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.

bitethythumb wrote:

warhammer has always been a collective hobby first and a wargame second...

I really never felt that way. Ever since 2001 when I had my first contact with GW products WFB seemed like the more competitive older brother of 40k as the latter was just running around and rolling dice for shooting.

bitethythumb wrote:
if they wanted this to be a wargame they would have released prebuilt models instead of ones we have to build and paint ourselves, the gaming is just a bonus....

And then you notice that only two other relatively popular WARGAMES sell pre-painted, pre-assembled models - X-Wing (which is a board game without a board more than a proper wargame) and Dust. There was AT-43 but it fell apart (and people whined that the miniatures were badly painted).

So, tell me, how does your point even pretend to stand if every other wargame that actually matters on global market still has you assembling and painting your miniatures... AND has a good, tight ruleset that people can't really whine about (or have very minor gripes) and has no problem supporting competitive play?

See, to me you look like someone who, for his own reasons - maybe because you grew up with it or try to justify spending so much money on it - refuses to admit that the game is bad right now.

Now to make something clear - I am not a GW basher, I know they can be stupid and they can be smart. I also really want to enjoy AoS because I hated the old shoe box regiment movement that literally punished you for cool terrain pieces because they got in the way and limited one side and because I generally prefer round bases and skirmish systems as they allow you to play more "fluffy" armies with lavish terrain and objectives.

But then you see the issue of points. As a billion people on this forum said - random pick up game at nearest store is no longer possible. You'd have to spend an hour agreeing with the other player on how to balance your armies, that's unacceptable, especially if you're a responsible grownup with a job (and thus - limited time).

Next one is it pretending to be a skirmish but it lacks a lot of rules that make a good skirmish! Tell me, what about climbing? You can't climb? Or do you move your full speed up a narrow rock wall? What about crossing gaps/jumping from ledge to ledge? Do you still move full speed making a chaos warrior jump 3m in full black iron suit of plate armour? Right now you don't have any of those.

Hell, there aren't even scenarios! This is just "go murder each other and possibly have a sudden death condition". And it's even more slowed because their other game, the Hobbit has all the necessary rules that make a good skirmish game and let you interact with stuff, making your game more cinematic.

Not to mention that you don't get cover unless you stand IN or ON the terrain piece, so standing behind four walls gives you no benefits while standing ON one (higher, more exposed) suddenly makes you better protected? How does it even pass in their office as a good product?
"- Hey, Bob, do you think that's all the rules they need?
- Of course, Joe, what else could they want from a skirmish game?!"

No other game I know (again, on global market - games that actually matter and make the genre) has such ridiculous flaws.

This game could've been perfect if they made it more like Hobbit, even add special benefits and drawbacks of playing in regimental formation (base to base contact giving you bonuses up front and making you worse on sides, shield walls, stuff), but as it is now, it's even less complex than Kill Team. Goddamn Kill Team. A half-assed bare bones skirmish MINI-MODE for 40k that was released for gaks and giggles.

There's only so much positive you can say about current 4 page rules with all the flaws before you start sounding like that demented old lady that lost her touch with the real world.

bitethythumb wrote:

look at it this way... AoS is 1st edition... wait for a few more editions for it to grow....

...

rome was not built in a day.

What?

WHAT?

GW have had 30 years and 8 editions to get this bloody game right.

 vipoid wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

look at it this way... AoS is 1st edition... wait for a few more editions for it to grow....

...

rome was not built in a day.

What?

WHAT?

GW have had 30 years and 8 editions to get this bloody game right.

To get what game right? Warhammer Fantasy may have been around for decades but Age of Sigmar hasn't. It's a separate game entirely that happens to have a similar setting. Rather than try to force it into the same niche as warhammer fantasy, just go re-use old Fantasy books (unless GW has swooped into your house and taken your rulebooks), or look at AoS for what it is. A new separate game that reads like a beer and pretzels version of Warmahordes.

Sigh.

Yes, you're right, I mean, obviously 8 editions of a fantasy game should just be entirely scrapped and ignored so that the developers can crap out this piece of garbage.

 Klerych wrote:
I really never felt that way. Ever since 2001 when I had my first contact with GW products WFB seemed like the more competitive older brother of 40k as the latter was just running around and rolling dice for shooting.

That's what the whole WHFB community always imagined, in their delusions. Although tournament results in those times consistently showed 40k to be the better tournament game where anyone could win with sound tactics, while the top 10 spots in WHFB tournaments were invariably filled by the newest 3 army books, every single time.

Yeah, that's the thing. For what it is, a very casual wargame meant for kids, AoS excels. It's simple, easy to start and allows you to use the models you like and as many of them as you like.

However, many people want a proper, serious, tactical, balanced wargame like WHFB was an, in replacing it with AoS, GW have threatened the survival of that game. Had AoS simply been an expansion, or an entirely new system, then no-one would have a problem - but, sadly, it isn't.

No, 8 editions of Fantasy shouldn't just be scraped. It's not "Just being scraped". As ever, you still have your books and rules. It may end up that GW cuts ties with fantasy entirely. But why is that surprising? They did it with the whole specialist games line, people still play. Plenty of companies have gone under over the years or stopped supporting games, they're still playable. From a lot of the griping people are doing, it's making it sound like you're never going to be able to play fantasy again.

 doc1234 wrote:
No, 8 editions of Fantasy shouldn't just be scraped. It's not "Just being scraped". As ever, you still have your books and rules. It may end up that GW cuts ties with fantasy entirely. But why is that surprising? They did it with the whole specialist games line, people still play. Plenty of companies have gone under over the years or stopped supporting games, they're still playable. From a lot of the griping people are doing, it's making it sound like you're never going to be able to play fantasy again.

But it's going to be considerably harder to do so. I can no longer walk into games night at my GW and play a game of Fantasy, and nor will they put on any Fantasy events on a Saturday. Furthermore, now that GW have stopped with Fantasy, there's going to be no new Fantasy players coming into the game, all we have is the people who currently play. Whilst that may be enough, and I know that many in my group want to keep playing, the chances that all of them will continue to do so indefinitely is slim. They may move to AoS or KoW, a system which is currently supported and will provide them with new releases . Once one person moves on from Fantasy, there's less people to play it with and this makes it less appealing for those still left. Eventually, with no support from GW and no updates keeping people interested, it's going to get very hard to play Fantasy.

 vipoid wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

look at it this way... AoS is 1st edition... wait for a few more editions for it to grow....

...

rome was not built in a day.

What?

WHAT?

GW have had 30 years and 8 editions to get this bloody game right.

the game was dying, no matter how many changes they made, no matter how many new armies they released people were not buying it... now they restarted the whole thing and people are complaining "its not as good as the 8th" well if the 8th was so damn good why weren't people buying or 7th or 6th etc...

Its a game, I like it, I love the fact that now ALL units are viable, old armies that no one ever played with are not playable (beastmen) you are more free to create any army list you want from any unit etc... the game just got bigger and more fairer and people still complain.

bitethythumb wrote:
the game was dying, no matter how many changes they made, no matter how many new armies they released people were not buying it... now they restarted the whole thing and people are complaining "its not as good as the 8th" well if the 8th was so damn good why weren't people buying or 7th or 6th etc...

If only there was such a thing as 'market research'.

bitethythumb wrote:

Its a game, I like it, I love the fact that now ALL units are viable, old armies that no one ever played with are not playable (beastmen) you are more free to create any army list you want from any unit etc... the game just got bigger and more fairer and people still complain.

If you really believe that... wow. Just... wow.

Are you from GW's marketing department? Because, just like them, you're spouting demonstrably fallacious nonsense and appear to be living in a different world to everyone else.

 The Shadow wrote:

But it's going to be considerably harder to do so. I can no longer walk into games night at my GW and play a game of Fantasy, and nor will they put on any Fantasy events on a Saturday. Furthermore, now that GW have stopped with Fantasy, there's going to be no new Fantasy players coming into the game, all we have is the people who currently play. Whilst that may be enough, and I know that many in my group want to keep playing, the chances that all of them will continue to do so indefinitely is slim. They may move to AoS or KoW, a system which is currently supported and will provide them with new releases . Once one person moves on from Fantasy, there's less people to play it with and this makes it less appealing for those still left. Eventually, with no support from GW and no updates keeping people interested, it's going to get very hard to play Fantasy.

I get what your saying in that point, and I do understand for a lot of people pick up games at GW are one of their main sources of getting to game etc. While it's by no means right that before long they'll be asking people to leave instead of playing 8th in store (because let's face it, that will happen regardless of how much they're trying to make a show of being okay with people still playing WFB), it's not entirely without president. My confusion is coming from people acting like it's surprising. They've been distancing themselves from the game side of things for awhile now ( "We're a miniatures company, not a games company" etc) and they've made their target demographics fairly obvious for a long while.

It's not right that they're doing this, but it's hardly surprising, it's exactly what anyone playing specialist games has had to deal with. And probably anyone playing Lord of the Rings/ The Hobbit (if anyone was playing them I mean). And chances are, in a year or two they'll roll out Age of The Emperor boxset, and we'll get these same forum topics over in the 40K board.

At least they still make fairly decent miniatures (even if the aos starter is World eaters vs Custodes)

"So, tell me, how does your point even pretend to stand if every other wargame that actually matters on global market still has you assembling and painting your miniatures... AND has a good, tight ruleset that people can't really whine about (or have very minor gripes) and has no problem supporting competitive play?"

they are "miniature" wargames, miniatures come first... they are all about collecting and painting first and gaming second... just because you think one game is more "competitive" does not mean it stops being a collective hobby first.

"See, to me you look like someone who, for his own reasons - maybe because you grew up with it or try to justify spending so much money on it - refuses to admit that the game is bad right now."

I started warhammer (40k and others) in 1996/7 and I stopped several years ago, I never had a huge "army" to begin with and collected mostly the things I liked, I had small pieces of paper as alternative models and played with close friends who enjoyed having fun more than winning.... I literally returned to warhammer because of age of sigmar, I see it as a more simpler and freedom inducing game allowing me to play how I want with any model I want... trust me on this I am not one of those people who "refuses" its bad, I am more or less an old player coming back into the game.

Now to make something clear - I am not a GW basher, I know they can be stupid and they can be smart. I also really want to enjoy AoS because I hated the old shoe box regiment movement that literally punished you for cool terrain pieces because they got in the way and limited one side and because I generally prefer round bases and skirmish systems as they allow you to play more "fluffy" armies with lavish terrain and objectives.
bases do not matter.

But then you see the issue of points. As a billion people on this forum said - random pick up game at nearest store is no longer possible. You'd have to spend an hour agreeing with the other player on how to balance your armies, that's unacceptable, especially if you're a responsible grownup with a job (and thus - limited time).

how common is it for random strangers to go into a store and just battle someone? most of the time they are regulars, and last game I saw the players spent 13-15min ironing out the extra rules they wanted, the store manager kept a record and they had an absolute blast playing it.... maybe the "billions" of people who spend "hours" discussing the rules really need to refocus on why they are playing the game... for fun.

"Next one is it pretending to be a skirmish but it lacks a lot of rules that make a good skirmish! Tell me, what about climbing? You can't climb? Or do you move your full speed up a narrow rock wall? What about crossing gaps/jumping from ledge to ledge? Do you still move full speed making a chaos warrior jump 3m in full black iron suit of plate armour? Right now you don't have any of those."

but its not a skirmish game, it can be played with infinite amount of models and how ever you want, see that is your mistake you are restricted in your line of thinking, its either skirmish or large army combat, why can it not just be a simplified all purpose rule system that allows you to play how you want.
you want climbing and jumping? take some old rules from another game and add it in...


"Hell, there aren't even scenarios! This is just "go murder each other and possibly have a sudden death condition". And it's even more slowed because their other game, the Hobbit has all the necessary rules that make a good skirmish game and let you interact with stuff, making your game more cinematic."

so make the scenarios, make the objective, spend 20 min heck spend 30 min doing so... they are not hard to do... especially if you are playing for fun if you are "competing" well then I expect the competition providers to have ironed out the rules before hand.... last time I checked you cannot just enter a competition without having some prior knowledge to the rules and regulations.

"Not to mention that you don't get cover unless you stand IN or ON the terrain piece, so standing behind four walls gives you no benefits while standing ON one (higher, more exposed) suddenly makes you better protected? How does it even pass in their office as a good product?
"- Hey, Bob, do you think that's all the rules they need?
- Of course, Joe, what else could they want from a skirmish game?!""

standing on things that are higher more exposed? what if they are laying down like a sniper, the most famous sniper hid himself in a tower in a city and no one found him... but seriously that is your gripe? what about taking casulties from the back of line? what about walking over water? what about having weather effects? surely Kislev needed the "heavy snowstorm" rule... :/

take out any rule book with line of sight and covering behind terrain and add it in... its not hard.

No other game I know (again, on global market - games that actually matter and make the genre) has such ridiculous flaws.

I am sure, how many games have weather effects? what about morale? what about hunger... surely that plays a roll, maybe disease? wound infection? lets not forget swimming and what about fliers surely they need rules for air currents etc :/

This game could've been perfect if they made it more like Hobbit, even add special benefits and drawbacks of playing in regimental formation (base to base contact giving you bonuses up front and making you worse on sides, shield walls, stuff), but as it is now, it's even less complex than Kill Team. Goddamn Kill Team. A half-assed bare bones skirmish MINI-MODE for 40k that was released for gaks and giggles.

nothing stops you from incorporating hobbit rules into your games... its actually made it easier to do so...

There's only so much positive you can say about current 4 page rules with all the flaws before you start sounding like that demented old lady that lost her touch with the real world

the only flaws I see are a lot of whiny gamers :/


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 vipoid wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:
the game was dying, no matter how many changes they made, no matter how many new armies they released people were not buying it... now they restarted the whole thing and people are complaining "its not as good as the 8th" well if the 8th was so damn good why weren't people buying or 7th or 6th etc...

If only there was such a thing as 'market research'.

bitethythumb wrote:

Its a game, I like it, I love the fact that now ALL units are viable, old armies that no one ever played with are not playable (beastmen) you are more free to create any army list you want from any unit etc... the game just got bigger and more fairer and people still complain.

If you really believe that... wow. Just... wow.

Are you from GW's marketing department? Because, just like them, you're spouting demonstrably fallacious nonsense and appear to be living in a different world to everyone else.

are you telling me that beastmen were even playable before AoS? either way I am not going to enter an insult parade with you I believe that people should be above that (maybe you seem to not think so but that is your choice), have a lovely day, all the best, hope you enjoy your gaming experience wherever it takes you

peace and love

bitethythumb wrote:

are you telling me that beastmen were even playable before AoS?

I'm confused about why you think they're suddenly more playable now.

But, moreover, I'm confused about how you can possibly argue that a system is better balanced as a result of having no balancing factor whatsoever.

Beastmen were certainly playable they just, as is and was the case with many armies before they got the hardback treatment, limited to very few viable army builds. So yes, they weren't the best army.

But do you know what would have fixed that? A new Beastmen Army Book. Saying that AoS is good because it made Beastmen playable is just stupid. Sure, it may be good for Beastmen players now, but the whole faffing about with the End Times stuff in preparation for AoS is what meant there was no Beastmen army book and made Beastmen unplayable. Yeah, AoS makes Beastmen better now, but it also made them worse for a couple of years.

 doc1234 wrote:

It's not right that they're doing this, but it's hardly surprising, it's exactly what anyone playing specialist games has had to deal with. And probably anyone playing Lord of the Rings/ The Hobbit (if anyone was playing them I mean).

Very true, but I'm still annoyed that GW couldn't have released this as a new system or expansion (even if they made it the main Fantasy system over WHFB and discontinued much of the range - as long as WHFB was still supported) or couldn't have actually made the game balance-able in some way. I'd be ten times more likely to give Age of Sigmar serious consideration if warscrolls had points values.

Warning, huge post reply to Bitethythumb, click on your own risk.

While I agree that the rules are bare bones, and somewhat lacking, I have had fun with them so far, with 1 adjustment: front arc line of sight.
that has made a huge difference in the game.
we have been playing largish battles (units of 10+ ogres, and 30+ state troopers etc) and with that adjustment, the rank and file style games have been pretty good.

Thanks
austin