbeatable no matter what I do.)

It's actually not as much work as you'd think... Usually, as guys are unpacking one will say, "that's all you're taking??" and if the other says, "yeah, it's all I got" then the first usually responds with, "ohh OK. I'll take some stuff out then"


And, at least so far, I haven't run into any "Wood Elf problems". And by that, I mean that, based on previous threads, in 7th/8th Ed. WHFB, Wood Elves were so incredibly under powered until they finally got a new book, that for most people, if you lined up a WE army, it was almost an auto-win for the opposing player.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

That seems like an awful lot of effort to achieve balance that supposedly isn't necessary in a casual game.
I'm a very casual player and balance to me is essential in having a fun game. My narrative is ruined when my awesome army gets wiped off the table on turn two just because my opponent's army is simply much much stronger than mine. (Not list building, but that army is just nigh unbeatable no matter what I do.)

It's actually not as much work as you'd think... Usually, as guys are unpacking one will say, "that's all you're taking??" and if the other says, "yeah, it's all I got" then the first usually responds with, "ohh OK. I'll take some stuff out then"


And, at least so far, I haven't run into any "Wood Elf problems". And by that, I mean that, based on previous threads, in 7th/8th Ed. WHFB, Wood Elves were so incredibly under powered until they finally got a new book, that for most people, if you lined up a WE army, it was almost an auto-win for the opposing player.

Well, using GW games as a comparison to balance is going to put anything in a favorable light.

 MWHistorian wrote:

Well, using GW games as a comparison to balance is going to put anything in a favorable light.

Lol, true... my point was more that, in my own experience of AOS, I have yet to come across any "auto-win/auto-lose" units or armies.

I also want to throw out there that Sudden Death is kind of stupid, sometimes. I mean if you have, say, 30 sigmarines against 50 sigmarines then sure, it's valid. But when it's 30 sigmaries against 100 skeletons, sigmarines can still win rather easily. But since there's a hell of a lot more skeletons, the sigmarines player gets the chance to give him or herself another opportunity to win.

I should mention that the rules state that an outnumbered player CAN use Sudden Death rules. So every time I'm facing Sigmarines with my Night Goblins I basically ask my opponent to not use Sudden Death and explain why. Usually works, but sometimes I end up with people who want every advantage they can get (they're no fun).

Yeah, we've been either ignoring it or using it as a minor/partial victory condition.

I'd rather see some more tactical objective in place of it, like, nominate one terrain feature in your opponent's territory, if you can get X models in B2B and remain there for 1 game turn then you win.

Just something that's not as easy as "kill that guy" (which is stupid easy with Sigmarines' lighting bolt powers alone)

I brought a friend I used to play 5th Ed 40k with to try the game. He hated it. Lack of points system, no rules writing, and he found the entire experience unpleasant. I told him about the Azyr rules and he fully approved of those.

And neither of us took a dick list. He ran all the Orcs I had (20 savage, 40 regular, 10 black, 2 pump wagons, Grimgor, Wurzaag, mangler and a goblin on wolf) and I set a fairly even warriors list: 20 warriors, 5 Knights, 5 hellstriders, 5 blight kings, gutrot, 2 spawn, lord on demon mount. We quit early, but he had his two named characters, a pump wagon, and 8 black orcs left. I had 18 warriors, 4 Knights, 4 striders, gutrot, lord and BKs left. No summoning, I took no magic at all and far fewer numbers. Skipped SD too. He hated the "if you're within 3", you have to retreat further because you can't charge into combat or move blah blah crap". 3"? Terrible rule. What ever happened to 1"?

 timetowaste85 wrote:
He hated the "if you're within 3", you have to retreat further because you can't charge into combat or move blah blah crap". 3"? Terrible rule. What ever happened to 1"?

Um, that's not correct. You can't charge, yes - but by being within 3" you get your pile-in so will get to fight anyway. You don't have to retreat.

Yup, you read it wrong. That may have something to do with him not enjoying the game, might I suggest giving it another go?

Next time he drives five hours to visit, we shall.

Both of us got irritated at it. It screwed both of us at the point it happened.

Fair enough, glad you're willing to go another round

We ignore the sudden death rule and play according to the azyr comp system.
The games are more balanced and missions as for steamroller make the battles more interesting.

 thegreatchimp wrote:


Model wise I'm not mad about the Stormcast. They're good models, but suffer from all being a bit "samey." The Khornate models look great, and the new Sylvaneth are stunning. Those treemen in particular are the best thing to come out of the design room in a while. Ordered the army set for no other reason than I liked the models.

The sylvaneth are just the last incarnation of wood elf tree based units in pretty new boxes with pretty new names. The treemen figures are still nice models, though. I have a set of the khorne figs from the AoS box now that I am converting for 40k usage since I don't do fantasy these days. Have to say that the khorne models are starting to annoy me as each week shows the next more powerful khorne unit and they have bigger and more plentiful skulls and bigger axes than the last. Sorry, but bigger axes do not a cooler model make past a point. I'd like to see minis that look more like mutants with heads of blood thirsters or heads of flesh hounds. Things that look khorne, but not corny with such massive axes that they probably would not be able to even use them effectively. Of course I have khorne models going back to 3rd edition WHFB in my collection so I am getting harder to please.

 Skriker wrote:


The sylvaneth are just the last incarnation of wood elf tree based units in pretty new boxes with pretty new names. The treemen figures are still nice models, though. I have a set of the khorne figs from the AoS box now that I am converting for 40k usage since I don't do fantasy these days. Have to say that the khorne models are starting to annoy me as each week shows the next more powerful khorne unit and they have bigger and more plentiful skulls and bigger axes than the last. Sorry, but bigger axes do not a cooler model make past a point. I'd like to see minis that look more like mutants with heads of blood thirsters or heads of flesh hounds. Things that look khorne, but not corny with such massive axes that they probably would not be able to even use them effectively. Of course I have khorne models going back to 3rd edition WHFB in my collection so I am getting harder to please.

Ah right, my mistake -I presumed the Sylvaneth were new releases, didn't realise it was simply a re-boxing -goes to show my unfamiliarity with Fantasy Battle.

We think alike -I'm not for oversize weapons unless they're being wielded by a creature that's also oversize. I convert smaller power fists and file down some of my space wolves' axe heads to more realistic proportions for that reason. Tend to remove excessive bling too, as much because it gets in the way of my conversions as because a church on the back of a tank or a giant tome on the windshield of Samael's jetbike just looks silly imho.

 timetowaste85 wrote:
Next time he drives five hours to visit, we shall.

Both of us got irritated at it. It screwed both of us at the point it happened.

Five hours? He needs another game that is closer to him... Or try vassal next time.

What worries me a bit is the flatness of the discussions around AoS, especially the army lists.
Am i wrong here?

I've noticed the same, but them I am just a hater so I dunno.
/shrug

 wuestenfux wrote:
What worries me a bit is the flatness of the discussions around AoS, especially the army lists.
Am i wrong here?

flatness?? I'm not sure I follow you there.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
What worries me a bit is the flatness of the discussions around AoS, especially the army lists.
Am i wrong here?

flatness?? I'm not sure I follow you there.

E.g., look at the design of army lists. How to configure, how many wounds, against what opponents? You never know.

 wuestenfux wrote:

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:
What worries me a bit is the flatness of the discussions around AoS, especially the army lists.
Am i wrong here?

flatness?? I'm not sure I follow you there.

E.g., look at the design of army lists. How to configure, how many wounds, against what opponents? You never know.

The dakka community for AoS isn't very big yet for obvious reasons, and on top of that there are quite a few different comp systems and it will be a while before any of them emerge as clear winners. So under those circumstances it's a bit hard to discuss army composition, which is an extremely important part of a game like AoS that relies so heavily on synergies between units.

I think many aos players don't post army lists or gaming threads here on dakka because the naysayers and 8th folks seem to flood the threads with anti gw, aos fan, and aos posts. No one wants to be attacked or have their game 'bashed' just for trying to have a positive conversation about their game (and then told that they are being mean because they like or try to defend their game).

Warseer is the same. Our aos community is getting huge here in central wisconsin, but it seems like most stay off the forums for the most part (besides lurking) because of the earlier said reasons.

 455_PWR wrote:
I think many aos players don't post army lists or gaming threads here on dakka because the naysayers and 8th folks seem to flood the threads with anti gw, aos fan, and aos posts. No one wants to be attacked or have their game 'bashed' just for trying to have a positive conversation about their game (and then told that they are being mean because they like or try to defend their game).

To be frank, the tactics, army lists and rules sub-forums have been entirely devoid from any negative comments for as long as I have followed them. The skeptics keep themselves to the general forum as a rule of thumb as they have stated that they are not that interested in the game to post into the more specialized sub-forums. For me the lack of army lists may be attributed to two things:
1. Only a few players come to the forums. To be frank, again, even as I like the game, I don't have much to say about it. Models are placed, dice are rolled, units clash, someone wins. I can comment on new releases, but can't seem to produce something interesting (to me) in order to post it.
2. Players aren't using comp systems. Without them army lists are pointless .

As for tactics, I am still searching for a nice report

 CoreCommander wrote:

 455_PWR wrote:
I think many aos players don't post army lists or gaming threads here on dakka because the naysayers and 8th folks seem to flood the threads with anti gw, aos fan, and aos posts. No one wants to be attacked or have their game 'bashed' just for trying to have a positive conversation about their game (and then told that they are being mean because they like or try to defend their game).

To be frank, the tactics, army lists and rules sub-forums have been entirely devoid from any negative comments for as long as I have followed them. The skeptics keep themselves to the general forum as a rule of thumb as they have stated that they are not that interested in the game to post into the more specialized sub-forums. For me the lack of army lists may be attributed to two things:
1. Only a few players come to the forums. To be frank, again, even as I like the game, I don't have much to say about it. Models are placed, dice are rolled, units clash, someone wins. I can comment on new releases, but can't seem to produce something interesting (to me) in order to post it.
2. Players aren't using comp systems. Without them army lists are pointless .

As for tactics, I am still searching for a nice report

I think that is the worst way to play the game tbh. You can't just set up two armies and go at it. Well, you can, but you're not really using the system to its full potential. It certainly doesn't make for e most interesting battles. IMO these three things are very important in AoS

1. Players who know their armies and can thus build lists that utilize synergies between units, heroes, buffs etc
2. Playing scenarios other than "kill each other"
3. Utilizing the mysterious terrain rules to add a further layer of complexity and tactics

Since the core system is so simple and fast, it really lends itself to adding more layers of complexity without it slowing down the game. This is the systems greatest strength IMO. If you added all these things on top of an already very complex game, it can be overwhelming. Not so in AoS.

I find it difficult to see how adding more complexity to AoS would not result in more complexity in AoS.

It seems to me that logically an alternative, more complex game, would be likely already to include various elements that in AoS have to be added as extras (formations, command and control, etc).

In fact if you bolt extra stuff on to AoS, probably replacing or modifying core pieces of rules, you are likely to end up with something even more complicated than an alternative ruleset that was designed from the ground up to include the additional complexity.

I'm not talking about adding house rules or changing anything. I'm talking about using the full extent of the rules as they exist. That means utilizing synergies to their fullest, using terrain features and playing scenarios. Nothing is bolted on.

Then I do not understand how it is adding new layers of complexity to what is already included.

Do you mean that players will discover more complexity in the rules that already exist?

It seems a reasonable idea. The discovery of the Inverse T formation took sometime, for example.

Many players seem to be looking at the game solely as its core rules and nothing more, which IMO sells it short. On top of of those core rules we have those things I listed above, adding further layers to the game. And, like you mention, the game is still being explored.

The thing is if someone looks at the core rules and thinks, "Naaah, not my cup of tea," they are unlikely to explore more depth in the special rules, especially as the main new factions' rules are not available free.

Wait, which rules are not available for free? Only the scenarios and some formations cost money, everything else is in the app or their website. But yes, I completely agree that that is something that has, and will continue to happen.

The Sigmarines and Chaos unit scrolls are not available free as PDF downloads that can easily be printed and cut up for reference, etc.

Everything else is, meaning the core rules, terrain rules, and war scrolls for the legacy armies.

I am not interested in the scenarios anyway. I can make my own.
GW have to have something to sell, too.

 455_PWR wrote:
I think many aos players don't post army lists or gaming threads here on dakka because the naysayers and 8th folks seem to flood the threads with anti gw, aos fan, and aos posts. No one wants to be attacked or have their game 'bashed' just for trying to have a positive conversation about their game (and then told that they are being mean because they like or try to defend their game).

Warseer is the same. Our aos community is getting huge here in central wisconsin, but it seems like most stay off the forums for the most part (besides lurking) because of the earlier said reasons.

I would posit that, rather than there being some sort of massive negativity cloud preventing people from using forums, that there's very little reason to post army lists in a game where there's no points costs or limits and no army construction rules.

The way it used to work, you always had two dimensions that defined your army. The points level, and then the composition rules (e.g. no more than 25% rare, at least 25% troops, etc). That gave a basis for people to judge armies between each other.

With neither of these in existence, there's no way to really judge anything. How do you give army construction advice when there's no comparative basis on which to judge? At they very least you'd need to have some sort of comp system that takes the place of the old points system, or an opposing collection/army, to compare against.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Sigmarines and Chaos unit scrolls are not available free as PDF downloads that can easily be printed and cut up for reference, etc.

Everything else is, meaning the core rules, terrain rules, and war scrolls for the legacy armies.

I am not interested in the scenarios anyway. I can make my own.
GW have to have something to sell, too.

They are on the website as PDFs, if you click a unit in the web store there's a link there.

Edit: I see, you were looking at the compendiums, and they don't have those. That's understandable, hopefully they'll get them out eventually.

Thanks for the tip.

I was looking at the units from the boxed set and couldn't find them.

The app is a pretty big help, it has all the warscroll in it, and a "my battle" section where you can put the warscroll you are using that game to make it easier to reference.

Having finally gotten enough games in to get a real feel, my opinion of AoS is it is a massive disappointment, a huge missed opportunity, and overall not very well done. It is a good enough 3rd tier game, but otherwise its meh at best. I will definitely play it when I have nothing better to do so I don't consider it a total loss. The price is not good and the "starter" is pretty useless if you aren't a fan of its 2 factions.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 455_PWR wrote:
I think many aos players don't post army lists or gaming threads here on dakka because the naysayers and 8th folks seem to flood the threads with anti gw, aos fan, and aos posts. No one wants to be attacked or have their game 'bashed' just for trying to have a positive conversation about their game (and then told that they are being mean because they like or try to defend their game).

Warseer is the same. Our aos community is getting huge here in central wisconsin, but it seems like most stay off the forums for the most part (besides lurking) because of the earlier said reasons.

I would posit that, rather than there being some sort of massive negativity cloud preventing people from using forums, that there's very little reason to post army lists in a game where there's no points costs or limits and no army construction rules.

The way it used to work, you always had two dimensions that defined your army. The points level, and then the composition rules (e.g. no more than 25% rare, at least 25% troops, etc). That gave a basis for people to judge armies between each other.

With neither of these in existence, there's no way to really judge anything. How do you give army construction advice when there's no comparative basis on which to judge? At they very least you'd need to have some sort of comp system that takes the place of the old points system, or an opposing collection/army, to compare against.

Exalted. Why bother with creating a competitive list for a game that, by default, is made to shun competitiveness?

I have to be honest and admit that I couldn't stand the old Warhammer Fantasy. I found it far too complicated and the rules that emulated real-ish engagements (wheeling, formations...etc), plsu an overpowered magic system just spoiled any enjoy I had out of the game. I tried about 5 or 6 times to get into the game, even played through a full league and nothing. I also couldn't stand the Old World setting either. Then along comes Age of Sigmar and I was intrigued but put off because it didn't look like traditional fantasy. I was up there with those who wondered why space marines were in Fantasy.

However, I have played two games (wood elves vs ogres, as was) and watched another (dark elves vs ogres), plus numerous battle reports on Youtube. I actually love this game and its simplicity. It no longer feels like a chore to play and I have a much easier time of imagining an epic battle while playing. For casual players like me AoS is perfect but I can fully understand the disappointment from players who want the old complexity and power levels. GW are going to lose players but hopefully AoS will bring in new blood to the hobby and that can only be a good thing.

Against my initial negative impression of the game, aesthetics, and fluff I gave AoS a whirl or three. Even bought an overpriced book or two. Tried it at the club, with my son, even forced my father to play a game with me when I couldn't find anyone else.

Must say it's the worst game I have played in my 19 years as a gamer. It has thankfully completely died at my FLGS and I am now playing games like X-Wing and KoW with other adults, hoping to get into Armada soon. Found a cool game called Arcadia Quest that my seven year old son loves and I even find rather fun to play with him, several magnitudes more than AoS. AoS finally got me out of my GW bubble, for which I am thankful for, since I am having more fun now than I have in years.

Well, here's a bit of information that is not based on opinion. I own a game store. Since AOS I have a larger Warhammer League than I did under WFB8th. The players show up consistently and I am getting new players every week. I am selling more GW Fantasy models than I did before. Most of the old guard rage quit and moved to Kings of War. But they are only playing themselves because no new blood is going into Kings of War. No store in my area carries KOW models because they can't sell them (terrible sculpting) and the rules are free, so there is no profit to be had. Most people are playing KOW with GW models, so It is easier just to back AOS since I already am carrying the models.I think since AOS is being backed by the GW Powerhouse it will come out of this just fine. They just need to put out models for more armies.

thekingofkings wrote:Having finally gotten enough games in to get a real feel, my opinion of AoS is it is a massive disappointment, a huge missed opportunity, and overall not very well done. It is a good enough 3rd tier game, but otherwise its meh at best. I will definitely play it when I have nothing better to do so I don't consider it a total loss. The price is not good and the "starter" is pretty useless if you aren't a fan of its 2 factions.

dosiere wrote:Against my initial negative impression of the game, aesthetics, and fluff I gave AoS a whirl or three. Even bought an overpriced book or two. Tried it at the club, with my son, even forced my father to play a game with me when I couldn't find anyone else.

Must say it's the worst game I have played in my 19 years as a gamer. It has thankfully completely died at my FLGS and I am now playing games like X-Wing and KoW with other adults, hoping to get into Armada soon. Found a cool game called Arcadia Quest that my seven year old son loves and I even find rather fun to play with him, several magnitudes more than AoS. AoS finally got me out of my GW bubble, for which I am thankful for, since I am having more fun now than I have in years.

Thekingofkings and Dosiere, as someone actively growing the AoS community up by me, can you PM me a couple of the things you did not enjoy? Doesn't need to be a novel or anything, we have just embraced making tweaks to the core rules to shore up deficiencies, so anything that may set a new player off warrants my attention. Obviously not every game is for everyone, so if it is as simple as you just did not like it that's a-ok too... but as two players who actually gave the game a shot, if there specific things about the rules or the game flow that didn't jive I would love to hear your thoughts on them!

Thanks

The AoS app is totally rubbish IMO. On my iPad mini it crashes on boot if I am not connected to wi-fi...

...and unless GW stores start offering free wi-fi that means I can't use it when I game in store.

I printed my warscrolls and it's much better.

Wait the app doesn't work offline?

 jonolikespie wrote:
Wait the app doesn't work offline?

I does work, you just won't be able to download warscrolls.

 Bottle wrote:
The AoS app is totally rubbish IMO. On my iPad mini it crashes on boot if I am not connected to wi-fi...

...and unless GW stores start offering free wi-fi that means I can't use it when I game in store.

I printed my warscrolls and it's much better.

That's strange. Are you updated to the latest iOS? If not, that could always cause some problems. It works perfectly on my iPad, wifi or no. I use it all the time because it's so convenient.

 Bottle wrote:
The AoS app is totally rubbish IMO. On my iPad mini it crashes on boot if I am not connected to wi-fi...

I use printed scrolls as well...

But your issue must be an apple one, as I use Android and have had zero issues, and neither has anyone in the shop who also has android

Smellingsalts wrote:
Well, here's a bit of information that is not based on opinion. I own a game store.

Cool where the store located at.

Smellingsalts wrote:
Well, here's a bit of information that is not based on opinion. I own a game store. Since AOS I have a larger Warhammer League than I did under WFB8th. The players show up consistently and I am getting new players every week. I am selling more GW Fantasy models than I did before. Most of the old guard rage quit and moved to Kings of War. But they are only playing themselves because no new blood is going into Kings of War. No store in my area carries KOW models because they can't sell them (terrible sculpting) and the rules are free, so there is no profit to be had. Most people are playing KOW with GW models, so It is easier just to back AOS since I already am carrying the models.I think since AOS is being backed by the GW Powerhouse it will come out of this just fine. They just need to put out models for more armies.

Same thing is happening in my GW store minus the KOW, friends with the manager he said that his paints and stationary sold more than fantasy. Now with AOS there are people actually playing the game and buying stuff and a lot of new blood and Shockley his sales between 40k and aos is rather even now.

 shinros wrote:

Smellingsalts wrote:
Well, here's a bit of information that is not based on opinion. I own a game store. Since AOS I have a larger Warhammer League than I did under WFB8th. The players show up consistently and I am getting new players every week. I am selling more GW Fantasy models than I did before. Most of the old guard rage quit and moved to Kings of War. But they are only playing themselves because no new blood is going into Kings of War. No store in my area carries KOW models because they can't sell them (terrible sculpting) and the rules are free, so there is no profit to be had. Most people are playing KOW with GW models, so It is easier just to back AOS since I already am carrying the models.I think since AOS is being backed by the GW Powerhouse it will come out of this just fine. They just need to put out models for more armies.

Same thing is happening in my GW store minus the KOW, friends with the manager he said that his paints and stationary sold more than fantasy. Now with AOS there are people actually playing the game and buying stuff and a lot of new blood and Shockley his sales between 40k and aos is rather even now.

And you have stores in which the reverse has happened (like in dosiere's).

So, really, can we AT LEAST wait until January's report on this "AoS is selling awesome/like crap" debate?

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
So, really, can we AT LEAST wait until January's report on this "AoS is selling awesome/like crap" debate?

Not sure how it will qualify as a debate even then...
If AoS is selling enough globally, GW will continue with it.
If it goes belly up, then I think it's a reasonable bet that GW will bin the fantasy medium and look at doing something else with the vacuum, or just shrinking to a sci-fi only company.

In terms of gamers, as long as you can get a satisfying game of whatever takes your fancy in your local area, then great.
If not, then maybe you need to be part of the solution and try to recruit others to it...

They won't suddenly bin such a huge investment based on the first few months of sales. Even if it sells abysmally (which I wouldn't expect) they would give it a couple of years at least.

RoperPG wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
So, really, can we AT LEAST wait until January's report on this "AoS is selling awesome/like crap" debate?

Not sure how it will qualify as a debate even then...
If AoS is selling enough globally, GW will continue with it.
If it goes belly up, then I think it's a reasonable bet that GW will bin the fantasy medium and look at doing something else with the vacuum, or just shrinking to a sci-fi only company.

In terms of gamers, as long as you can get a satisfying game of whatever takes your fancy in your local area, then great.
If not, then maybe you need to be part of the solution and try to recruit others to it...

One of the best posts I have seen recently but your last two lines are spot-on. I have been quite the AoS cheerleader and as a result my local group has jumped into it whole-hog. Will that impact the world? Hardly, but I will definitely be able to find fun games now. Next up will be getting organized events together... a bit more daunting of a task, but completely accomplishable.

GW will continue with AoS for two to three years. It will take them a year to judge its success. If it is doing badly it will take another one to two years to do an uplift plan and see how effective that is.

If it does well then obviously GW will continue to support it beyond the three years.

RoperPG wrote:

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:
So, really, can we AT LEAST wait until January's report on this "AoS is selling awesome/like crap" debate?

Not sure how it will qualify as a debate even then...
If AoS is selling enough globally, GW will continue with it.
If it goes belly up, then I think it's a reasonable bet that GW will bin the fantasy medium and look at doing something else with the vacuum, or just shrinking to a sci-fi only company.

In terms of gamers, as long as you can get a satisfying game of whatever takes your fancy in your local area, then great.
If not, then maybe you need to be part of the solution and try to recruit others to it...

Right now there is a debate (as loosely as it can be called) because there are no hard facts yet. It's all circumstantial and pretty much d*ck-waving from both sides. We will at least need to get to January to have some inkling to it all but, as others have mentioned, they won't can it because of the first few months.

But it can give us some idea of what's going on.

I surely do hope they don't can the Fantasy medium if AoS goes belly-up. I hope they learn their lesson if it does.

Also, regarding the "being part of the solution" bit? Cute.
A good game is the solution itself. A good game doesn't fracture a previously existing player base like AoS did. But hey, that's just me.

A good game is not a solution in itself. The road to widespread adaption is paved with good games, or something similar... Every game needs people to take up the mantle and build up their local communities, or it will fail like so many good games have before.

 Mymearan wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
The AoS app is totally rubbish IMO. On my iPad mini it crashes on boot if I am not connected to wi-fi...

...and unless GW stores start offering free wi-fi that means I can't use it when I game in store.

I printed my warscrolls and it's much better.

That's strange. Are you updated to the latest iOS? If not, that could always cause some problems. It works perfectly on my iPad, wifi or no. I use it all the time because it's so convenient.

I'm iOS9 haven't got the latest 0.01 update, but this happens both on my iPhone 5 and iPad mini 1.

Not straight away. If I turned off wi-fi I can use it. But if the app is loaded as new or from background cache after being out of wi-fi for some time, it crashes after a few seconds and will constantly do so until I get back in wifi.

I have printed warscrolls and I'm in the process of making my own "armybook" as part of my AoS project , so all things considered it isn't a big pain to not have it working.

Thanks for trying to help.

Oh, that sounds like a awesome idea!

This might interest you, one fellow at the Bretonnian Round Table created his own stylized cards.

http://www.roundtable-bretonnia.org/index.php?option=com_fireboard&Itemid=87&func=view&id=163331&catid=2