Any chance that GW will Age of Sigmar 40K?

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.

**Verviedi**

Something I notice when reading about AOS:

The internet says it's the end of the world, and it has ruined the entire hobby, and it's unplayably broken, while at my FLGS it's business as usual, but with AOS being played instead of Fantasy. I'm seeing more "balanced" games, even with the store banning unofficial balancing methods such as Wounds, less rules disputes, and all in all more people buying AOS related products.

I still haven't heard anyone at my FLGS say AOS has anything wrong with it, except for the random WAAC players who walk in and bait the manager.

**Crimson Devil**

Dylanj94 wrote:

Maybe AoS is Gw's way to fix the playerbase, toxic, powergaming, min maxing, "what's fluff I can take nothing but wave serpents but the lore is important to me I hate stupid armylists" players

I bet it would cause the smug players to stop being donkey-caves.

No, its a power gamer's paradise. Expect worse to come. The cheese has been unleashed, and casual players will run in terror.

Your own smugness does you no favors.

**Grey Templar**

I bet GW may eventually AoS-erise 40k. Right before the company tanks for good.

**Anpu42**

Crimson Devil wrote:
Dylanj94 wrote:

Maybe AoS is Gw's way to fix the playerbase, toxic, powergaming, min maxing, "what's fluff I can take nothing but wave serpents but the lore is important to me I hate stupid armylists" players

I bet it would cause the smug players to stop being donkey-caves.

No, its a power gamer's paradise. Expect worse to come. The cheese has been unleashed, and casual players will run in terror.

Your own smugness does you no favors.

From most of the BatReps I have read both players have been trying to make balanced forces. I do not recall a single BatRep of 50 Greater Deamons vs 50 Slave rats or anything like that.

**Spacewolfoddballz**

Skriker wrote:
Mezmaron wrote:

It's doing really well here too. The reaction of most players is that the game is "fun". But I think each area is different.

Fun is something 40K hasn't been in quite some time. Going back to more of a RT model would potentially isolate many, but it would make the game a lot more fun - if you have the right opponents. It seems like most criticism of Age of Sigmar is just solved by playing with different opponents.

But I bet most 40K players weren't even born when RT came out. That was a different time.

Mez

As someone who has been playing that long I will say that even Rogue Trader had more controls and balance than AoS does. At least it had point costs for things, sure you could field what you wanted early on, but it wasn't whatever you wanted for absolutely free. Also once more than just the Rogue Trader rulebook were out all armies started getting actual army lists too, so again not even remotely the same as AoS. All that was really lacking was the eventual FoC concepts to keep people from always just bringing a bunch of elite type units to every game and never bringing any normal troop type units. If AoS was closer to Rogue Trader I might actually like it.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

aka_mythos wrote:

The problem with Fantasy was bigger than just the price of kits or rules. WHFB had gotten to the point that to have a viable army required you to buy so many more models and it simply reached the point where that barrier to entry was too prohibitive for people just starting out. Even still for all the effort the vast majority of models only contributed to the game as wound counters with a few random heroes contributing more than all those other minis combined.

AoS has problems, but it solves the systemic issues that WHFB had that really couldn't be resolved with just an update.

Of course AoS solves some of the systemic issues by totally throwing the whole concept out the window. Battlefront did that too when they went from 1st edition to 2nd edition in Flames of War, but in their case they abandoned methods and concepts that were not fully adaptable to the game moving forward and instead released a BETTER game in its 2nd edition. 3rd edition was focused on problem areas that players had been discussing and highlighting for sometime on Battlefronts forums, so they fixed those problem areas, while not messing with the parts that worked and again released a BETTER game. Now look at GW, 30 years of production on WHFB and then they release AoS. It is not an improvement over WHFB. It is not a culmination of 30 years of game design. It is a lazy and cheap cop-out that leaves it totally to the players to fix its holes and try to add some real balance to the game. This is a typical GW completely ignore fixing problems and instead replace them with new problems.

AoS is now cheap to get into compared to WHFB, but heroes are even more overpowered now, because while WHFB didn't have perfect balance, AoS has no balance at all.

I agree with all of this. I will say that I hope they dont every do AOS to 40k the way AOS stands now.

**Crimson Devil**

Anpu42 wrote:
Crimson Devil wrote:
Dylanj94 wrote:

Maybe AoS is Gw's way to fix the playerbase, toxic, powergaming, min maxing, "what's fluff I can take nothing but wave serpents but the lore is important to me I hate stupid armylists" players

I bet it would cause the smug players to stop being donkey-caves.

No, its a power gamer's paradise. Expect worse to come. The cheese has been unleashed, and casual players will run in terror.

Your own smugness does you no favors.

From most of the BatReps I have read both players have been trying to make balanced forces. I do not recall a single BatRep of 50 Greater Deamons vs 50 Slave rats or anything like that.

I would simply add a "yet" to your statement. It is just a matter of time before we start hearing horror stories. If your system depends on everyone being a decent person than you have already failed.

**Grey Templar**

Anpu42 wrote:
Crimson Devil wrote:
Dylanj94 wrote:

Maybe AoS is Gw's way to fix the playerbase, toxic, powergaming, min maxing, "what's fluff I can take nothing but wave serpents but the lore is important to me I hate stupid armylists" players

I bet it would cause the smug players to stop being donkey-caves.

No, its a power gamer's paradise. Expect worse to come. The cheese has been unleashed, and casual players will run in terror.

Your own smugness does you no favors.

From most of the BatReps I have read both players have been trying to make balanced forces. I do not recall a single BatRep of 50 Greater Deamons vs 50 Slave rats or anything like that.

Likely because in every case that has happened the person with the slaves has packed up and left.

**Anpu42**

Grey Templar wrote:
Anpu42 wrote:
Crimson Devil wrote:
Dylanj94 wrote:

Maybe AoS is Gw's way to fix the playerbase, toxic, powergaming, min maxing, "what's fluff I can take nothing but wave serpents but the lore is important to me I hate stupid armylists" players

I bet it would cause the smug players to stop being donkey-caves.

No, its a power gamer's paradise. Expect worse to come. The cheese has been unleashed, and casual players will run in terror.

Your own smugness does you no favors.

From most of the BatReps I have read both players have been trying to make balanced forces. I do not recall a single BatRep of 50 Greater Deamons vs 50 Slave rats or anything like that.

Likely because in every case that has happened the person with the slaves has packed up and left.

And after that happens a few times TFG will have to rethink things if he want to ever play again.

**Crimson Devil**

Because that happens all the time.

People who can change are not TFG.

**Anpu42**

Crimson Devil wrote:
Because that happens all the time.

People who can change are not TFG.

Yes they can. I was a TFG-WAAC player for years. Then I noticed I was not having fun.

**MWHistorian**

Are we confusing "TFG WAAC" for "wanting a fair chance of winning?" Because that seems to be the general opinion with AOS players.

**clamclaw**

Lanrak wrote:
Compare A.O.S objectively to other free rule sets for fantasy battles.Then tell me it is a good move.

Or even compare A.O.S to the rules for Mordhiem or LoTR for more narrative focused gaming .

Then you may see why so many gamers are being negative about A.O.S rules...

Both of those things you suggested are totally opinion based. You might not like the rules, or the lack of narrative gaming, but that does not change the fact that people enjoy the game. Like said earlier in the thread AoS is selling really well. Much better than 17% GW profit Fantasy had been.

**Red Viper**

I like some of AoS.

The dropping of the "To Hit" and "To Wound" charts is a great bonus for new players.

I like how the basic rules are simple, and the complicated rules on are the unit's warscroll.

I like the free rules ($50 army books is why I stopped playing GW games).

I don't like the lack of points.

I don't like the unit sizes being from 1 to however many you bought.

I think if GW tightens the army list construction and figures out some way to balance it, it could be a good thing for 40k

But unleashing current AoS-style rules on 40k would be a disaster.

I'm sad fantasy is gone, but I think AoS was generally a smart idea by GW. Plus, I've bought more Dark Elves than I have in years due to me starting KoW. Say whatever you will about GW's rules, their plastic kits are still some of the best.

I think eventually GW will have rules for 40k that are AoS-style, but it's not ready yet. Maybe if they iron out all the wrinkles with a few editions of fantasy first. Maybe fantasy is the beta test for 40k.

**infinite_array**

clamclaw wrote:
Lanrak wrote:
Compare A.O.S objectively to other free rule sets for fantasy battles.Then tell me it is a good move.

Or even compare A.O.S to the rules for Mordhiem or LoTR for more narrative focused gaming .

Then you may see why so many gamers are being negative about A.O.S rules...

Both of those things you suggested are totally opinion based. You might not like the rules, or the lack of narrative gaming, but that does not change the fact that people enjoy the game. Like said earlier in the thread AoS is selling really well. Much better than 17% GW profit Fantasy had been.

Do you actually have numbers for that? Besides, starter sets and new editions always sell well for GW. A bunch of people bought into 8th - I know I did - and Island of Blood. And look where GW took that enthusiasm.

**Deadnight**

Crimson Devil wrote:
Because that happens all the time.

People who can change are not TFG.

Well it's change or... Not play. Their choice.

**Anpu42**

MWHistorian wrote:
Are we confusing "TFG WAAC" for "wanting a fair chance of winning?" Because that seems to be the general opinion with AOS players.

Not at all.

It come down to this. If someone wants to only play WAAC and he starts to have a problem finding people to play he has to make a choice.
>Adjust his thinking
>Stop being able to find people who will play with him.

I am fully aware that there is not "Mechanical Balance" in AoS. That is part of why I and others like it. We have to interact with people and find out what they want to do and then see if it is what you want to do. Then you two come up with something you both enjoy or you go find another sand box to play in.

This is no different than when we all played in the dirt with little plastic green army men yelling "Bang Bang" and then arguing about weather the Radio Guy killed the Bazooka Guy off. It is now we added a dice rolling phase in there some place.
And what did you did when the two of you did agree, you got into a fight, played a different game or moved onto someone who played the way you did.
It has been that way since 40k B.C. when were playing with rocks and sticks and it is going to be that way in 40k A.D.

The problem becomes self correcting at some point. Groups are going to break up and create groups from those who left their groups. All wanting to play the same kind of game. I have experienced it for all of my 5 decades. With my Medieval Recreation Group, my D&D Group, my BattleTech Group and even my 40k group.

I personally like the idea of a AoS version of 40k, but it has nothing to do with the rules changes or the lost of FOCs or no longer having points to balance things (We sort of did that on our own with my current group). It will have to do with that fact I now need to do something with all books that will just be taking up space on my shelf.
[Rant Over]

**Blacksails**

What advantages does a no point, no balance system offer over one with a well designed point or balance system?

That's what I want to know, everything else is some vague description of TFG WAAC arguments that can never really be argued as everyone plays differently with different expectations and tolerances for other people and their shenanigans.

**Anpu42**

Blacksails wrote:
What advantages does a no point, no balance system offer over one with a well designed point or balance system?

That's what I want to know, everything else is some vague description of TFG WAAC arguments that can never really be argued as everyone plays differently with different expectations and tolerances for other people and their shenanigans.

The advantage, WE get to decide what a balanced game it. If We can't figure out what a balanced game is without a points then maybe...well I don't know what for someone other than ME. I know after 2.5 decades of 40k when I look at army I am facing if I have a chance and that is without looking at a list. The only time I am unsure is that first few games against the new codex, but after that I can usually eyeball if I am going to get MY

kicked or am I going to do the

kicking.

**MWHistorian**

Anpu42 wrote:
Blacksails wrote:
What advantages does a no point, no balance system offer over one with a well designed point or balance system?

That's what I want to know, everything else is some vague description of TFG WAAC arguments that can never really be argued as everyone plays differently with different expectations and tolerances for other people and their shenanigans.

The advantage, WE get to decide what a balanced game it. If We can't figure out what a balanced game is without a points then maybe...well I don't know what for someone other than ME. I know after 2.5 decades of 40k when I look at army I am facing if I have a chance and that is without looking at a list. The only time I am unsure is that first few games against the new codex, but after that I can usually eyeball if I am going to get MY kicked or am I going to do the kicking.

So...40k does a crap job of balancing points and games become predictable?
Why not have the points for people that want to use them and then not use points for people that don't...kind of like how it's always been. (As opposed to alienating a large portion of the potential customers.)
Besides. Outside the GW bubble, other games use points far more effectively and are even acceptably balanced.

**Blacksails**

Anpu42 wrote:
Blacksails wrote:
What advantages does a no point, no balance system offer over one with a well designed point or balance system?

That's what I want to know, everything else is some vague description of TFG WAAC arguments that can never really be argued as everyone plays differently with different expectations and tolerances for other people and their shenanigans.

The advantage, WE get to decide what a balanced game it. If We can't figure out what a balanced game is without a points then maybe...well I don't know what for someone other than ME. I know after 2.5 decades of 40k when I look at army I am facing if I have a chance and that is without looking at a list. The only time I am unsure is that first few games against the new codex, but after that I can usually eyeball if I am going to get MY kicked or am I going to do the kicking.

You can do all that with a points system anyways.

Not really an advantage unique to a system like AoS.

My question is what advantages exist in the likes of AoS that do not or can not exist in a well implemented points system or alternative method of balance.

**Anpu42**

MWHistorian wrote:
Anpu42 wrote:
Blacksails wrote:
What advantages does a no point, no balance system offer over one with a well designed point or balance system?

That's what I want to know, everything else is some vague description of TFG WAAC arguments that can never really be argued as everyone plays differently with different expectations and tolerances for other people and their shenanigans.

The advantage, WE get to decide what a balanced game it. If We can't figure out what a balanced game is without a points then maybe...well I don't know what for someone other than ME. I know after 2.5 decades of 40k when I look at army I am facing if I have a chance and that is without looking at a list. The only time I am unsure is that first few games against the new codex, but after that I can usually eyeball if I am going to get MY kicked or am I going to do the kicking.

So...40k does a crap job of balancing points and games become predictable?
Why not have the points for people that want to use them and then not use points for people that don't...kind of like how it's always been. (As opposed to alienating a large portion of the potential customers.)
Besides. Outside the GW bubble, other games use points far more effectively and are even acceptably balanced.

What I am saying is we don't NEED a point system to have a fair and balanced game. The points are just a tool to help us.
I can eyeball my Core Space Wolf Army and then put on my add on units and 9 times out of 10 be within 100 points of the points limit and I can usually do that with my normal opponent's army.
So with the people I play with we really don't need to figure out our list down to the last Melta-Bomb.

Now for Tournaments that is a different story, but AoS is not for Tournament, it to go out and have fun with. If you have to worry about some TFG being TFG, maybe you are trying to have Fun with the wrong people.

**Blacksails**

So...no advantage to using a system with no points over one with points then?

Because in a system that has points, you're always free to just ignore them and eyeball things anyways.

In other words, a system that uses a well designed system of points and balancing caters to a wider variety of people and styles of gaming than one without points.

**MWHistorian**

Anpu42 wrote:
MWHistorian wrote:
Anpu42 wrote:
Blacksails wrote:
What advantages does a no point, no balance system offer over one with a well designed point or balance system?

That's what I want to know, everything else is some vague description of TFG WAAC arguments that can never really be argued as everyone plays differently with different expectations and tolerances for other people and their shenanigans.

The advantage, WE get to decide what a balanced game it. If We can't figure out what a balanced game is without a points then maybe...well I don't know what for someone other than ME. I know after 2.5 decades of 40k when I look at army I am facing if I have a chance and that is without looking at a list. The only time I am unsure is that first few games against the new codex, but after that I can usually eyeball if I am going to get MY kicked or am I going to do the kicking.

So...40k does a crap job of balancing points and games become predictable?
Why not have the points for people that want to use them and then not use points for people that don't...kind of like how it's always been. (As opposed to alienating a large portion of the potential customers.)
Besides. Outside the GW bubble, other games use points far more effectively and are even acceptably balanced.

What I am saying is we don't NEED a point system to have a fair and balanced game. The points are just a tool to help us.
I can eyeball my Core Space Wolf Army and then put on my add on units and 9 times out of 10 be within 100 points of the points limit and I can usually do that with my normal opponent's army.
So with the people I play with we really don't need to figure out our list down to the last Melta-Bomb.

Now for Tournaments that is a different story, but AoS is not for Tournament, it to go out and have fun with. If you have to worry about some TFG being TFG, maybe you are trying to have Fun with the wrong people.

It's not about TFG's, it's about normal people that have different ideas of what 'fair' is. Without a basic measuring system to decide what's fair, it's hard for a new player (arguably who this system is targeted for) to judge what's fair.

**Grey Templar**

I can eyeball my Core Space Wolf Army and then put on my add on units and 9 times out of 10 be within 100 points of the points limit and I can usually do that with my normal opponent's army.

I would say this is because you are intimately familiar with all your army's point costs to the point where you can make a list of X points pretty much without even looking anything up. I can do the same with my GKs.

That just strengthens the case for a point system.

**Anpu42**

Let me try this...
Yes there is a need for a points system, but there is no NEED for a points system. That what I am trying to say.

**Blacksails**

Anpu42 wrote:
Let me try this...
Yes there is a need for a points system, but there is no NEED for a points system. That what I am trying to say.

In some sort of philosophical way, sure.

In the real world, as I've been trying to get across, there are only upsides to a reasonably well implemented point system that helps all kinds of play styles and formats.

A system without points is just lazy, minimal effort writing.

**Grey Templar**

Anpu42 wrote:
Let me try this...
Yes there is a need for a points system, but there is no NEED for a points system. That what I am trying to say.

That is contradictory.

And even if we ignore the point vs no points system, the AoS rules are total gak.

I mean, the special rules are a complete joke. Something my 5 year old self would have made up. Actually, my 5 year old self would have probably written better rules.

Just read Lietdorf's rule. Thats just plain unacceptable.

**Deadnight**

Blacksails wrote:
What advantages does a no point, no balance system offer over one with a well designed point or balance system?

That's what I want to know, everything else is some vague description of TFG WAAC arguments that can never really be argued as everyone plays differently with different expectations and tolerances for other people and their shenanigans.

None really.

I just see it as a different style of play. No more, no less. No better, no worse. We play point-less scenarios using flames of war, and often once-off, themed and home brewed scenarios. Aos as a game is not interesting to me, the methodology behind it - in ways, I'm sympathetic.

Thing is, you can do this with well designed, well balanced systems but there is far less impetus and requirement to do so. There is less of an onus on you to 'create' and 'take control'. And it's far easier having an ultimate authority (ie iron clad rules etc) that simply tells you precisely how to behave and play. It takes your responsibilities as a player out if your hands. In ways, this is necessary. It's a good thing to have a precisely defined common ground.
Games like aos require/force the players to step up and take the reins of their games. Otherwise it simply will not work. Some people like being in control of their gaming. This is not a bad thing.

**Grey Templar**

I say its worse if its accompanied by shoddy rules.

I suppose nothing inherently prevents a pointless system(hehehe) from working, but I can't see any way for it to work outside of fixed lists.

**MWHistorian**

Grey Templar wrote:
I say its worse if its accompanied by shoddy rules.

I suppose nothing inherently prevents a pointless system(hehehe) from working, but I can't see any way for it to work outside of fixed lists.

Which sounds incredibly boring. I like the freedom points gives me.