Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 kveldulf wrote:
I've been reading some posts here and there stating they've 'had an interest in warhammer rekindled' due to the release of Age of Sigmar.
AoS is really nothing like WFB so how can one really say its rekindled when even the lore is completely different, let alone the ruleset? It's not 'rekindled' just 'kindled'.
It's as though people think they are jumping in an old looking, re-branded ship but it's actually new.

At the moment I can say I have played more games of Warhammer: Age of Sigmar, than I did Warhammer: Fantasy Battles.

There are many reasons for me sort of giving up on WHFB. I grew very tired of the tournament scene that was falling out of whack (or should that be falling into the habit of copying Internet army lists and going all WAAC?). I grew tired of block maneuvering as opposed to skirmish style gaming, a reason why I always prefered WH40K of WHFB. I just continued to get a box of mini's left and right, sometimes even going as far as assembling the miniatures. but not much more. So I had an interest in Warhammer, past tense.

Then came AoS. I don't care if it not the best rules system in the world. I couldn't care less about the total and utter direction change, even going as far as destroying the Old World and creating an entirely new setting. It is refreshing, it is new. It is something to try out, and form my own opinion on.

And as I had an interest in Warhammer, and AoS also has the prefix "Warhammer", it indeed rekindled my interest in "Warhammer". It's just not Fantasy Battles, it's Age of Sigmar.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I didn't read it like that, so maybe we have a language issue getting in the way of our agreement.

I wouldn't be surprised to see optional rules for ranked units.

There are units such as Skinks and Skeletons who get a considerable combat bonus by being fielded in large groups. Inevitably these will be developed into what will in effect be ranked formations by canny players because naturally you want to maximise the number of attacks a unit can get in a single phase. As said above the weapon range is effectively the same as ranks.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
As said above the weapon range is effectively the same as ranks.

It's not. Base size is the same for most (80%?...ish?) models, weapon range is variable. Just take Night Goblins as an example who can either have a 3'', 2'' or 1'' range. Next, imagine you'd have a ranked formation in AoS where in the front rank, there are 5 models, each with a different range. Same for the second rank. Lots of tedious measuring. Should have gone the 40k way and just say that there's a general range for melee attacks - if you're in, you may attack, if not, you can't. Far more simple, no measuring necessary beyond the first measuring and, as stated above, the chance to sell a round "melee range" template at 35$.

I don't understand your point.

If a unit has figures whose weapons have a range of two, it's pretty obvious that two ranks of figures can get into range in H2H, while if their weapons have a range of three, then three ranks will be able to get into range. (Depending on the models it might be two or four or whatever, but the base point is the same.)

The problem is mixing attack ranges. Imagine a standard formation of 5 where 3 models have an attack range of 3'', 1 of 2'' and 1 of 1''. You'd now have to measure how many models are in range as AoS just requires you to be near an enemy and you want to check how many models are actually in range. Keep in mind that you don't often have the standard "front row vs. front row" situation as you don't align units as you did in WHFB.

Oh, right.

Well, in general the units that have a choice of weapons seem at the start of the battle to have to choose the same weapon for all the figures in one example of that unit. This means each unit will have a standard attack range of one, two or possibly three inches. This is based on the scrolls I have looked at so far, which isn't all of them.

Heroes and Monsters are different, often having several weapons they can fight with all at the same time.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
As said above the weapon range is effectively the same as ranks.

It's not.

Next, imagine you'd have a ranked formation in AoS where in the front rank, there are 5 models, each with a different range.

Except, that wouldn't happen in a ranked formation in AoS. The obvious understanding is that AoS ranked units would be like WFB ranked units, whereby the RnF troopers would all be armed identically, and only Characters / Leaders might vary. However, as Characters would be at the fore, you only need to measure for the troopers, and that's done most easily by measuring away from the closest enemy models.

Creating an artificial situation whereby skirmishers rank up with non-uniform weapon ranges is just that: artificail.

Given that ranked units do not formally exist in AoS, and any use thereof is by player convenience to leverage existing models on movement trays, I think your phantom objection can be discounted until such time that GW releases actual, official rules for ranked units.

 Sigvatr wrote:
The problem is mixing attack ranges. Imagine a standard formation of 5 where 3 models have an attack range of 3'', 1 of 2'' and 1 of 1''. You'd now have to measure how many models are in range as AoS just requires you to be near an enemy and you want to check how many models are actually in range. Keep in mind that you don't often have the standard "front row vs. front row" situation as you don't align units as you did in WHFB.

Kilkrazy is right - you choose weapons for -all- the unit members when you put them down on the table aside from those special models like sigmarine big sword bearer in unit of Liberators or goblin netters, but that's literally just one to two odd guys in a small scale skirmish game, measuring range for them is literally no effort at all.

The rule of thumb says that you always extend your tape measure to 3" so you can check ranges for all weapons at the same time - you just look at different lengths on the same 3" piece of tape for those odd few models. Again, no effort whatsoever. :-)

what is to stop me from fielding a zerg unit of all my VC collection of several hundred skeletons as one warscroll in a game where lets say X number of warscrolls are agreed on where the opponent will have 20 men at arms in a warscroll? Agree on same size units? I play games to win not to just roll dice and have fun... yeah that is a part of it but pre fielding armies and adding upgrades to units is something that i dont see with AOS...like custom lords with your choice of equipment...

Your opponent watches you fill your deployment zone with a single unit of skellies, goes for sudden death and deploys a few units with debuff abilities that make your skellies useless.
Then he just sits watching you move minis around the board knowing you can't do anything, watching the turn clock tick down.
Enjoy winning.

 Klerych wrote:
The rule of thumb says that you always extend your tape measure to 3" so you can check ranges for all weapons at the same time - you just look at different lengths on the same 3" piece of tape for those odd few models. Again, no effort whatsoever. :-)

Actually, you could take a business card (3.5" wide) and mark off 1", 2", and 3". Faster and easier than using your measuring tape. Cheap, too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Spacewolfoddballz wrote:
what is to stop me from fielding a zerg unit of all my VC collection of several hundred skeletons as one warscroll in a game where lets say X number of warscrolls are agreed on where the opponent will have 20 men at arms in a warscroll?

First, you need to buy several hundred skeletons. 600 skeletons would be over $1k in models, not counting the time to assemble and paint them...

Then, there's the notion that games are nominally sized against a maximum number of wounds, in addition to a maximum number of scrolls.

Finally, there's Sudden Death, whereby your opponent chooses an alternate victory condition besides tabling.

Actually, you could take a business card (3.5" wide) and mark off 1", 2", and 3". Faster and easier than using your measuring tape. Cheap, too.

Already several cheap devices on the market - got these and happy with them.

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/TT-Combat-Templates-Hammer-Movement-Widgets-Set-of-2-Great-for-AoS-/391201915834

RoperPG wrote:
Your opponent watches you fill your deployment zone with a single unit of skellies, goes for sudden death and deploys a few units with debuff abilities that make your skellies useless.
Then he just sits watching you move minis around the board knowing you can't do anything, watching the turn clock tick down.
Enjoy winning.

Yeah that sounds fun for both people lol. i think not having point values is fine, but a unit should have a cap of sorts to keep something stupid like whole army of skeletons or even huge units over X size from existing without using up another warscroll..... is this wrong thinking for AOS?

 Spacewolfoddballz wrote:

RoperPG wrote:
Your opponent watches you fill your deployment zone with a single unit of skellies, goes for sudden death and deploys a few units with debuff abilities that make your skellies useless.
Then he just sits watching you move minis around the board knowing you can't do anything, watching the turn clock tick down.
Enjoy winning.

Yeah that sounds fun for both people lol. i think not having point values is fine, but a unit should have a cap of sorts to keep something stupid like whole army of skeletons or even huge units over X size from existing without using up another warscroll..... is this wrong thinking for AOS?

As far as we know GW intended a warscroll to simply be a way to define the capabilities and behavior of a unit. It is the player base that has introduced the idea that a warscroll is a unit of currency in various attempts to fill the apparent void in game balance. So are you asking if GW was wrong-thinking to define units via the warscroll, or is the player base wrong-thinking to try to use the warscroll for a purpose it's designers may not have intended?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Klerych wrote:
The rule of thumb says that you always extend your tape measure to 3" so you can check ranges for all weapons at the same time - you just look at different lengths on the same 3" piece of tape for those odd few models. Again, no effort whatsoever. :-)

Actually, you could take a business card (3.5" wide) and mark off 1", 2", and 3". Faster and easier than using your measuring tape. Cheap, too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Spacewolfoddballz wrote:
what is to stop me from fielding a zerg unit of all my VC collection of several hundred skeletons as one warscroll in a game where lets say X number of warscrolls are agreed on where the opponent will have 20 men at arms in a warscroll?

First, you need to buy several hundred skeletons. 600 skeletons would be over $1k in models, not counting the time to assemble and paint them...

Then, there's the notion that games are nominally sized against a maximum number of wounds, in addition to a maximum number of scrolls.

Finally, there's Sudden Death, whereby your opponent chooses an alternate victory condition besides tabling.

I see your point but my old vampire counts army has a lot of skeletons as in example so i dont need to buy them (and true i dont have 600 very true but large number unit is possible with other supporting warscrolls ) and no I am not saying i would do this to someone just thinking out loud .

So home rules saying maximum number of wounds in addition to maximum number of scrolls? I understand this but they should have put this into the rules for structure not letting community make this up in my opinion... no i am not dogging the community here and I agree with the house rules... i just am voicing my thoughts i suppose.

I have seen some of the sudden death rules and from what i remember as the other player you could guard against this and prevent it from becoming a victory condition... ? I know i saw there were a few of them to pick from but i dont have the rules handy at moment.

To the original post AOS did not bring me back to play... I been here the whole time since 3rd Edition WFB. I am not opposed to AOS in what it is and maybe get a game in... it is not WFB I get that I just would have liked it having more structure w/o having to have community house ruling it and what not i suppose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Snapshot wrote:

 Spacewolfoddballz wrote:

RoperPG wrote:
Your opponent watches you fill your deployment zone with a single unit of skellies, goes for sudden death and deploys a few units with debuff abilities that make your skellies useless.
Then he just sits watching you move minis around the board knowing you can't do anything, watching the turn clock tick down.
Enjoy winning.

Yeah that sounds fun for both people lol. i think not having point values is fine, but a unit should have a cap of sorts to keep something stupid like whole army of skeletons or even huge units over X size from existing without using up another warscroll..... is this wrong thinking for AOS?

As far as we know GW intended a warscroll to simply be a way to define the capabilities and behavior of a unit. It is the player base that has introduced the idea that a warscroll is a unit of currency in various attempts to fill the apparent void in game balance. So are you asking if GW was wrong-thinking to define units via the warscroll, or is the player base wrong-thinking to try to use the warscroll for a purpose it's designers may not have intended?

No players are not wrong for trying to fix/use warscroll idea for a purpose that GW did not intend. I think that GW did not playtest AOS maybe enough and that maybe adding something simple to the ws like a unit cap like 40 in a unit max would add some structure and not have said player (me in my example cause i am a easy target lol) fielding a huge war scroll... but i suppose if you use total wounds in addition that makes sense... hope this answered your question?

 Spacewolfoddballz wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Klerych wrote:
The rule of thumb says that you always extend your tape measure to 3" so you can check ranges for all weapons at the same time - you just look at different lengths on the same 3" piece of tape for those odd few models. Again, no effort whatsoever. :-)

Actually, you could take a business card (3.5" wide) and mark off 1", 2", and 3". Faster and easier than using your measuring tape. Cheap, too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Spacewolfoddballz wrote:
what is to stop me from fielding a zerg unit of all my VC collection of several hundred skeletons as one warscroll in a game where lets say X number of warscrolls are agreed on where the opponent will have 20 men at arms in a warscroll?

First, you need to buy several hundred skeletons. 600 skeletons would be over $1k in models, not counting the time to assemble and paint them...

Then, there's the notion that games are nominally sized against a maximum number of wounds, in addition to a maximum number of scrolls.

Finally, there's Sudden Death, whereby your opponent chooses an alternate victory condition besides tabling.

I see your point but my old vampire counts army has a lot of skeletons as in example so i dont need to buy them (and true i dont have 600 very true but large number unit is possible with other supporting warscrolls ) and no I am not saying i would do this to someone just thinking out loud .

So home rules saying maximum number of wounds in addition to maximum number of scrolls? I understand this but they should have put this into the rules for structure not letting community make this up in my opinion... no i am not dogging the community here and I agree with the house rules... i just am voicing my thoughts i suppose.

I have seen some of the sudden death rules and from what i remember as the other player you could guard against this and prevent it from becoming a victory condition... ? I know i saw there were a few of them to pick from but i dont have the rules handy at moment.

To the original post AOS did not bring me back to play... I been here the whole time since 3rd Edition WFB. I am not opposed to AOS in what it is and maybe get a game in... it is not WFB I get that I just would have liked it having more structure w/o having to have community house ruling it and what not i suppose.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Snapshot wrote:

 Spacewolfoddballz wrote:

RoperPG wrote:
Your opponent watches you fill your deployment zone with a single unit of skellies, goes for sudden death and deploys a few units with debuff abilities that make your skellies useless.
Then he just sits watching you move minis around the board knowing you can't do anything, watching the turn clock tick down.
Enjoy winning.

Yeah that sounds fun for both people lol. i think not having point values is fine, but a unit should have a cap of sorts to keep something stupid like whole army of skeletons or even huge units over X size from existing without using up another warscroll..... is this wrong thinking for AOS?

As far as we know GW intended a warscroll to simply be a way to define the capabilities and behavior of a unit. It is the player base that has introduced the idea that a warscroll is a unit of currency in various attempts to fill the apparent void in game balance. So are you asking if GW was wrong-thinking to define units via the warscroll, or is the player base wrong-thinking to try to use the warscroll for a purpose it's designers may not have intended?

No players are not wrong for trying to fix/use warscroll idea for a purpose that GW did not intend. I think that GW did not playtest AOS maybe enough and that maybe adding something simple to the ws like a unit cap like 40 in a unit max would add some structure and not have said player (me in my example cause i am a easy target lol) fielding a huge war scroll... but i suppose if you use total wounds in addition that makes sense... hope this answered your question?

Or maybe the GW Play-testers are the types that like to just have friendly little games and there are no TFG, WAAC or someone who likes to see how the game can be broken.

It has sort of "rekindled" my interest in my old miniatures in that I dusted off my Empire stuff for the first time since the End Times Glottkin book came out. I'm very hesitant to buy anything though, because I suspect that once the "good human" faction for AoS comes out, they'll discard the old warscrolls. As I've mentioned before, a few of the guys at my local store are donkey-caves with massive collections so I'd really REALLY hate to play them. They're the types who would literally bring 8 army cases full of figures for a pick-up game and use them all.

They can't use them all, they have to fit in their deployment zone. Everyone trying to fix the game by limiting wounds and battlescrolls only have to do so because they refuse to stop playing every game on a 6X4 table. Throw down a limit on deployment zone size (say 12" from either side as well as from enemy territory) OR just play on a smaller table.

The last one also stops a lot of the summoning issues people have due to the inability to deploy the summoned unit within 9" of enemy units on most scrolls. There simply isn't enough room on the board to swamp your enemy with summoned bodies.

 Lord Corellia wrote:
It has sort of "rekindled" my interest in my old miniatures in that I dusted off my Empire stuff for the first time since the End Times Glottkin book came out. I'm very hesitant to buy anything though, because I suspect that once the "good human" faction for AoS comes out, they'll discard the old warscrolls. As I've mentioned before, a few of the guys at my local store are donkey-caves with massive collections so I'd really REALLY hate to play them. They're the types who would literally bring 8 army cases full of figures for a pick-up game and use them all.

That describes what I've been up to as well - I have dusty old dwarves and goblins that have been cleaning up real nice. I've started reaching out to the local game shops to get a feel for who's playing AoS, and it looks like a good number of them do. But, there seem to be two types of players at the moment - the 40k converts, who want to play with their batallion-sized or smaller armies, and the Fantasy Battles converts, who want to play with 2000 point 8th edition lists, creating a bit of a rift between the size of games people want to play.

Hopefully it'll go well, when ever I do get in a "pickup" game - I guess the worst that happens is I bring what I have, and ask that we keep games to around that size.