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.

+The Stormcast Eternals are warriors of the warhammer world that Sigmar saved before the destruction of the mortal realm. They are then reincarnated as demigods keeping some of their previous personality. Every time they die, he resurrects them and they lose a bit of their individuality of their first life. This will explain how we will see heroes and villains that were important figures in the Warhammer World before hand. Apparently the guy riding the drake is one of the previous characters but his identify isn't revealed yet.

There is a place for destruction of self in your fiction, but I don't feel this is it.

 Dr. Delorean wrote:
Their intention clearly is to make a game you can play, otherwise why write rules at all?

Like Wile E. Coyote painting a tunnel on the side of a mesa, the plan could be to have something that resembles having a playable game just long enough to secure the sale.

Nocturnus wrote:

Eumerin wrote:
Such games are completely unable to handle pick-up games, though. They're fine if you want to design scenarios for literally every single meet-up. But they don't work when two random people who just happen to both have armies show up at the game store at the same time.

Actually, it really only requires having two sensible individuals that want to have a game, not WAAC. Regardless, I don't know what GW is thinking at this point.

It requires not only that the two individuals want to have a balanced game, but also the necessary time, skill and understanding of another person's brainchild they need to make it balanced. But having that necessary skill and understanding of the systems of the game is the game designer's job - you pay them to produce a playable game so that you don't need to know how to do it yourself.

You claimed the New rules to be more narrative. I dont understand how.

 insaniak wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
Wasn't it already stated that the lack of succes of INQ was in large part due to the absence of point cost? Mindboggling

Not that I ever heard. The lack of success for Inquisitor was more down to the peculiar choice of scale combined with a small available model range, and the lack of actual gaming material for what was essentially an RPG.

Basically it was a pet project that got some support but not enough. When everything got shifted to specialist it had to share a budget with 3 other systems, as well as support team. This eventually got wound down it stalled.

The scale was fairly good. But Iq28 is very popular, so much that it's appeared in WD so it has nothing to do with popularity.

 AlexHolker wrote:

It requires not only that the two individuals want to have a balanced game, but also the necessary time, skill and understanding of another person's brainchild they need to make it balanced. But having that necessary skill and understanding of the systems of the game is the game designer's job - you pay them to produce a playable game so that you don't need to know how to do it yourself.

I'd agree.

The person pitching 10 Bloodthirsters against 10 Goblin Spearman is the easy one to spot and not really the problem IMO.

But what if I do want a balanced game of ... say ... Elves vs. Dwarfs (or whatever they are called now). Is 20 Phoenix Guard against 20 Ironbreakers a good match? Or should the Dwarf-player get 25 Ironbreakers?

What if I play a bunch of games of Elves vs. Dwarf with armies that used to be formally equal points values (in 8th, 7th, or whenever) and Elves win three times in a row? Was the Elf-player the better/luckier player, or should armies be adjusted according to the principle of "sensible individuals"?

RoninXiC wrote:
yeah.. sales rep said THERE WONT BE ANY OTHER RULEBOOK.

So that guy who told me there would be 4/5 books for the system. They might be the " army books?"

Stevethewarboss?
We have several testimonies of store owners who told us their salesrep told them that no further rulebook will be released.

Wonderwolf wrote:

 AlexHolker wrote:

It requires not only that the two individuals want to have a balanced game, but also the necessary time, skill and understanding of another person's brainchild they need to make it balanced. But having that necessary skill and understanding of the systems of the game is the game designer's job - you pay them to produce a playable game so that you don't need to know how to do it yourself.

I'd agree.

The person pitching 10 Bloodthirsters against 10 Goblin Spearman is the easy one to spot and not really the problem IMO.

But what if I do want a balanced game of ... say ... Elves vs. Dwarfs (or whatever they are called now). Is 20 Phoenix Guard against 20 Ironbreakers a good match? Or should the Dwarf-player get 25 Ironbreakers?

What if I play a bunch of games of Elves vs. Dwarf with armies that used to be formally equal points values (in 8th, 7th, or whenever) and Elves win three times in a row? Was the Elf-player the better/luckier player, or should armies be adjusted according to the principle of "sensible individuals"?

Maybe all the units will be pretty much the same. Are they really creating individual unit cards for every single unit type they currently sell on the store? Perhaps most of the units are similar and then the difference comes from your Hero (who is unique). We'll find out on Saturday.

 Doomsdave wrote:
I am very excited about this release. It checks a lot of boxes on my wish list. Low model count, low entry price, more narrative games, mixing of factions, simple rules. This sounds like a win. And strangely enough I like the Sigmarines. I understand a lot of the frustration here though. As a RPG/Wargames player of 25 years I have played and purchased many rule sets, and points cost is a relatively new innovation considering the history of Wargames. Fubar is my current go-to rule set for just about any genre. It runs 2 to 4 pages and is FUN with no points buy. Tournament WAAC style games have never been fun for me and frankly in the large metro area I live in it is not even present. WHFB is rarely seen in these parts. 40 K is easier to find opponents for, yet is rarer than many other games. I love collecting GW minis but find it difficult to find people to play with. My wife and sons all paint/model and game to some extent. I have a number of friends who also play games like FFG etc. but blanch at the idea of learning WH rules or purchasing vast armies and army books or codices. It is very easy to buy a box for one of the kids of a unit they think looks cool, slap some paint on it and get to playing immediately. This cuts into their sports and video game time much less than the previous versions. So AOS sounds just about perfect to me. I own a literal room full (and garage) of games and to be honest I have had more fun with RPGs and Wargames that were rules lite. I find more opportunity for creativity and strategic surprises than in "balanced" rules. You haven't lived until you have Daleks versus Space Marines battles

Warmachine isn't as complicated as people make it out to be, and the base rules could likly be put on 4 sheets like this is going to be, if GW just shifts special rules to the warscrolls it will likly be very similar in complexity when all said and done.
This game actuly looks to need about the same size army's as a warmachine start up and most players to get starting in warmachine could do it with the free materials in a 55$ box.
We still don't know if GW is realy being entirely honest when they say can take any box or two of the shelf and play a game effectively.
So I am not realy that hopfull for that.

But I think one of the reasons points are used is that it's a realy light and simple way to give out a power lvl for something you buy, it means you can offer a greator variety.
When it's down to it, creativity is encouraged by difernt rules sets in difernt way, and difernt people like difernt things, but as to the naritive distinction.
Age of sigmar is offering nothing more naritive wise than warmachine, infinity or fantasy before it.

To restate my thoughts, a lot of rule sets can be put down in a very short page count. But offer more as special rules and changes, if every unit has a full page of rules to read. Then it's realy just trading one form of rules for another and gaining little.
Naritive is as much about the world as the rules, we play more naritive games in warmachine then we ever did in 40k since the tight rule set allows myself and my play partners greator freedom in the design off alternative missions and rules.

Be excited for the release it's an possibly very exciting time. But I think we need GW now more than ever to talk about what's coming.

Warmachine Quickstart Rules are 3 pages + Unit cards.

GW talk yeah that will be the day.

It was actually offline but still. Now I'm extremely sceptical on the other things he said would come to pass.

migooo wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 streetsamurai wrote:
Wasn't it already stated that the lack of succes of INQ was in large part due to the absence of point cost? Mindboggling

Not that I ever heard. The lack of success for Inquisitor was more down to the peculiar choice of scale combined with a small available model range, and the lack of actual gaming material for what was essentially an RPG.

Basically it was a pet project that got some support but not enough. When everything got shifted to specialist it had to share a budget with 3 other systems, as well as support team. This eventually got wound down it stalled.

The scale was fairly good. But Iq28 is very popular, so much that it's appeared in WD so it has nothing to do with popularity.

Inq28 appears in WD because John Blanche loves it, unless you mean something else.

Mymearan wrote:
Even if two sensible, non-WAAC, fluffy players show up and are willing to compromise to get a balanced game... How would they know how to do it? It's essentially asking the players to design the game and assign points costs, a job that would take months, right there and then.

Considering the terrible state that GW rules writing is in, is it that far fetched that they leave it up to the players to figure out this mess?

Is there no sort of website countdown/build-up thing going on this week?
Yesterday featured jetbikes, today is a HH novel. Surely some sort of teaser or mini preview would get the juices going for what is such a big revamp? Kinda weird and frustrating.

RoninXiC wrote:You claimed the New rules to be more narrative. I dont understand how.

If some of the conjecture in this thread is true, then I like the idea of small grunt units having a chance against a big boss or monster. To me that hews closer to classical fantasy/SF than perfectly balanced armies. I like it when a lone survivor of a doomed unit finds the one weak spot in the scaly armor of an otherwise invulnerable beast. The moisture farmer from a desert planet saves the galaxy etc. To me that is much more narrative. All subjective of course.

In addition, The star gate thingies open up all kind of possibilities for personal narrative for my forces (particularly if the unbounded speculation proves true): "Hey buddy what's the story with that Empire/Skaven warband you are playing?" "Well after the Old World exploded the ancestors of these two groups found themselves on a distant planet/dimension where they had to band together to survive the predation of indigenous methane sky-pirates. After 5000 years in this time-dilated reality they have become allies and recently rediscovered a star gate to a place & time where I can fight your Sigmarines." To me that sounds fun. I can create narrative within the fluff's framework narrative. If the bonuses go to themed armies than my opponent has an advantage over my gonzo team, and I'm OK with that too. If the mechanics are card-driven then I can show up with the units and their corresponding cards and have fun. (Again, provided some of the speculation is true)

I realize a lot of people prefer points-buy. And a pre-defined very structured fluff. That's cool. Live & be well. I'm not saying my way is better but my gaming group & family play this way & we love it.

A wee message to the casual and/or narrative players who claim that this new system benefits casual/narrative play and that that is the 'true' way to play whfb/wh40k: Game balance does not hurt you. Infact it would most likely improve the game for you as you'd actually have a fair chance at winning the battle, and (unless you're play the Thyrrus), then don't you want that? And even in situations when you don't, like representing hopeless last stands and such, you can do that, just agree with your opponent that you can field less models in your army to represent that. If you want to field 8 bloodthirsters and unit of ironguts and your opponent agrees, that is fine too. This can all be done without gimping the entire system for everyone else. It's much easier to mod a game to be less competitive than it is to make it more.

The fluff for the new game sounds horrendous.

They could have ended the End Times with a giant explosion still, just not shatter the world. A massive magical explosion of nuclear proportions in the centre of the Empire. We get all the new look scenery to represent the fallout zone. Sigmar still has his chosen, and the races all pile into the power vacuum the explosion leaves behind.

With pocket dimensions nothing is of consequence. It gets even worse with the idea of "summoning" long dead heroes for the battle too..

I'll play AoS (I have to, my local is a GW). But the stories behind my armies will stay in the Old World me thinks

 SJM wrote:
I don't understand the obsession with "the fantasy we know it is dead!!" line, you do realise you can play any edition you like, right?

If you don't like the system, play the system you do like?

I am fascinated by this, you're truly opening my eyes here.

I love my BFG and have decided to run a campaign, so I'll just pop down to the local gaming shop and gather together all the other bfg... oh, there aren't any? That was a legitimate surprise, really...

Ah well, time to play 40k 5th ed, my orks weren't a show of gak in that edition, oh, everyone else is playing some boggled hybrid of 6th and 7th? But guys, my army is great in 5th and it's a far more streamlined game... guys?

Look oldhammer groups exist. As do second ed 40k groups

I'm looking at oldhammer but I only play 40k second. Just play what makes you happy and ignore something that doesn't.



Groups can be hard to find but they are about.

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:

 SJM wrote:
I don't understand the obsession with "the fantasy we know it is dead!!" line, you do realise you can play any edition you like, right?

If you don't like the system, play the system you do like?

I am fascinated by this, you're truly opening my eyes here.

I love my BFG and have decided to run a campaign, so I'll just pop down to the local gaming shop and gather together all the other bfg... oh, there aren't any? That was a legitimate surprise, really...

Ah well, time to play 40k 5th ed, my orks weren't a show of gak in that edition, oh, everyone else is playing some boggled hybrid of 6th and 7th? But guys, my army is great in 5th and it's a far more streamlined game... guys?

Haha, exhalted!

migooo wrote:
Look oldhammer groups exist. As do second ed 40k groups

I'm looking at oldhammer but I only play 40k second. Just play what makes you happy and ignore something that doesn't.



Groups can be hard to find but they are about.

I play 2nd 40K too, but that is a group who have been playing games together since 1992, for a lot of people, pick up gaming at their local GW (in the UK) or local FLGS (everywhere else) is how it works. Indeed, the ubiquity of GW games is precisely why they have dominated the market so long, there are always players wherever you go, therefore its the one you buy into. Only Warmahordes has really made significant inroads into that, but now GW are creating a game that makes (assuming the no method of balance is real) pick up games very very difficult, and pretty much an exercise in who has the biggest wallet.

That is what I would call commercial suicide. I know they believe most people buying their stuff are not gamers, but I have a feeling they are about to find out otherwise.

nudibranch wrote:
A wee message to the casual and/or narrative players who claim that this new system benefits casual/narrative play and that that is the 'true' way to play whfb/wh40k: Game balance does not hurt you..... This can all be done without gimping the entire system for everyone else. It's much easier to mod a game to be less competitive than it is to make it more.

I get that. I think I even alluded to it. I wish you could have the WHFB you want. I really do, cause I was fine without it. I was just answering a question after saying I liked this incarnation of the game. I never played any edition of WHFB or 40K as written. This may be the first time I will and that's novel for me. I'm sorry if it messed you up, because I would rather have more people playing more games than people mad at any games. And I have never advocated that I have the "true" way to play anything I don;t even like the concept.

If there's no points or balancing AT ALL I imagine pick up games will have players saying things like "Well... This was about 1'500 points in 8th. How much was your force?" Which is a crummy solution.

Anothing thing is that a number of people, myself included, prefer pickup games as it means I'm not constantly facing the same players and armies and adds a level of exitement that is lost when you fight the same few armies over and over again.

 Bottle wrote:
If there's no points or balancing AT ALL I imagine pick up games will have players saying things like "Well... This was about 1'500 points in 8th. How much was your force?" Which is a crummy solution.

And a solution which immediately fails with all the new stuff, starting with Sigmarines and all future releases of (presumably mostly) cool miniatures you might want to use.

 Doomsdave wrote:

nudibranch wrote:
A wee message to the casual and/or narrative players who claim that this new system benefits casual/narrative play and that that is the 'true' way to play whfb/wh40k: Game balance does not hurt you..... This can all be done without gimping the entire system for everyone else. It's much easier to mod a game to be less competitive than it is to make it more.

I get that. I think I even alluded to it. I wish you could have the WHFB you want. I really do, cause I was fine without it. I was just answering a question after saying I liked this incarnation of the game. I never played any edition of WHFB or 40K as written. This may be the first time I will and that's novel for me. I'm sorry if it messed you up, because I would rather have more people playing more games than people mad at any games. And I have never advocated that I have the "true" way to play anything I don;t even like the concept.

Eh, don't worry about, it was'nt aimed at you And I don't mean it as an attack against casual play, just that solid rules don't mean the game can't be played casually.

nudibranch wrote:

 Doomsdave wrote:

nudibranch wrote:
A wee message to the casual and/or narrative players who claim that this new system benefits casual/narrative play and that that is the 'true' way to play whfb/wh40k: Game balance does not hurt you..... This can all be done without gimping the entire system for everyone else. It's much easier to mod a game to be less competitive than it is to make it more.

I get that. I think I even alluded to it. I wish you could have the WHFB you want. I really do, cause I was fine without it. I was just answering a question after saying I liked this incarnation of the game. I never played any edition of WHFB or 40K as written. This may be the first time I will and that's novel for me. I'm sorry if it messed you up, because I would rather have more people playing more games than people mad at any games. And I have never advocated that I have the "true" way to play anything I don;t even like the concept.

Eh, don't worry about, it was'nt aimed at you And I don't mean it as an attack against casual play, just thatvsolid rules don't meant the game can't be played casually.

Like you said, casual/fluffy players should be the ones that want balanced rules more, if anything. Competitive players will just play whatever is competitive but of the rules were balanced fluffy players would benifit more because they could then easily play whatever themed army they want and still have a chance. Poorly written unbalanced rules hurt everyone, including 'casual fluffy' players, them more than the competitive players probably. Everyone wins with solid, balanced rules.

Good god. You went and blew it up, you maniacs! Damn you! Damn you all to hell!

Ahem. I've been away from the hobby for a while. Regardless, this is horrendously disappointing. Warhammer Fantasy was doing poorly, we all knew it, but this? This is madness.

Bah, I'm in camp wait-and-see now. We're fixating on a couple of negative soundbites that aren't even 100% confirmed - no points costs etc - without knowing how the rest of the rules work, so we don't even know how much of an issue those unconfirmed changes will pose.

 ImAGeek wrote:

nudibranch wrote:

 Doomsdave wrote:

nudibranch wrote:
A wee message to the casual and/or narrative players who claim that this new system benefits casual/narrative play and that that is the 'true' way to play whfb/wh40k: Game balance does not hurt you..... This can all be done without gimping the entire system for everyone else. It's much easier to mod a game to be less competitive than it is to make it more.

I get that. I think I even alluded to it. I wish you could have the WHFB you want. I really do, cause I was fine without it. I was just answering a question after saying I liked this incarnation of the game. I never played any edition of WHFB or 40K as written. This may be the first time I will and that's novel for me. I'm sorry if it messed you up, because I would rather have more people playing more games than people mad at any games. And I have never advocated that I have the "true" way to play anything I don;t even like the concept.

Eh, don't worry about, it was'nt aimed at you And I don't mean it as an attack against casual play, just thatvsolid rules don't meant the game can't be played casually.

Like you said, casual/fluffy players should be the ones that want balanced rules more, if anything. Competitive players will just play whatever is competitive but of the rules were balanced fluffy players would benifit more because they could then easily play whatever themed army they want and still have a chance. Poorly written unbalanced rules hurt everyone, including 'casual fluffy' players, them more than the competitive players probably. Everyone wins with solid, balanced rules.

A valid point which I understand. I would never buy and read the gigantic religious text that was the BRB just so I could play casually. You are both genteel posters & I appreciate your views.

I try to avoid criticising people on this forum, but holy horse gak, some replies really do take the biscuit.

Some people are convinced that in a few months time, GW will ride to the rescue with a 300 page, hardback rulebook, that will be 100% balanced.

Never going to happen.

Evidence?

1) They've been working on this for months, and this is what we're getting. If they had a big rulebook, they would be releasing it, like they did in other versions. Right Now. This July.

2) Mikhalia, never a man for spouting bull, has been told that players can use whatever models they want.

3) It's a 4 page rulebook, but already, from what we've heard, GW are talking about complexities, and adopting the roll a D6 for it, approach

Based on that evidence, and using Occam's razor as a guide, you can reasonably conclude that this is shaping up to be a steaming pile of horse gak

40k sells more than fantasy, and yet, GW had no qualms about unbound in 40k. Why should fantasy, a less popular game, be any different?

Last night, I was asking people to stay calm. Well, last night I had a few drinks in me

I'm lucky, I'm insulated, having sold off my fantasy stuff a while back. I have a clean slate for this version, but I'm grabbing a parachute and bailing out.

As always, the people who love fantasy, and have spent hundred of hours, and thousands of pounds/dollars on their armies, have my sympathies...for what it worth.