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.

 insaniak wrote:
I wasn't talking about the quality of the rules or gameplay, just the basic structure of the setting up an army, which is far more like a CCG than a 'normal' wargame.

But I don't see how it's like a CCG in any way that normal wargames aren't. You're still doing the same wargame-style "choose an army and put it on the table" setup, you're just doing it with "take as much as you want" instead of a fixed point limit or historical scenario.

Or any sort of compositional structure.

 insaniak wrote:

I don't think the fact that 40K sells better than WHFB did will save it, because I don't think that this shift is about current sales. It's about trying to plug their dwindling player base by shifting away from the traditional wargame model to something more akin to MtG with miniatures.

Oh god.

I'm beginning to suspect that GW fired all of the writers that actually played 40k/WHFB, and then hired a bunch of boardgame/fiction writers to make these rules.

 Slayer le boucher wrote:
The one thing i find Good in the AoS rules, are with the Monsters models Wounds counts.

If the Monster is unarmed or has only lost 3 wounds, it fight as normal, when he is more wounded, he gets weaker.

He move a few inches slower, has 1 attack less on his profil per wound tier and if he cast spells, he can cast less and less spells.

This mechanic is ironicly a good balancing one for Monstruous creatures.

Something similar for 40k could balance out things like Wraithknights.

Yeah I agree it's a pretty cool feature.

Because Warhammer: Assault on Sanity is so incompatible with pick up games, im incredibly skeptical that it will survive past it's initial new shiny honeymoon. Fantasy sales may drop even further than before making me think the same treatment to 40k would be unlikely. As much as I ridicule 40k for having what IMO is a very similar dysfunction, the system is still going strong the way it is (for now anyway).

Makumba wrote:

 Johnnytorrance wrote:

Makumba wrote:

 Crevab wrote:

die toten hosen wrote:
. i bring a screaming bell as skaven and have rolled a thirteen in 3 of the five games i have played, essentially winning with a single dice roll.

uuuuh, how do you roll a thirteen on 2d6?

You take fateweaver and he has a rule that lets him set a roll to anything he wants. Win turn 1.

Games not out and its already broken? lol

the game is out all the rules can be downloaded.

Although I wouldn't call some of the stuff rules. Units getting buffed depending on your age or your opponent age. You need to keep stuff in your hand to use some abilities or have a beard, which clearly goes against female players. Not even in my wildest dreams could I imagine a system that bad.

Please tell me you're kidding. (Or tell me where an example is, can't wait to show it to some friends, they'll laugh their asses off)

Long beards and thanes in the dwarf warscroll. The Masque in the daemons one. It's no joke.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Long beards and thanes in the dwarf warscroll. The Masque in the daemons one. It's no joke.

That's... depressing and hilarious in a bad way. I can see they truly game up any notion of comp play, and tried to go full garage only play. If anything like this happens to 40k, I wouldn't be surprised to see GW fold pretty quickly

Warhammer: Calvinball.

 Wolfblade wrote:

Makumba wrote:

 Johnnytorrance wrote:

Makumba wrote:

 Crevab wrote:

die toten hosen wrote:
. i bring a screaming bell as skaven and have rolled a thirteen in 3 of the five games i have played, essentially winning with a single dice roll.

uuuuh, how do you roll a thirteen on 2d6?

You take fateweaver and he has a rule that lets him set a roll to anything he wants. Win turn 1.

Games not out and its already broken? lol

the game is out all the rules can be downloaded.

Although I wouldn't call some of the stuff rules. Units getting buffed depending on your age or your opponent age. You need to keep stuff in your hand to use some abilities or have a beard, which clearly goes against female players. Not even in my wildest dreams could I imagine a system that bad.

Please tell me you're kidding. (Or tell me where an example is, can't wait to show it to some friends, they'll laugh their asses off)

They're messing with you. There's no way to get a 13 on 2D6 and the rule even says that if you get that result you're a cheater. Fateweaver doesn't let you choose a 7 or more on a D6. The only way to get a 13+ is by cheating! (I know it says roll "dice" rather than "6 sided dice" but the intention is D6s.)

The problem with both systems is the scope more than anything. The games are simply too large, cost too much, and take too long to play. New players need to be able to into the store with the same amount they would go into a video game store and be able to walk out with a product. It doesn't have to be a 'complete' game. Just something they could get started with.

Move the main rulebook and the limited fiction it has to the website as well as some scaled back scenarios that players could enjoy at a very low points cost. These scenarios would then be paired well with the battleforce boxes. The goal should be for players to come into a store, read the back of a battleforce box to get the general idea behind an army, buy it, and go home and play a game or 2 with the online rules. All for the low low price of $75.

If players could get some first hand exposure to the game at about the same price a video game sells for you'd probably find people more agreeable to playing the game. They could then come back in, buy the army specific books that aren't free online, as well as a supporting unit or 3 and play the game at a COMPETITIVE and BALANCED level at a much lower point range (1000 should be the goal for a tournament).

But that's the trick... coming up with competitive and balanced rules that are scalable at both the battleforce and tournament point levels as opposed to the 2000pt and $1000+ investment level we're at now. But this has been my complaint for nealry 20 years now. The rules aren't balanced internally or between armies, and no one has 3 hours to set aside to play a single game at 2k points. I remember some 5 hour long games way back in the day! The game needs tournament friendly rules where 2 players can get a match where both sides feel like the way they played won the game as opposed to the way they built their list, at a 1 hour or less time frame. I know they want to be a model company first, but if they made good rules at a price point people could afford they'd have more players which would mean more sales. As opposed to their current system where the only way to sell models is come out with something new with such large amounts of power creep your existing customers have no choice but to buy them.

Now as to Age of Sigmar, I haven't played it and probably won't. I simply don't like fantasy games that much. From the few I know who played it, aside from the childish subtext and strange approach to some rules, people seem genuinely impressed with it but most don't think it'll have lasting appeal.

I do feel it is legitimate to be concerned about what effect WH-AOS may have on 40k. GW is making it clear what sort of game they have in mind- one where the experience is so random and unable to be balanced that people will (in GW's minds at least) throw their arms up and say the equivalent of "who cares about having a competitive experience! I just want to put miniatures down and make pew pew noises."

The most recent releases for 40k seem to be functioning to imbalance the game even further and I don't see that abating. The main difference with 40k will be that the rules will keep costing a lot of money, because people buy the 40k rule books no matter what, it seems.

I think that this AOS business is going to cause me to significantly shrink my two remaining army projects, as I'd rather not get caught loaded up with a couple of big armies whenever 8th edition rolls around.

AOS is the future of 40k.

 MWHistorian wrote:
AOS is the future of 40k.

By all that's holy, no.

At worst, even if GW is so wrong-headed as to take this approach for 40K, people will stick to playing 7th. You will probably see a fan-created living rulebook approach. The game itself will wind up better than ever, though the player base will shrink a little.

Colehkxix wrote:

 Wolfblade wrote:

Makumba wrote:

 Johnnytorrance wrote:

Makumba wrote:

 Crevab wrote:

die toten hosen wrote:
. i bring a screaming bell as skaven and have rolled a thirteen in 3 of the five games i have played, essentially winning with a single dice roll.

uuuuh, how do you roll a thirteen on 2d6?

You take fateweaver and he has a rule that lets him set a roll to anything he wants. Win turn 1.

Games not out and its already broken? lol

the game is out all the rules can be downloaded.

Although I wouldn't call some of the stuff rules. Units getting buffed depending on your age or your opponent age. You need to keep stuff in your hand to use some abilities or have a beard, which clearly goes against female players. Not even in my wildest dreams could I imagine a system that bad.

Please tell me you're kidding. (Or tell me where an example is, can't wait to show it to some friends, they'll laugh their asses off)

They're messing with you. There's no way to get a 13 on 2D6 and the rule even says that if you get that result you're a cheater. Fateweaver doesn't let you choose a 7 or more on a D6. The only way to get a 13+ is by cheating! (I know it says roll "dice" rather than "6 sided dice" but the intention is D6s.)

I was more talking about the beards, or mustache thing (and RAW, you CAN choose any number by fateweaver's rule, and obviously RAI would be a D6. But it brings up the question of what happens if you get a 7 on a D6 roll? Game crashes I suppose? Either way, love all the new shoddy rules by GW, always something dumb to make me laugh.)

Makumba wrote:

Although I wouldn't call some of the stuff rules. Units getting buffed depending on your age or your opponent age. You need to keep stuff in your hand to use some abilities or have a beard, which clearly goes against female players. Not even in my wildest dreams could I imagine a system that bad.

Doesn't have to be a real beard though... But frankly, if you're pushing the system for every possible advantage, you're doing it wrong. This is beer and pretzels 101. It's a middle finger to the over serious tournament players, and instead a less than serious, over the top and slightly ridiculous way to spend time with good friends and have a laugh.

I think those rules are like rules from a drinking game. A blast amongst friends, but kinda weird when you try and involve strangers.

I think most people will take those "special" rules as a given without having to do the dumb stuff.

also, the fateweaver rule lets you choose the result of the roll. there is a result for 13 on the screaming bell, you don't have to pretend that you have rolled a 7 on 1d6, you have just chosen which result you like as per the rule

Wyldhunt wrote:
Guys, it's... it's a game where having a large enough moustache gives you combat bonuses. If you're complaining about the rules being silly, I think you've missed the point.

SAGA does this too, and its one of the best games I've ever played. AoS isn't gak because of the weird rules, its gak because nopoints

Well, AoS is a mess.
Profoundness is missing.
You can play it as a pickup game and AoS will become a specialist game as other games GW has developed.

Makumba wrote:

 Crevab wrote:

die toten hosen wrote:
. i bring a screaming bell as skaven and have rolled a thirteen in 3 of the five games i have played, essentially winning with a single dice roll.

uuuuh, how do you roll a thirteen on 2d6?

You take fateweaver and he has a rule that lets him set a roll to anything he wants. Win turn 1.

Then dont allow that troll.

 wuestenfux wrote:

You can play it as a pickup game and AoS will become a specialist game as other games GW has developed.

That's the problem: you can't. AoS is wholly unplayable as a pickup game. Pickup games in 40k and WHFB are possible because they follow the same outline: points cost. You settle on a point limit and everyone builds his list accordingly. AoS, however...well...do you waltz into a store and throw all your stuff at the table? It's impossible to get a proper, even-leveled pickup game.

How about the rules having to actually dance or talk to your figures or avoid looking opponent in the eye as actual real rule mechanics ....it's so bizarre . I have no idea how the execs at GW thought this was in anyway a good idea.

It's like they are making fun of the game and themselves . So bizarre ....

Makumba wrote:
Although I wouldn't call some of the stuff rules. Units getting buffed depending on your age or your opponent age. You need to keep stuff in your hand to use some abilities or have a beard, which clearly goes against female players. Not even in my wildest dreams could I imagine a system that bad.

The other week I was lambasted by a mod on this board because I called the games designers of GW "incompetent".

This week....well...

Take one model of Carrions and win every game:

"Circling High Above: When first set up,
units of Carrion are assumed to be flying
high above the battlefield. As long as they
remain high in the sky, they cannot be
charged, attacked, targeted by spells or
affected by abilities used by either side,
and they also cannot make any attacks
themselves as they soar far above their
foes. Enemy units ignore the Carrion as
they move (they move underneath them)."

Make this your only unit, choose the Endure Sudden Death rule.

Ouch.

 Peregrine wrote:


No, we've got the point. We just think that the point is incredibly stupid, and GW's willingness to release such a shamefully bad product says very bad things about their competence at running a business.

Unless you're a person who is either very young, just starting the miniatures hobby, or in general a person who wants a really simple game that is not even intended to be serious. Which is to whom the game is directed at.

Why pick such a target audience, I don't know. But it has been discussed in another thread that basically even this is better for GW as a company than WHFB was, as it was generating only 15% of their sales. The target audience of this game is broader than that of Warhammer 40,000 - that is an undeniable fact.

 Runic wrote:

Unless you're a person who is either very young, just starting the miniatures hobby, or in general a person who wants a really simple game that is not even intended to be serious. Which is to whom the game is directed at.

Where is this mystical gamer who wants a rock-stupid beer and pretzels game, for which he needs to purchase hundreds if not thousands of dollars worth of miniatures for?

A far better business plan might be, I don't know, FIX Warhammer Fantasy? Make a quality product people actually want to play, rather than this insulting swill that even the PROPONENTS of admit is a giant middle finger to their customer base? That seems way smarter.

 Jimsolo wrote:

 Runic wrote:

Unless you're a person who is either very young, just starting the miniatures hobby, or in general a person who wants a really simple game that is not even intended to be serious. Which is to whom the game is directed at.

Where is this mystical gamer who wants a rock-stupid beer and pretzels game, for which he needs to purchase hundreds if not thousands of dollars worth of miniatures for?

A far better business plan might be, I don't know, FIX Warhammer Fantasy? Make a quality product people actually want to play, rather than this insulting swill that even the PROPONENTS of admit is a giant middle finger to their customer base? That seems way smarter.

The pessimist in me says that GW's mindset is "Fething nerds. Just by the plastic and shut up".

The optimist in me agrees.

 Runic wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:


No, we've got the point. We just think that the point is incredibly stupid, and GW's willingness to release such a shamefully bad product says very bad things about their competence at running a business.

Unless you're a person who is either very young, just starting the miniatures hobby, or in general a person who wants a really simple game that is not even intended to be serious. Which is to whom the game is directed at.

Why pick such a target audience, I don't know. But it has been discussed in another thread that basically even this is better for GW as a company than WHFB was, as it was generating only 15% of their sales. The target audience of this game is broader than that of Warhammer 40,000 - that is an undeniable fact.

Not an undeniable fact.
Aimed at kids? Yes.
But you know what kids (especially boys) want? They want grown up stuff. That's why there are so few YA books for boys, because boys generally go straight to the adult stuff. That's how I got into wargaming. I saw the cool artwork and minis in RT and thought it was super cool and grown up.
GW, without market research, is aiming at a demographic without understanding it.
Can it be fun and light hearted? Sure. But the target audience being braoder? I don't believe it. It's not a board game so board game people won't want to assemble little dudes for hours. Serious wargammers want something with more depth and tactics.
It's kind of a middle ground that I don't think has a huge base. It's new, shiny and so has a lot of interest. But once the shine wears off, there's not much to keep people there.

"Fact" is a strong word and you're using it wrong.

 Runic wrote:
Unless you're a person who is either very young, just starting the miniatures hobby, or in general a person who wants a really simple game that is not even intended to be serious. Which is to whom the game is directed at.

Very young people rarely have the budget for a game like this, and the vast majority of people who want silly "beer and pretzels" games want cheap "beer and pretzels" games. For example, Munchkin is simple and silly and great for laughing at the absurdity of the gaming hobby. It also costs $20, and can be played right out of the box without any assembly or painting or negotiating what forces everyone will bring. GW, on the other hand, is charging as much money as serious wargames for a pile of garbage that makes Munchkin look like a high-level tournament game.

But it has been discussed in another thread that basically even this is better for GW as a company than WHFB was, as it was generating only 15% of their sales.

And AoS is likely to generate even less. People will buy the models to use for non-AoS purposes, but I'd be very surprised if AoS even matches WHFB's player count.

The target audience of this game is broader than that of Warhammer 40,000 - that is an undeniable fact.

You must have a strange definition of "undeniable" since there's a very obvious denial available: the fact that GW has published a game that doesn't appeal to gamers. Serious players don't want such a hilariously terrible game, and the people who might be interested in a quick "screw around while drinking" game don't want to pay GW's prices to play it. So what exactly is this broad target audience you have in mind? Parents of young children who just happen to also be millionaires? What will be next, units that get bonuses if you're playing on your private jet? A random table for resolving what happens when turbulence bumps the models around?