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.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Well chariots can roll straight up the sides of buildings so there's that.

Oh I know. There's a long list of things lol.

The sooner you accept that AoS is a very abstract system and put aside any simulationist notions, the happier you'll be. Think of it as fancier chess - you wouldn't complain that chess makes no sense.

Chess is a board game. I don't play chess or other board games for cinematic immersive experience that I do with wargaming. Thats the key difference there.

As such I continue to provide the "please throw us a bone once in a while" comments in regards to immersion that they claim is one of their key deliverables. We got forests that block line of sight last time. So hey, every little thing is a win as far as I'm concerned.

GW gave up on making wargames. They make abstract board games with fancy visuals. No point in complaining about that because it won't change. I stay for the fluff and sculpts, but I get my real wargaming jollies from KoW, X-wing and similar.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Good point on terrain tho, it was a big step up.

I stay for the fluff and sculpts, but I get my real wargaming jollies from KoW, X-wing and similar.

True that, true that.

It honestly makes me wonder occasionally why people continue to excuse GW not writing good rules; I see tons and tons of excuses and justification for why it's okay that their rules are bad.

It's like.. the GW fanbase seems to only care about pretty models to the exclusion of all else and don't care about having a good game to go along with it Which is very unlike how things used to be when it was good rules made people buy your game, not the models. At some point, things shifted to where your average Warhammer player stopped caring about the game and only cares about GW putting out ridiculously detailed often overpriced plastic models.

You would be surprised (or maybe not) at how often the mention of any other game with better rules immediately invites insulting the quality of the product compared to GW's offerings without any other concern, even games where you can use any models you want (this, of course, doesn't get into the whole "people don't play that game here" problem)

Just an observation. I overall think AOS is in a better place than 40k although not by much as it's still too abstract and too wombo-combo. But the balance problems seem to be much less off the charts like in 40k, although they certainly still exist.

I find that a lot of people love abstract gamey board game style rules, so to those people (a lot of whom post on here) the abstract simple gamey board game rules are a huge positive.

They aren't playing the game for immersion reasons they are playing the game for the same reason we play board games, which to them and their perspective is what makes it a good game to go along with the good models.

I've had my rear tore out more times than I can count by posters for suggesting things like forests blocking line of sight because to them its not needed and actually to them makes the game worse.

What I wishlist for is for them to keep the abstract board game version of the game that people love, and then do a supplement that adds more immersion into the game to cater to both types of players.

auticus wrote:
I find that a lot of people love abstract gamey board game style rules, so to those people (a lot of whom post on here) the abstract simple gamey board game rules are a huge positive.

They aren't playing the game for immersion reasons they are playing the game for the same reason we play board games, which to them and their perspective is what makes it a good game to go along with the good models.

I've had my rear tore out more times than I can count by posters for suggesting things like forests blocking line of sight because to them its not needed and actually to them makes the game worse.

What I wishlist for is for them to keep the abstract board game version of the game that people love, and then do a supplement that adds more immersion into the game to cater to both types of players.

So the tournament crowd can summarily ignore it and as a result, it might as well not exist since it's not tournament standard?

You know exactly what would happen if they did that. Just like all the non-Matched Play battleplans/rules/etc. that people hate so much (e.g. realm rules)

Well the question would be what would the tournament crowd do? I'm not convinced that the tournament crowd would ignore those because a lot of the tournament crowd actually voice that they'd prefer some more immersion as well.

It would really depend on the daddies that run the LVO, Adepticon, and all the UK events and what they chose to do. That would determine "tournament standard" which would determine how pick up games are played and what would be "allowable" in public events from a community perspective.

For me I would use it for all my narrative events. Right now those rules are part of my packets anyway. Once the tournament guys moved to basically 40k only right now, there has been very little flack for doing this in a narrative environment because all my narrative guys want immersion over gamey. A lot of my tournament community guys also want more immersion over gamey, but what they want even more is for everyone to play the standard way that their tournaments play so they will accept whatever that is first and foremost.

auticus wrote:
I'm not really referring to the spell per say as I am with the rule that states if you can force a model out of coherency that the models out of coherency magically and biblically vanish.

Maybe don't conga line your units? You speak of how you play the game for a cinematic experience, but I can't seem to remember the scene from Helms Deep where the Uruk-Hai lined up to do the limbo under the Deeping Wall.

I don't conga line anything. However I could post for you several dozen images from movies that are waves of troops running across a battlefield fairly spaced out where if you apply the AOS logic to them that once one of those guys gets removed half of the unit suddenly vaporizes. I suppose if we're playing in the marvel universe and assume Thanos just snapped his fingers that that would be reasonable that half of people just turn to ash and cinder that would work.

Additionally the battle of helms deep involved thousands of warriors. The game of AOS involves dozens of models. Sometimes less.

Now take AOS where you don't have hundreds of people in a unit and condense it down to say... 3-10 models like some units run in.

You can't have 3-10 guys standing line abreast (an actual battlefield formation) because if you do that then to maximize gamey efficiency you pluck out the center guy to Thanos half of the unit.

You most definitely can never run anything in one rank (an actual battlefield formation). Sorry guys in shield wall formation where you are line abreast in a rank... if you don't have guys behind you then if Bob the center guy dies, half of your unit is Thanos'd.

You have to have your guys in blob formation.

But you only means your opponent by virtue of selecting an item like a giant or the skaven spell that lets you take whatever model you want out of the game. You can run however you want, provided your opponent is not running one of those items (which are right now fairly rare).

Try arranging units like this:

X X X X X
X X X X X

Now which guy are you worried about your opponent removing?

Thats why I said if you don't have a second rank you're boned.

You always have to have a second rank. If you don't and do a line abreast formation you are basically screwing yourself.

If you're this: X X X then you are basically asking to get screwed. You have to run in a triangle.

And if you have units that are like 3-4 models like trolls or monster cav where you need them in a line so that they can maximize contact, thats too bad. Because if there isn't a second rank you will have Thanos vaporize multiple of them too if one dies.

Its a silly nonsensical rule on par with getting re-rolls for having the better beard. There are better ways to handle it is all I'm saying.

Half a unit vaporizing when the middle man dies is a strange rules artefact indeed. But let's consider the mess it was intended to prevent: a 60 man blob in a huge multi-charge getting seperated by casualties into two 20 man blobs that can be a foot apart but still count as one unit and fight simultaneously while a closer identical unit is a seperate entity. This would irk me personally more than evaporating, but YMMV.

Any clever ideas to solve both in 3.0?

I agree with trying to prevent the shennaigans of wound allocation to create gamey formations. So I understand the concept.

That comes down to taste. For me, as long as it makes sense I am generally ok with it.

What I would like the rule to be is more or less if you are out of coherency that you take some kind of penalty. Not lose half your unit kind of penalty. Maybe -1 to hit because you are disorganized or something, or a -1 to your Bravery because you are disorganized, and must if at all possible try to move into coherency on your movement.

On general talk, the preview for Flesh Eater Courts is up on the community site. They are looking amazing!!!

I think the reason people make excuses for poor rules writing is simple; at the end of the day warhammer is fun.

As for single rank, it's more a matter of staggering in a 'zigzag' where every other model is offset back enough for the two next to him to be within 1" of each other. This is also ideal for larger bases like 32mm to get more attacks within 1" range, and is representative of the unit simply adopting a more close-knit formation. 25mm infantry can just stand in a line b2b shield wall style since removing a model won't pull the adjacent ones out of 1". Larger based models can have trouble but generally abilities that can pick out a model have trouble doing so with higher wounds count.

Finally, none of that matters if you aren't playing against one of the five or so models that actually have the ability to do so.

The flesh eater tome certainly has teeth now (lololol get it? teeth? lololol)

Definitely not the loling stock that they've been, so I like that.

I've never been a big fan of the whole dragons and terrorgheists get to be battleline thing because it takes away from the imagery of armies clashing when people show up with an army of 10 models, but thats just a personal taste of mine and thats just tough titty for me lol.

All things will depend on points costs (just like the skaven book). I like the flavor they added (just as I do with the new skaven book) and one of GW's strengths has always been making forces definitely feel different from each other, and this continues that trend.

I think the reason people make excuses for poor rules writing is simple; at the end of the day warhammer is fun.

I've always been interested in why people feel KOW, the new warlords erehwon game, and Middle Earth can't ever get traction in most places.

What about those games is not fun?

Well obviously they are fun, otherwise no one would play them! I can only speak for KoW from personal experience. For me it boils down to three things:

The biggest is flavor. The forces don't feel all that different, generally some numbers switched around and having one of several universal rules on all their units. Maybe one unique rule. I like the idea of having a list of USR's that everyone draws from, but I feel like each army should also have a strong set of its own rules and units with unique special abilities. Allegiance rules in particular are a massive plus for me.

The second is actual play. In warhammer I still get to do things during my opponent's turn; unbind spells, make save rolls, and fight in melee. In KoW I could get up and go do something else.

Finally, and this may seem small, but units don't get locked in melee. They charge, they fight, then they all stop swinging and step back an inch to patiently wait for the enemy to do the same. Maybe it's a personal peeve but that is so jarring to me.

Now there is a lot I like about KoW too (line of sight, shooting functionality, balance) but the above is why I prefer AoS.

auticus wrote:


I've always been interested in why people feel KOW, the new warlords erehwon game, and Middle Earth can't ever get traction in most places.

What about those games is not fun?

A few thoughts:
1) It's not that they lack fun its that they lack players and experienced players who can teach others. Ergo no one plays so no one plays. Wargamers put a lot of money and time into their armies and there's nothing worse than doing all that and being the only person at the club who plays a game or only one of two. Warhammer, for all its strengths and faults, has the bonus that if you've got a game club you can likely get a game and not always agaisnt the same person.

2) Visuals. Whilst its a personal thing, the models and paint work on KoW models has always looked to me to be about 20 years old. Whilst I love the themes and ideas of their armies, the actual models just look "clunky". I think the best example is the elven dragons, but they are not alone. Some might call them classic as they do remind me of the classic early era designs from Warhammer. It just feels that paint and model wise they are far in the past and not, in my view, in a good way

3) Marketing. Stores on the highstreet; magazine, and right now almost 365 days of news, podcasts, marketing material, facebook etc.... There's a fair few miniature companies out there who hardly seem to invest enough in social media and in building hype and attention on themselves. Which means less people encounter them; less hype for releases and less awareness so when something big happens there's a muted reaction. This can make a game appear "near dead" and wargamers dislike that notion; they don't want to spend three months building and painting to find the company closed and gone. Heck even in Warhammer and 49K the threat of being "Squatted" is real.

4) The fun isn't different enough. Considering many who play warhammer have few tactical skills/awareness/confidence*. So sometimes the subtle rules differences and improved rules don't actually translate to more fun because the player is still mostly getting their army and charging forwards. So as a result the fun isn't different. GW has realised this and they tried to deal with it with things like Endless Spells. This also ties into marketing and how a company presents their game - if they don't or they rely on the consumers they run the risk that the notable features of their game get overlooked.

4) Lack of local neutral store or club. If your player area only has a GW store serving the community and the main club is there chances are other games jsut won't get a chance. Meanwhile if the area has an active club if that club has a focus then it might be other games can't get in so easily.
Furthermore if there is a non-gw store if that store doesn't stock the range, but is the play area for most gamers then if the store owner wont' invest in the game many gamers might not pick it up out of store loyalty. Ergo the store deserves some return on the investment in providing a place to game so the customers are more likely to buy models and armies locally.

6) A combination effect - as often is the case its rarely that one area has a problem, but that several do and they add up and that they are not universal all the time. Eg some of the new KoW models are starting to "improve" in my view.

*seriously start a thread on how to assemble, convert or paint and you can generate pages of chatter. Start one on balance and army building and you can generate even more; ask about tactics, placements target prioritizing, terrain placement and you'll have to fight to get more than a handful of replies.

auticus wrote:
The flesh eater tome certainly has teeth now

They were a bit bare-bones before. Now they have some meat to them.

Definitely not the loling stock that they've been, so I like that.

TBF the trait that let them double-summon made them viable. FEC won a major tournament near me (SoCal open) recently. But TBF there he did ally in Arkhan.

My ranting about other games in response to Auticus' thoughts is in the spoiler tag to avoid clutter:



Back on FEC, yeah I'm not fond of zombie dragons as battleline. I'm hoping for a Grand Court that lets you take Horrors/Flayers as battleline since I despise that unfluffy ridiculous "Courtier must be the general" rule and I'd rather take two large blocks of ghouls than three min units as a battleline tax. Also as a joke, if I fielded 9 Horrors I willl deploy them in the Bretonnian Lance formation because VIVE LE ROI.

I would ideally like a new unit or two (I think they could easily throw in most of Deadwalkers into FEC and finish off the death grand alliance unless they end up bringing back Tomb Kings in some form) but I'm not holding my breath.

auticus wrote:


I've never been a big fan of the whole dragons and terrorgheists get to be battleline thing because it takes away from the imagery of armies clashing when people show up with an army of 10 models, but thats just a personal taste of mine and thats just tough titty for me lol.

FEC tourney lists were already 4 behemoths and 3 units of 10 ghouls, which at that size are nonfunctional and merely a battleline tax. If points are the same, we can run the exact models (it's not like we can add a 5th behemoth) but in a blob of 30 so they actually do something. It's a nice buff and doesn't really reduce the number of mooks in the army because our behemoths were already maxed out.

I've always been interested in why people feel KOW, the new warlords erehwon game, and Middle Earth can't ever get traction in most places.

What about those games is not fun?

Dunno. We have a big T9A lobby here that claims KoW is too sterile with not enough customization and magic.
Personally I feel that artefacts that give a whole unit extra speed, range or punch are more meaningful upgrades than deciding the particularities of a single unit leader's equipment, affecting one attack out ouf 20, but I am in a minority.

I do like how units can take magic items in KoW. That's really fun.

I don't mind fighting an army of behemoths; it's like a bunch of troops set out to deal with a band of roving monsters, a common fantasy plot.

Yeah I was in Orlando in December and the gaming community there seemed pretty small. There is a possibility I will be locating to that general region here in the future.

We have a Middle Earth group but it is tiny and has always been tiny.

For years I had done the support of all game stores and did city-wide events, but yes the gang war thing was very real here as well (which we discussed before).

Our warlords group right now is pretty healthy but that game literally just dropped so if it has traction or not will be determined.

My girlfriend has been painting the new goblins (she loves goblins) and excitement is still pretty high for our AOS campaign this fall.

I don't mind fighting an army of behemoths; it's like a bunch of troops set out to deal with a band of roving monsters, a common fantasy plot.

Once in a while that can be fun.

However I know all too well from years spent in whfb 5th edition that the army of elites / behemoths is not once in a while. It becomes all the time because its easier to carry around and easier to paint since its only 10 or so models. The warlords group has that happening already where the warbands are already pretty tiny because of the ability to take whatever you want and just spam monsters.

I know the main game store in Tampa stocks some KoW but it's not restocked since I think the group is mostly in Orlando except for a handful of guys and from what I heard they got burned a couple years ago stocking a ton of KoW stuff and the group quickly collapsed. Other than that it's 90% 40k and only a tiny bit AOS (although that's on the rise now) but the 40k area is huge and the AOS area is tiny alongside blood bowl and the other stuff that barely sells, and has like early AOS kits still (like the old 5-man stormcast boxes). Some new stuff gets stocked but it's majority 40k.

Every other game sort of died off and left or just vanished as people went back to Warhammer.

auticus wrote:
However I know all too well from years spent in whfb 5th edition that the army of elites / behemoths is not once in a while. It becomes all the time because its easier to carry around and easier to paint since its only 10 or so models.

I agree that is usually the reason, but have my doubts regarding the Terrorgheist in particular. You can probably transport 3000 pts of anything else in the same space

auticus wrote:


I've always been interested in why people feel KOW, the new warlords erehwon game, and Middle Earth can't ever get traction in most places.

What about those games is not fun?

I firmly believe that Mantic squandered a golden opportunity with not pushing KoW harder during the window that was open wide during AoS's less than stellar launch and the release of GHB1. I'm sure they had some releases during that time, but it felt like they wrote up the self congratulatory "top fantasy wargame"-esque preface in the second edition of KoW and just rested on their laurels, thinking that GW wouldn't right their ship. I'm sure the game is healthy, but they'd probably sacrifice their first born to pull up the numbers that AoS is bringing to events like Adepticon and such.

Erewhon has been out for like 5 minutes, so I can't speak to how fun/balanced etc etc.. Like Mantic above, it feels like they are late to the party. Had this come out 2 years ago, people would probably be more keen on it.

Middle Earth was fun for me, but it went into limbo for a bit after the Hobbit movies and the pricing is/was ridiculous on alot of their stuff. Even now its in a weird spot, with some product on GWs site and some on FW's site. Confusion isn't good.

Lastly, none of those games have a retail presence on the shelves at the stores in my area. The one store that went heavy with Mantic product, ironically situated where the GW headquarters once was in Glen Burnie, Maryland, folded within a year. Not to say that going heavy with Mantic product will kill a business, or did in this instance,as this place had a whole bunch of other stuff going on, but the optics weren't good.

Growing a scene is tough, growing a scene without product to point to compounds that difficulty. Hell, Runewars got retail support in my area and it folded faster than Superman on laundry day.

Growing a scene is tough, growing a scene without product to point to compounds that difficulty.

Pretty much why Warmachine died out where I live. Used to be large before 8th edition 40k and GHB. Then those things came out and PP decided to go to their weird retail model and stuff died out.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

auticus wrote:
However I know all too well from years spent in whfb 5th edition that the army of elites / behemoths is not once in a while. It becomes all the time because its easier to carry around and easier to paint since its only 10 or so models.

I agree that is usually the reason, but have my doubts regarding the Terrorgheist in particular. You can probably transport 3000 pts of anything else in the same space

Well the super elite armies in AoS tend to lose on objectives, so that is a counter-pressure. GHB1 was when it was really bad where elite units were better for the cost pretty much across the board.