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.

"AoS might not be designed for children, but it is a ruleset that allows for the minimum amount of effort to be made while still being able to call it a "ruleset". It exists purely to push around the models GW expects you to buy, which is the extent to which they care about your interaction with the HHHobby."

you could say the same about Charles Grant's Charge rules

but it doesn't get around the exciting chapter about rescuing the prisoners

what is overlooked in all this debate is that a rule sets that are descried as 'adult 'are usually highly proscriptive and very narrow in what they allow a player to take and how those units are used


Automatically Appended Next Post:
"Here is my thought on the points thing, arguing against points is like arguing against weight classes in boxing. Weight classes aren't there to make sure every fight is even (that's the job of the rankings), weight classes are there to ensure the general capability of the fighters are similar. By controlling certain factors (such as weight, or points) you enable other factors (skill, army comp) to be larger determinants in the outcome. "

Yes except that the most interesting wargame I ever played was determined by a flock of sheep - that were in the middle of the battle field - and unbenowst to the players whoever disturbed it would be attacked by a gang of peasants

true we started with equal points values - but as soon as this random event kicked in the game became far more tactical than any rank 'em up and charge battle

Please, use the quote tags. Your posts are difficult to read.

 marielle wrote:
what is overlooked in all this debate is that a rule sets that are descried as 'adult 'are usually highly proscriptive and very narrow in what they allow a player to take and how those units are used

How so?
Please explain that to me.

That reads to me as if you think 40k is an example of an 'adult' game where to play it 'seriously' you need to play tau/eldar/whatever the latest cheese is, and you need to bring riptides/again whatever the latest is.

Meanwhile what I consider to be an 'adult' game would be lets say Infinity (warmachine examples are overdone I think). If you go to the Infinity sub here on Dakka and ask which armies are 'good' you'll probably give the guys there a laugh since the game is well balanced. You can make bad lists by say taking no anti-TAG weapons, which obviously puts you at a disadvantage if you go up against a TAG, but there are no units in the game that are visibly undercosted or overcosted. The game does not force you to take anything and does not punish you if you don't take anything.

To continue using Infinity as an example, it uses a d20 system with a wide variety of stats and modifiers as it expects it's players to be comfortable with that. This means the difference in the to hit numbers is FAR more varied than the 3+/4+/5+ of AoS.

X wing is not a game I'd immediately call adult, and i enjoy that game very much. But it isn't terribly complicated and is fairly quick and easy to learn. Armada on the other hand I would consider a much more adult game. Why? Because it plays slower and requires you to think several turns in advance.

Nothing about that should have any relevance to what a player is able to bring, it is a matter of simple vs in depth.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

KingCheops wrote:

SideSwipe wrote:
My concern would be how it scales though. There's talk of a mega battle soon, but I think combat phases would take forever after a certain number of units get on the table.

My friend and I played a "put everything on the table" game of his High Elves (194 models) versus my Tomb Kings (150 models). It was pretty tedious and I was cruising the web while he was taking his turn. Moving every single figure takes a long time. We only made it to turn 3 before I threw in the towel.

Our second game was more lively but I unfortunately surprised him with the overpowered Rippers and Kroxigor. He wasn't ready for either and tried to take big blocks like he did in 8th. It didn't go well.

If you are playing a game that size, why didn't you use your movement trays? You can even use huge ones to allow your models some wiggle room. Glad to hear your next game was more interesting though!

My buddy did. Although only 1 of his blocks got into combat. I didn't but I don't take long to move stuff -- lots of 40K orcs and WFB Skinks over the years. He had 50 seaguard, 25 White Lions, 40 Swordmasters, and 20 Phoenix Guard ranked up on trays. The problem was that he had like 6 eagles, 2 dragons, 2 phoenixes, a bunch of cavalry (not on bases because he fielded them much larger than normal), Sisters, tons of characters, and bolt throwers.

Most of the problem was the sheer scope for his first game. I told him it was a bad idea but he really wanted to do it. Too many things to remember all at once.

Yeah, know a guy who started 40k and refused to play games below 2000 points. Wondered why he wasnt comming along in skill very quickly :/

@jonolikespie - What I consider an 'adult' game is one where the players are generally (a) more mature and (b) have been tabletop wargamers for a long time already.

I can't speak for other people, but in our group and in several others like ours that I know of, there are various levels of competitiveness, but generally speaking, we are all less competitive than we were when we first started wargaming. We are generally more interested in interested scenarios than just duking it out using my points / my list versus yours, and we go to quite a bit of effort to make an evening great. Since we all have families and commitments, we don't get to game that much, so the time we set aside has to count. The social aspects of gaming (playing with friends) is quite important, and a key motivator for wargaming.

I started 40k when I was around 15 (1988 or so), and what I was looking for in a game was very different then. Winning was infinitely more important, for starters; another was that painting models was more a requirement for playing the game rather than a hobby. I still had decently painted models and took pride in them, but proportionately, I probably spent 8 hours playing for every 1 hour modelling, whereas now, it's inverted (about 8 hours of hobby for every 1 hour of play). Now, it's *all* about the models.

Another thing that used to be different was that I used to argue rules to death. Now, I could really care less, and just give people the rule whatever way they want it, as long as they're consistent with it -- even if it's *clearly* not what's in the rulebook, I'm happy to play (whatever game) with incorrect rules if it makes my opponent happy.

I have yet to find a person who wants to play the game and buys a ~500$ army and does not want it to win. I have seen people who bought armies to paint and resell, or that do commisions do it. But for them it is more like a part time job. In w40k it is even more so, because the armies cost even more in AoS, on avarge of course.

"Yes except that the most interesting wargame I ever played was determined by a flock of sheep - that were in the middle of the battle field - and unbenowst to the players whoever disturbed it would be attacked by a gang of peasants "
So you claim that random uncontrolable effects make the game more fun, do I understand it right ?

Makumba wrote:
I have yet to find a person who wants to play the game and buys a ~500$ army and does not want it to win.

Now you have. It's not that I don't want to win, it's that winning isn't even in the top 10 things I like about the hobby. In fact, I could play 100 games and lose 100 games and still consider my investment of time and money well spent.

So you claim that random uncontrolable effects make the game more fun, do I understand it right ?

Wouldn't you say that dice rolls are random, uncontrollable effects? No shortage of those going around. Somebody must like it.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Wouldn't you say that dice rolls are random, uncontrollable effects? No shortage of those going around. Somebody must like it.

Absolutely not. Random yes, but far from uncontrollable. If I look at 2 models and see one hits on a 4+, the other a 3+ and I choose to take the model that hits on a 3+ because of this I am tilting the odds in my favor. As am I when i decide a model that makes two 4+ attacks is better than a model that makes one 4+ attack. By engaging an enemy model I want dead with 3 models of my own I am upping the chance to kill that model significantly even though the rice are still random. At it's most basic level almost any tactics in a wargame are simply trying to tilt the odds on the dice in your favor, and there are lots of interesting ways to do that. Things outside of your control, like GWs love of 'roll a d6 to see what happens' mechanics, are purely random and take all agency out of the players hands. There is nothing wrong with enjoying games like that, but neither is there anything wrong in thinking that makes a game shallow and boring.

Wouldn't you say that dice rolls are random, uncontrollable effects? No shortage of those going around. Somebody must like it.

There is a great difference between chosing if you want more cheaper shots or fewer hiting or wounding more offten, and total random effect no one knew about that suddenly pops up. Wining because someone was better is base of good games, wining because someone rolled a "rain" effect and one of the armies suddenly couldn't use their guns is stupid. In my opinion at least.

Makumba wrote:

There is a great difference between chosing if you want more cheaper shots or fewer hiting or wounding more offten, and total random effect no one knew about that suddenly pops up. Wining because someone was better is base of good games, wining because someone rolled a "rain" effect and one of the armies suddenly couldn't use their guns is stupid. In my opinion at least.

First, you can plan around the probability of dice, but you can not control them. Even if there is a 1% chance of rolling all 1s, it can and will still happen.

Second, I like unpredictable games. If I rely on my guns too heavily and they are taken away from me by chance, how is that any difference than rolling a critical miss on a sure thing? I'll grant you that the effect lasts longer, but wouldn't you agree that the better player would have an army and tactics that would be most useful in a wide variety of situations? Wouldn't the better player be better at adapting to changing battlefield conditions? Seems like a rain effect would impact both players equally, so it isn't unfair. Just unpredictable. Are you saying unpredictable is unfair, or just unfun?

In fairness, that thing with the sheep DOES sound kinda fun, the same way that the battle report at the end of the 8th edition hardback sounded fun. Anyone else remember it, with the giant Chaos tree-monster coming to life, and all the players having secret objectives (including against their own team)? That looked like a blast to play, very inspirational...and it also required a GM.

If that's the kind of gameplay Age of Sigmar wants to push, really getting back to the scenario-based RPG roots, they really ought to mention it. As it stands, everything's kinda...halfway between solid concepts.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Makumba wrote:

There is a great difference between chosing if you want more cheaper shots or fewer hiting or wounding more offten, and total random effect no one knew about that suddenly pops up. Wining because someone was better is base of good games, wining because someone rolled a "rain" effect and one of the armies suddenly couldn't use their guns is stupid. In my opinion at least.

First, you can plan around the probability of dice, but you can not control them. Even if there is a 1% chance of rolling all 1s, it can and will still happen.

...

This is where the risk-taking element of combat command enters the equation.

As a general you are supposed to do your best to weight each scenario in your favour. But it is unlikely you can always set up a sure-win situation, so you need to take calculated risks.

Ideally you take risks that pay off at a higher rate than the probability of failing, meaning if you take a 50/50 bet, the reward for success should be more than 50/50. This is where you need to have an idea of the probabilities of outcomes based on the relative strength of units and so on.

Sometimes though you just have to roll the dice and hope for the best.

Makumba wrote:
I have yet to find a person who wants to play the game and buys a ~500$ army and does not want it to win.

*raises hand*

Take a look at my Blood Angels gallery: This will end up being thousands of dollars of models for one army, at least 85% of which are not winning units, and as a whole, one of the worst codex of the game. More significantly it will be thousands of hours of modeling by the time I'm done. There are tons of awful units, like attack bikes, land raiders and stormravens. At the end of the day, what's most important to me is to field an awesome looking army that is thematically accurate (or at least likely).

To put it in perspective, the last army Oki finished was Dark Eldar that's a horrible performer, one of my lowest win ratios ever (unless I ally Eldar).

Of course I will try my best each game to win, but I really don't care about the outcome, and I'm just as happy with a good game that ends in a loss as a good game that ends in a win.

For AoS, I've bought a set of all the Sigmarite models for myself... probably doesn't come up to $500, but it's still not cheap; I'll play the game infrequently... but I could give a hoot whether it's a win, lose or draw in Sigmar.

Makumba wrote:

So you claim that random uncontrolable effects make the game more fun, do I understand it right ?

Sometimes...

'Fog of war' is a thing. Rarely, if ever, in a conflict, will one side know everything. Oftentimes, it's a combination of intelligence, guesswork, gut instinct and blind luck. The vast majority of times, it's 'do the best with what you have against what you think is probsbly happening'.

Those random elements can really add to the tension and immersion in a game. Like a really clever movie or book, it's about not knowing what happens next. It's the 'gotcha!' moment, where it wasn't the butler, but the chauffeur, and the hints were there all along. It show your skill to be able to react to elements out of your control as best as you can and still try and come out on top.

Some of my most memorable games I have gm'ed for my players. Both had armies and mission objectives. Both had intelligence of what they were facing and both had 'aces' up their sleeves in terms of mission specific abilities and special rules. However, neither knew the full story. Neither knew everything. Neither side has knowledge thst was 'complete'. Just like real life. And neither side had entirely accurate intelligence. And that fog of war helped to create a very tense and engaging game where both players were hooked and involved/engsged in the game until the very last throw of the dice.

Deadnight wrote:

'Fog of war' is a thing. Rarely, if ever, in a conflict, will one side know everything. Oftentimes, it's a combination of intelligence, guesswork, gut instinct and blind luck. The vast majority of times, it's 'do the best with what you have against what you think is probsbly happening'.

Fog of War is actually the #2 reason I prefer PC games to tabletop for wargaming (the #1 reason being matchmaking).

Deadnight wrote:
Sometimes...

'Fog of war' is a thing. Rarely, if ever, in a conflict, will one side know everything. Oftentimes, it's a combination of intelligence, guesswork, gut instinct and blind luck. The vast majority of times, it's 'do the best with what you have against what you think is probsbly happening'.

Those random elements can really add to the tension and immersion in a game. Like a really clever movie or book, it's about not knowing what happens next. It's the 'gotcha!' moment, where it wasn't the butler, but the chauffeur, and the hints were there all along. It show your skill to be able to react to elements out of your control as best as you can and still try and come out on top.

Some of my most memorable games I have gm'ed for my players. Both had armies and mission objectives. Both had intelligence of what they were facing and both had 'aces' up their sleeves in terms of mission specific abilities and special rules. However, neither knew the full story. Neither knew everything. Neither side has knowledge thst was 'complete'. Just like real life. And neither side had entirely accurate intelligence. And that fog of war helped to create a very tense and engaging game where both players were hooked and involved/engsged in the game until the very last throw of the dice.

Fog of War is good, rolling a d6 to determine something like the number of attacks your guys has or *shudder* your warlords abilities like in 40k is terrible.

 jonolikespie wrote:

Fog of War is good, rolling a d6 to determine something like the number of attacks your guys has or *shudder* your warlords abilities like in 40k is terrible.

I agree generally. The warlord traits are s perfect example of randomness for the sake of randomness and taking away rom player choice and investment.

Sometimes rolling a dice is ok though - moving through difficult terrain etc., but there is a time and a place I think.

Deadnight wrote:
I agree generally. The warlord traits are s perfect example of randomness for the sake of randomness and taking away rom player choice and investment.

Sometimes rolling a dice is ok though - moving through difficult terrain etc., but there is a time and a place I think.

Well, the issue of warlord traits and spells boils down to them being unequal to each other. So some abilities are awesomely powerful and others are junk. If all the warlord traits were equally useful, that would be a different thing.

In our games, if your warlord (or any NAMED hero) survives, he may keep his trait and spells or reroll (on the next game). That takes the randomness out a little

If only there were a system by which we could quantify this variation in power levels and utility between abilities.

 Talys wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
I agree generally. The warlord traits are s perfect example of randomness for the sake of randomness and taking away rom player choice and investment.

Sometimes rolling a dice is ok though - moving through difficult terrain etc., but there is a time and a place I think.

Well, the issue of warlord traits and spells boils down to them being unequal to each other. So some abilities are awesomely powerful and others are junk. If all the warlord traits were equally useful, that would be a different thing.

In our games, if your warlord (or any NAMED hero) survives, he may keep his trait and spells or reroll (on the next game). That takes the randomness out a little

I'd make the argument that his randomly assigned warlord traits simply breaks my immersion in a game. It takes away choice and utterly craps all over all sense of narrative and story. No thanks.

 Talys wrote:

Deadnight wrote:
I agree generally. The warlord traits are s perfect example of randomness for the sake of randomness and taking away rom player choice and investment.

Sometimes rolling a dice is ok though - moving through difficult terrain etc., but there is a time and a place I think.

Well, the issue of warlord traits and spells boils down to them being unequal to each other. So some abilities are awesomely powerful and others are junk. If all the warlord traits were equally useful, that would be a different thing.

In our games, if your warlord (or any NAMED hero) survives, he may keep his trait and spells or reroll (on the next game). That takes the randomness out a little

Making them random doesn't really solve that issue. It just means one player could get the ability to move and shoot heavy weapons in his command squad that doesn't have heavy weapons, while his opponent can call down an orbital strike. All dependant on two dice rolls, and maybe they don't even match the fluff for the respective generals. Like a lot of things GW does, it's a cool idea that gets a flawed execution.

Spells are are little better, I think, since you've always got the option of swapping one out, you got more than one of you cared enough to do more than take a scroll caddy, and they seem less intrinsic to the character (he ran out of bat guano, so he can't cast THIS today...very different than a carefully modeled drop troops commander suddenly wishing she'd brought along a lascannon because gosh, she's so good at ordering heavy weapons around). I'd say that ideally, they'd both be something you choose. Warlord Traits seem like a neat, relatively easy to balance freebie - just tone down the more powerful ones - but I could get behind paying points for spells.

In fact, I did, I switched to KoW :p

'Fog of war' is a thing. Rarely, if ever, in a conflict, will one side know everything. Oftentimes, it's a combination of intelligence, guesswork, gut instinct and blind luck. The vast majority of times, it's 'do the best with what you have against what you think is probsbly happening'.

It is impossible to get fog of war, when you know have to show your list to your opponent before the game.

Some of my most memorable games I have gm'ed for my players.

What is a gm?

A Game Master. Like a Dungeon Master in D&D. A neutral 3rd party who controls the story, the non player characters and the adversaries in a roleplaying game.

In an RPG, which is a cooperative game, several players will face off against enemies that are controlled by the GM, who is not competing against the players but rather acting as the environment around them and putting challenges there for them to overcome. They are arbitrators and ultimately have the final say on rules issues as well as times like when you can't tell if something is just in or just out of range.

I've never personally seen one used in a tabletop wargame but presumably the function is similar, except that instead of acting on behalf of the adversaries they are simply the arbitrator and controlling the narrative.

Makumba wrote:

Some of my most memorable games I have gm'ed for my players.

What is a gm?

Game Master. Some games recommend it - the old editions of warhammer/40k do so, infact and the point system was provided as one way of circumventing the absence of one. His role is to prepare the battlefield, come up with a scenario, fill in both players with their part of the known details, arbitrate rules, intervene during a game by means of random or hidden events, overriding rules or dice results etc. His responsibilities are many, but the payoff is huge.

Out of curiosity have any tabletop wargames used them since like 2nd ed 40k?

 jonolikespie wrote:
Out of curiosity have any tabletop wargames used them since like 2nd ed 40k?

Aside from my very limited knowledge of historical games - none that I know of. Atleast none of the most popular ones that I know. Someone more knowledgeable may fill in this gap with some info.

Makumba wrote:[
It is impossible to get fog of war, when you know have to show your list to your opponent before the game.

Incorrect.

Point 1: do you 'have' to show your list to your opponent? Not necessarily. In infinity for example, your will have 'open entries' on your list that your opponent can read, and 'hidden' elements, like camo troops, and who your lieutenant is, which your opponent won't know. Don't assume that how you play your wargames defines the only way of doing it. In other games, you won't necessarily know the exact make up of your opponents army.

Point 2: you're assuming 'the lists' define the entirely of the game. Who's to say that this has to be the case? On the most basic level, fog of war can be defined as 'hidden objectives' and 'hidden lists'. You don't know everything your opponent has, and you don't necessarily know what his plans are. Similarly, he doesn't know what yours are. So you end up playing games within games.

In a lot of the games that I have been involved in, there has been a 'background script' for want of a better word for the mission, where regardless of what the participants are doing, at certain points in the game, things happen thst are outside of their control. Bad weather rolls in that obscures visibility (or in a napolenics setting, this would foul powder and ruin your ranged game). in another, their armour gets a call from hq to immediately pull back and redeploy (leave the board essentially) leaving them to complete the mission with just infantry. In another, there are neutral elements that can turn hostile on the players depending on what they do. In other examples, one player knows something that the other player doesn't. He might have extra 'ambush units' to bolter his forces that his opponent doesn't know about. Or they might be given false or incorrect information as part of the mission brief (say being told the enemy has loads of tanks, when in reality, their armour might be extremely limited). In others, you might use something like the camo markers in infinity. Rather than putting down actual models, you might put down a dozen tokens that represent 'pings' on a radar - it might be an enemy model, it might be a squirrel. Not all the 'pings' will be enemy units. Some might be distractions. Some might be the equipment getting it wrong. It's great for an attacker/defender scenario where it adds an extra layer of tension and immersion. Like I said, it's like a clever book or a movie where you don't know what's going to happen next. And essentially, it makes the game more interesting. rIn others, you might be fighting in a space hulk, space station or fortification that is under bombardment. Every turn, things are going wrong - the lights go out, random explosions tear through certain sections of the board, there could be hull breaches, deck collapses, spreading fires - all elements you cannot control or plan for. You can just react.

It helps to recreate games that can be somewhat true to real life. Look at operation market garden from ww2. Aerial recon indicated that the location for the British drop troops was devoid of any significant German presence. Orders were given to go ahead with the parachute drop, over the next few days of extremely bad weather which grounded allied air power, the Germans moved in a whole bunch of tanks into the area. When the British landed, thry were in for a bit of a shock when they faced up against a bunch of panzers. Perfect example of the intelligence given not exactly matching conditions on the ground.

Makumba wrote:
What is a gm?

Games master. Third party umpire, or 'referee'. They run the game, essentially. Often, these guys create or write a scenario (designing the board layout, crafting the mission objectives, deciding on appropriate forces to make the game interesting, writing the 'script') for the game for their mates to play, and are involved in controlling various third party elements of that game that are out of the hands of the players, as well as arbiting any disputes or queries that come up. Lastly, gm's make the final call. If things are going badly, or the players are not going for the bait, the gm can rewrite the script and shake things up a bit as and if required. It's a hugely important role to play, and you need to know the game and be able to write fair and interesting scenarios (it's not about simply enabling one player to crush another, it's about writing interesting games thst let everyone participate), thst said, it is extremely rewarding to be in the drivers seat like this. Gm's are very frequently at the heart of a lot of rpgs too.

jonolikespie wrote:Out of curiosity have any tabletop wargames used them since like 2nd ed 40k?

A lot of historicals tend to make use of a gm. To be fair, a lot of gamers, regardless of what ttg they play use a gm to umpire their games. I don't think it's necessarily something specific to a rules set.

You don't need rules to GM a game. We've used them in a lot of our games. I did for a Bolt Action game. Very useful if you want to surprise players with events like ambushes, betrayals or secret weapons. You can also "cheat" and give one side more reinforcements to stop a game from becoming one sided.

Sorry, man. Fog of war on tabletop is so lame compared to a PC. A real Fog of war on a PC means you can't see what's going on, beyond the radius of your models' lines of sight. If you possess/build certain technologies, you may see on a radar, for instance, some representation of your enemy (like dots or relative sized dots) without all of the information, or perhaps, some technology, like a satellite, will offer you a complete view of your enemy.

Among other things, it creates a need for scouts -- units to keep an eye on things -- and a reason to kill those units.

The depth and surprise FoW adds to a strategy game is immeasurable and irreplaceable on the tabletop.