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.
coldgaming wrote: I used to play Warhammer in 5th/6th/7th, and I'm put off by points now too. As much as I think some 40k models are cool, the points system and all the rules make it a dead end for me. Speaking for myself, no points has given me a freedom and ease of entry that has made my hobbying go up ten fold. I'm into making units and armies that I think are cool, not trying to take a certain number of models in order to fit inside a points limit and army comp.
Bear in mind though, there is a difference between a points system, and a gw points system.
There is no reason to suggest that a use of points translates into a lack of freedom or a difficulty of entry into a game. You can still do armies that are cool. If you want more, up the points limits. Its just another way of saying 'take more stuff'. Points are basically just a structural tool that can be used to help assign in-game value.
bear in mind, I play both points-based games and I also play point-less games. I enjoy both. There is value in both approaches but the latter is not necessarily better, and while it can open you up to a new perspective on gaming, it does come with its own series of hurdles to overcome and it has its own requirements and needs that you won't find in points-based games.
greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy
"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are"
Mymearan wrote:
Very interesting perspective from exactly the type of person GW seems to be targeting. How come you're on this forum btw?
I was introduced by a friend-of-a-friend who plays 40k. Now, I lurk the News section for Age of Sigmar releases And I lurk the P&M section looking at pretty models and wishing I could paint better. And reading the very useful tips and tricks as I try to improve beyond the point of totally embarrassing.
Vermis wrote:
Trina wrote:Price? Let's be honest the starter box of AoS or anywhere from 1-3 boxes of other miniatures still cost less than a case of boosters for Magic. I think I spend more in one release of Magic the Gathering then I will spend in 3 years of Age of Sigmar.
Gotta be honest, from what I hear of Magic, I don't know if that's saying much. Coming from the other end, I could easily spend much less money on many more minis - especially with £100 Archaons and £60-for-3 cav floating around - and get as much or more enjoyment.
But I'd like to know more. What's the put-off of points systems? What's the difference in taking what you want (sort of) from a hypothetically balanced army list, themed around a faction or army?
From what I remember of that MTG starter I got ages ago, I have the feeling that 'faction' element might be the psychological disconnect between CCGs and TTWGs... But until I find it again to reread the rules so I look like less of a numpty, aren't certain cards restricted and the game somewhat self-levelling (i.e. you need certain numbers of lands, creatures, spells etc. most of the time) anyway?
And in AoS' case, if things are lopsided, who's the 'they' that fixes it?
I think you bring up an interesting point about certain similarities with CCGs, and GW making inroads with that audience. It'll be interesting to see how far they might get, and whether CCG players get a taste for other wargames. (For another what-I-remember-of-MTG moment, if you like the tactical aspects of setting up defences and attacks, rethinking your plans based on the other player's actions and successes, playing your hand at the right moment, and just general resource management, I think some non-AoS/40K wargames have the potential to be a pleasant surprise for you.)
And welcome to Dakka.
Thank you for the warm welcome!
Really, people who stick around and get addicted to Magic fall into 3 categories: the ones who end up buying cases and cases of every new release so that they own everything, the ones that buy specific cards to get really powerful decks, and the ones who play pretty casually, and just do the best with what they have and buy stuff kind of occasionally. I like to think myself as the third group, but I probably buy more cards than I should if my head were screwed on right. Magic definitely isn't a cheap to love.
Oh, and anyone looking for "fair" or "balanced" in the world of Magic, it doesn't exist The game becomes more fair with one more booster, because surely there will be a card that will help you. And if not, there's always the promise of the next booster... and if you totally flop two cases later, there's always the next big release where everything becomes irrelevant anyways, and you can start all over, buying boosters! But that's ok, we love it all the same.
I'm not sure I'll ever buy that Archaon model, so it doesn't really bother me that it's pretty expensive. I guess maybe one day I might buy a bloodthirster, but, maybe, one, ever? So no big deal, if I want to put all that effort into building a model. For the time being, the whole game has cost me $200 or so, plus $100 in paint and paintbrushes. Maybe I'll buy something on Boxing Day, if there's a good sale going, but probably most of my spending money will go to Magic.... I don't see myself buying a lot more AoS stuff, even though we're having fun playing it.
Why no points? It might be easier for newbs to get into it or maybe it just gives the illusion of being easier to get started in. A sleight of hand that cracked the door open Heck, if we had a point-based game, we'd all have to figure out how many points we wanted to buy models for, and knowing us, we'd never get rolling.
Oh to close of this crazy long post, in Magic, we all have decks that aren't really balanced against each other. Once upon a time, we tried, but we long since gave up; there are people who just own way better cards than me, so c'est last vie if I lose against a better deck. Maybe they'll pull some punches or whatever but either way, it's still fun, even if I'm at a disadvantage. So when people say AoS armies aren't really balanced against each other or that it's hard to fine tune, well, it just bothers me... less, I guess.
What works for Magic, doesn't work for tabletop wargames. Magic game takes minutes, tabletop battle 1 -5 hours depending on game and ussualy towards the latter number. Investing so much time into a hopeless battle where you can't even judge how good your moves actualy are (like AoS) is not my perfect idea for an evening and I assure you that majority of players think that too.
Magic is also predominantely strategic game. What you bring matters much more than what you do on the table. In tabletop games, especially those that are not AoS, the idea is that tactical play should be at least as important as strategic planning (where strategic in this context would be list and off the table plans). Now, if you don't have armies on similar level of power, or if you have unbalanced armies and can't even tell how unbalanced they really are, you will have trouble judging your tactical decisions and therefore have hard time improving your game. Ofc after many many games you will develop some eye for relative worth of the units but why waste so much time for something that proper games provide from the start and differneces between AoS point systems show that it takes more time and work than many "just talk with your opponent" guys think.
"Magic with miniatures" used to be thrown as an insult to one or another tt wargame, meaning unbalanced, pay-to-win and decided before the game. Now, I really like magic, have a few decks myself also buy into 40k conquest atm but wargames really shouldn't be like ccgs. I understand your aproach but it's just another thing that makes AoS a bad game in my eyes.
From the initial Age of Sigmar news thread, when its "feature" list was first confirmed:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
It's like a train wreck. But one made from two circus trains colliding.
A collosal, terrible, flaming, hysterical train wreck with burning clowns running around spraying it with seltzer bottles while ring masters cry out how everything is fine and we should all come in while the dancing elephants lurch around leaving trails of blood behind them.
McNinja wrote: From what I can tell after seeing multiple threads about this same topic, it simply wasn't what fans wanted, and to a lot of people it seemed like GW really didn't care about rules whatsoever. GW has yet to figure out that the models and rules go hand-in-hand, and unless they want to lose a large chunk of their customers by completely discontinuing all of their rule books and codices, they need to step up their game.
Of course, they've needed to do that for the last 5 years, but hey.
Fixed:
Of course, they've needed to do that for the last 25 years, but hey.
T
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/01 19:58:25
Kilkrazy wrote: 200 Army Men for $19 sounds a great deal, and lets you get up and running with some fun games that you don't have to take seriously because the start-up cost is less than a few sandwiches.
This was actually my point. Buy some army men (and their accompanying tanks and jets if you want), cut up some felt for terrain, download free rules, BOOM, instant war game for $25. And you know what, all the power to the people who do this.
Thank you - that is exactly what I did, getting back into the hobby. Keep it cheap, keep it simple, keep it fun. Wrote my own rules system, wrote my own backstory. And you know what - turns out the DIY ethic is hugely satisfying
Skinflint Games- war gaming in the age of austerity
Mymearan wrote: I'm guessing they will be very taciturn when describing AoS sales, something like "we're pleased with the reception blaha blaha" and no hard numbers.
'Sales of Warhammer: the Age of Sigmar were broadly in line with expectations' would be my guess.
The Auld Grump
Kilkrazy wrote:When I was a young boy all my wargames were narratively based because I played with my toy soldiers and vehicles without the use of any rules.
The reason I bought rules and became a real wargamer was because I wanted a properly thought out structure to govern the action instead of just making things up as I went along.
cygnnus wrote: Now that brings back memories of my earliest "wargaming" with plastic army men!
Movement was easy: Soldiers moved one foot-length. Tanks and jeeps moved two foot-lengths.
Shooting was firing a rubber band off your finger while standing/kneeling over the model. Anyone who fell over died. For tanks and bazookas, you got to throw a dirt clod. Worked out pretty well since it's hard to knock over a tank with a rubber band, but a well hurled dirt clod?? Well... For mortars you lobbed the dirt clod. Cover worked pretty well too (although we didn't penalize for moving through cover).
We didn't have rules for melee/assault, but rubber bands at 2" are pretty accurate!
Didn't really have points totals, it was usually my bag of soldiers against yours... Huh... Guess that might be GW's demographic after all! Games were either "to the death" or, more often, "capture the flag".
Good times!
I would line up my army men on a castle, my opponent a car parking lot, and we'd take turns throwing marbles at each other's men. The trick was to spread them out so one marble couldn't take out 3 men in one go.
Myself and my little brother used to make castles out of wooden blocks and fill them with cannons and soldiers. A cannon had to have at least three men near it to fire and each 'turn' we would throw a number of models equal to active cannons at our opponents castle. The objective was to kill all the enemy soldiers or knock their castle down. If a soldier or a cannon was knocked over/down then it was destroyed and if a cannon was hit and knocked out of trim then it could not fire next turn.
Soldiers could move one hand length per turn, but assaulting the enemy was never a good idea.
(I used to lose a lot - my little brother was always unerringly accurate)
Free from GW's tyranny and the hobby is looking better for it
DR:90-S++G+++M++B++I+Pww205++D++A+++/sWD146R++T(T)D+
People talk about historical games that lack points systems, but the comparison ignores how different units can be. A game about real life historical battles can assume that most people are equal to most other people because it doesn't have to handle normal humans alongside 20-foot monsters and flying wizards.
My Zulu games don't use points, and those are two pretty differing sides! It doesn't matter what is on each, lack of points in games is an approach rather than the be all and end all.
Indeed they are, and Historicals gives us examples of games with points systems, points without systems, both of them very successful, and capable of accommodating units as various as the light infantry javelinman, the Macedonian pike phalanx, the scythed chariot, the Burmese elephant mounting 12 archers, the fire syphoneer, and Sung Chinese rocket artillery.
Furthermore both point and non-point systems also support successful fantasy variations. (Dragon = elephant + fire syphon + ignores terrain.)
The only thing that frustrated me with the GWWHFB points system was the army composition percentages.
As End Times kicked off, my friend and I were all for starting fantasy armies. I was going to do Vampire Counts. I loved (still do!) the Nagash model, but the plans fell apart on the realisation that I'd need to a) field about a 4000 point army to be able to take him in the first place and b) spend the rest of my life painting compulsory bloody skeletons...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/02 10:10:41
Crispy78 wrote: The only thing that frustrated me with the GWWHFB points system was the army composition percentages.
As End Times kicked off, my friend and I were all for starting fantasy armies. I was going to do Vampire Counts. I loved (still do!) the Nagash model, but the plans fell apart on the realisation that I'd need to a) field about a 4000 point army to be able to take him in the first place and b) spend the rest of my life painting compulsory bloody skeletons...
Didn't they change the army composition rules so you only needed 2000pts to field him, 1000pts of which was Nagash himself? Or was that my imagination?
Crispy78 wrote: The only thing that frustrated me with the GWWHFB points system was the army composition percentages.
As End Times kicked off, my friend and I were all for starting fantasy armies. I was going to do Vampire Counts. I loved (still do!) the Nagash model, but the plans fell apart on the realisation that I'd need to a) field about a 4000 point army to be able to take him in the first place and b) spend the rest of my life painting compulsory bloody skeletons...
Didn't they change the army composition rules so you only needed 2000pts to field him, 1000pts of which was Nagash himself? Or was that my imagination?
End Times 1 (released with nagash) introduced the 50% lord rule so yes, he could fit into a 2000 point game. End times 5 allowed you to throw all restrictions out the window and run him alone.
Fafnir wrote: Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.
Isn't it a bit early to speculate that AoS has failed? Maybe this discussion should be made once GW's end of financial year profits come in and can be compared with how they did the previous year.
"For The Emperor and Sanguinius!"
My Armies:
Blood Angels, Ultramarines,
Astra Militarum,
Mechanicus
Slaphead wrote: Isn't it a bit early to speculate that AoS has failed? Maybe this discussion should be made once GW's end of financial year profits come in and can be compared with how they did the previous year.
We those numbers will also have the 40k numbers mixed in, so we don't know how useful they will be. What we do know is that several FLGS owners have popped in here and given us information about their stores, otherwise this thread seems to mostly be for people discussing the anecdotes all over the internet that might be able to create a picture of how it has been received by the community.
Fafnir wrote: Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.
GW classify their sales according to channel, not region or product type, so AoS could be a massive success and still get buried under a flood of bad results from 40K, and no-one would be the wiser as we would only be shown that the web store was doing well.
At the moment we can only use the information presented by users of the forum. This seems to indicate the game has not been very well receivede.
However there could of course be large numbers of people who never go on forums, enthusiastically buying Aos books and kits.
Kilkrazy wrote: However there could of course be large numbers of people who never go on forums, enthusiastically buying Aos books and kits.
But not the limited editions, and not from 3rd parties, or eBay resellers.
I'm not saying that it's impossible that there's a lot of hidden AoS purchasers, but they don't seem to fit the usual spending pattern of GW fans. Maybe they have managed to find entirely new customers.
That said; even the occasional new AoS customer that makes it onto the forums say that they don't intend buying much more than the starter sets.
Slaphead wrote: Isn't it a bit early to speculate that AoS has failed? Maybe this discussion should be made once GW's end of financial year profits come in and can be compared with how they did the previous year.
We those numbers will also have the 40k numbers mixed in, so we don't know how useful they will be. What we do know is that several FLGS owners have popped in here and given us information about their stores, otherwise this thread seems to mostly be for people discussing the anecdotes all over the internet that might be able to create a picture of how it has been received by the community.
Ah ok, that would make sense. It's a shame if AoS is failing since GW had to do something in regards to the decline of fantasy. I personally think AoS is a cracking entry level game, but can definitely see how it would cause such a divided opinion.
"For The Emperor and Sanguinius!"
My Armies:
Blood Angels, Ultramarines,
Astra Militarum,
Mechanicus
Slaphead wrote: Isn't it a bit early to speculate that AoS has failed? Maybe this discussion should be made once GW's end of financial year profits come in and can be compared with how they did the previous year.
We those numbers will also have the 40k numbers mixed in, so we don't know how useful they will be. What we do know is that several FLGS owners have popped in here and given us information about their stores, otherwise this thread seems to mostly be for people discussing the anecdotes all over the internet that might be able to create a picture of how it has been received by the community.
Ah ok, that would make sense. It's a shame if AoS is failing since GW had to do something in regards to the decline of fantasy. I personally think AoS is a cracking entry level game, but can definitely see how it would cause such a divided opinion.
I think AoS could have been great alongside Fantasy as the smaller scale one, then once you want to buy the larger army you can 'graduate' on to WHFB. There would be a ton of potential there too with linked narratives/campaigns that start with AoS games and escalate to WHFB.
The problem was that they destroyed a setting with 30 years of history and swapped a mass battle (or rather super high model count skirmish) game with a much smaller skirmish game.
Fafnir wrote: Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.
Slaphead wrote: Isn't it a bit early to speculate that AoS has failed? Maybe this discussion should be made once GW's end of financial year profits come in and can be compared with how they did the previous year.
We those numbers will also have the 40k numbers mixed in, so we don't know how useful they will be. What we do know is that several FLGS owners have popped in here and given us information about their stores, otherwise this thread seems to mostly be for people discussing the anecdotes all over the internet that might be able to create a picture of how it has been received by the community.
There are two common errors involving anecdotal evidence- the first is to rely upon it, giving it too much weight.
The other error is to ignore it, and not give it sufficient weight.
I remember the D&D 3.X/4e/Pathfinder debates - with the 4e fans crying 'Anecdotal evidence! It doesn't matter'... until WotC announced that 5e was in the works, because 4e suffered from exactly what the anecdotal evidence was supporting.
If there is an overwhelming majority of anecdotes supporting the premise of a failing AoS, then chances are very good that AoS is failing.
I am not surprised by this failure, but I am very surprised at how quickly that failure is becoming evident - I had expected AoS to enjoy a longer 'honeymoon' period.
The Auld Grump
Kilkrazy wrote:When I was a young boy all my wargames were narratively based because I played with my toy soldiers and vehicles without the use of any rules.
The reason I bought rules and became a real wargamer was because I wanted a properly thought out structure to govern the action instead of just making things up as I went along.
Slaphead wrote: Isn't it a bit early to speculate that AoS has failed? Maybe this discussion should be made once GW's end of financial year profits come in and can be compared with how they did the previous year.
We those numbers will also have the 40k numbers mixed in, so we don't know how useful they will be. What we do know is that several FLGS owners have popped in here and given us information about their stores, otherwise this thread seems to mostly be for people discussing the anecdotes all over the internet that might be able to create a picture of how it has been received by the community.
There are two common errors involving anecdotal evidence- the first is to rely upon it, giving it too much weight.
The other error is to ignore it, and not give it sufficient weight.
I remember the D&D 3.X/4e/Pathfinder debates - with the 4e fans crying 'Anecdotal evidence! It doesn't matter'... until WotC announced that 5e was in the works, because 4e suffered from exactly what the anecdotal evidence was supporting.
If there is an overwhelming majority of anecdotes supporting the premise of a failing AoS, then chances are very good that AoS is failing.
I am not surprised by this failure, but I am very surprised at how quickly that failure is becoming evident - I had expected AoS to enjoy a longer 'honeymoon' period.
The Auld Grump
Not enough wargamers with Stockholm's for that
"Let them that are happy talk of piety; we that would work our adversary must take no account of laws."http://back2basing.blogspot.pt/
I think it's problem was that a lot of people were excited to see what new things their armies would get, what new fluff, new aesthetics, new models, etc. Then the first month or two is just sigmarines after sigmarines after sigmarines and us Dark Elf players STILL don't even know if our army still exists anymore.
I'm thinking GW expected Sigmarines to be a lot more popular than they were, and, anecdotally, it seems that's what we have heard from store owners. Big sales at the beginning for the starter, then absolutely no sales for the actual sigmarines.
Fafnir wrote: Oh, I certainly vote with my dollar, but the problem is that that is not enough. The problem with the 'vote with your dollar' response is that it doesn't take into account why we're not buying the product. I want to enjoy 40k enough to buy back in. It was my introduction to traditional games, and there was a time when I enjoyed it very much. I want to buy 40k, but Gamesworkshop is doing their very best to push me away, and simply not buying their product won't tell them that.
jonolikespie wrote: I think it's problem was that a lot of people were excited to see what new things their armies would get, what new fluff, new aesthetics, new models, etc. Then the first month or two is just sigmarines after sigmarines after sigmarines and us Dark Elf players STILL don't even know if our army still exists anymore.
I'm thinking GW expected Sigmarines to be a lot more popular than they were, and, anecdotally, it seems that's what we have heard from store owners. Big sales at the beginning for the starter, then absolutely no sales for the actual sigmarines.
Part of the "problem" may be in the value of the starter and the culture that the game encourages. First, the starter has a lot of good stuff for Sigmarites in it; pretty much everything you "need" to play. Then, it's buy what you want, play what you want, and cut out some stuff to make it fair against the other guy. The game doesn't inherently encourage the arms race culture via rules -- starter box gives you 1000 points but you need 2000 points; starter box gives you a playable force but to win you want super duper formation; spamming 30 of these is way better than mixing it up; etc. -- mostly because if your battleforce is really effective and the other person's isn't, you are expected to to tone it down anyhow.
So unless you want to model more Sigmarites and love them from a unique model perspective, why buy them? My wife has the starter and almost new every Sigmarite release, and she really likes the game, yet she has barely touched to the non-Starter Sigmarites. I think a couple of the winged fellas (Prosecutors) and two heroes, and that's it. Why? If she painted and played them, it would just mean that she'd have to cut something else out of her army, since her friends aren't really building bigger or more powerful armies.
Slaphead wrote: Isn't it a bit early to speculate that AoS has failed? Maybe this discussion should be made once GW's end of financial year profits come in and can be compared with how they did the previous year.
In answer to this question, as well as HMBC's similar comment: I've been extremely busy with work lately, and so haven't been following the fortunes and comments of anything on Dakka in much detail. I have noticed quite a few comments scattered about suggesting that the game has "failed", which seemed a little extreme this early on. I asked the questions in the OP in order to see if it was just "H8rs gonna h8" type stuff, or if there's more to it. While there's not much in the way of "hard facts" at this stage, there are some telling and interesting points. I certainly didn't expect the thread to turn into this kind of juggernaut...
Anyone near GWHQ? Able to drive past and see if the Sigmarine has indeed come down already?
If there is an overwhelming majority of anecdotes supporting the premise of a failing AoS, then chances are very good that AoS is failing.
I am not surprised by this failure, but I am very surprised at how quickly that failure is becoming evident - I had expected AoS to enjoy a longer 'honeymoon' period.
The Auld Grump
Speaking of anecdotal...
I bought my own 4 boxes of the starter pretty quickly, but haven't felt a need to buy any more since then...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/02 21:38:38
jonolikespie wrote: I think it's problem was that a lot of people were excited to see what new things their armies would get, what new fluff, new aesthetics, new models, etc. Then the first month or two is just sigmarines after sigmarines after sigmarines and us Dark Elf players STILL don't even know if our army still exists anymore.
I'm thinking GW expected Sigmarines to be a lot more popular than they were, and, anecdotally, it seems that's what we have heard from store owners. Big sales at the beginning for the starter, then absolutely no sales for the actual sigmarines.
Were I to invent my own scurrilous rumor, it would be that Age of Sigmar only exists because End Times was so successful, that the original intent of End Times was just to sunset Warhammer Fantasy Battle....
If there is an overwhelming majority of anecdotes supporting the premise of a failing AoS, then chances are very good that AoS is failing.
I am not surprised by this failure, but I am very surprised at how quickly that failure is becoming evident - I had expected AoS to enjoy a longer 'honeymoon' period.
The Auld Grump
Speaking of anecdotal...
I bought my own 4 boxes of the starter pretty quickly, but haven't felt a need to buy any more since then...
Also anecdotal, I felt no urge to buy a single starter set, and still don't. (Rules aside, I just don't like the figures.)
In a group of 28 players, only one has bought the starter, and he got it to convert to Blood Angels.
By comparison, pretty much everybody in the group hated 8th edition Warhammer... but several still bought boxes of Island of Blood for use in Kings of War - the High Elves, in particular, are well worth the price of the box.
Outside of the peculiar universe of Warhammer: We Done Blowed Up The World, most of the Sigmarine figures just aren't all that useful, and the Khorne figures just don't make the box all that worthwhile on their own.
The Auld Grump
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/02 22:04:03
Kilkrazy wrote:When I was a young boy all my wargames were narratively based because I played with my toy soldiers and vehicles without the use of any rules.
The reason I bought rules and became a real wargamer was because I wanted a properly thought out structure to govern the action instead of just making things up as I went along.
Azazelx wrote: I quite like the models, and buying the starter boxes from a US Discounter was a reasonable price for me as opposed to AU retail.
I plan to use the Sigmarines as Basilean-Ogres in KoW and/or Custodes/Inquisitors/Marine Heroes. There are some lovely conversions out there.
The Khorne guys can be used as Berserkers in 40k, or whatever Not-Chaos is called in KoW.
I have not seen the Sigmarines next to Mantic Ogres, for a comparison, but I do know that I quite like the Mantic Ogres.
The Sigmarines... just do not excite or interest me - they seem like faceless automatons, while the Mantic Ogres have very expressive faces, and a commander that looks more like he is talking to somebody than threatening him. (Again, I quite like that figure.)
As constructs/servitors of Basilea, and as Counts As Ogres for such a use... yeah, I can see that - not my cuppa, but I would have no trouble playing against that army, and it seems a good fit.
If I were still playing 40K then the Sigmarines might interest me more, but the last two editions of WH40K made me finally sell off my Dark Angels. (I do not dislike Unbound, I loathe it.)
Not-Chaos humans are called the Varangur - Khorne would be closest to Brand of the Warrior.
Khorne has always been the least interesting of the Chaos gods, as far as I have been concerned, Tzeench and Nurgle have always topped my list for Chaos, even in Mordheim. (Carnival of Nurgle.)
Given the lack of interest in the box among my group... I am not the only one that just sort of shrugged and moved on. It is quite possible that it would take something very special to bring my group back into the fold. We have flipped from being negative-neutral to active dislike.
That said, some of us still have hopes for the return of Specialist Games, so we may not be as much of a lost cause as our reaction to AoS might indicate.
The Auld Grump
Kilkrazy wrote:When I was a young boy all my wargames were narratively based because I played with my toy soldiers and vehicles without the use of any rules.
The reason I bought rules and became a real wargamer was because I wanted a properly thought out structure to govern the action instead of just making things up as I went along.
II really want to find a gaming club that would want to play Kings of War, as I really want to use Stormcast in KoW for the ubiquitous Ogre/Basilean army, as well as maybe a cool skirmish force for something like Song of Blades and Heroes. Hell, going through Ebay, the Stormcast half of a boxed set plus a box of judicators w/ an extra guy bought as a solo (so you have two three-man troops of shooters) nets a really workable KoW army for around $100us, which is pretty damn good.
I will never, ever buy any of the hugely priced solos, though. I feel after 20 years of Space Marine conversions I can convert perfectly good, unique-to-me versions by buying bitz off Ebay. $40 for a Knight Venator, or less than $10 for a boxed set Prosecutor single, plus a few dollars for the bits for a Skybolt bow and quiver of arrows (or use the spare bits not used from a box if using those for crossbows) to make my own?
But I find myself far more exited to use them in KoW than in Age of Sigmar.
"By this point I'm convinced 100% that every single race in the 40k universe have somehow tapped into the ork ability to just have their tech work because they think it should."
Interesting mixed views in the thread. I know it seems to be growing around me. I must say its all new people playing and none of the previous WHFB crowds. I myself came back to AoS after leaving WHFB 15 years ago. It has been tons of fun and I now own two large armies and a third after Christmas. I'm looking forward to some of the many upcoming tournaments that seem to be going well. The clash comp seems to answer almost every imbalance concern most people had.
coldgaming wrote: I used to play Warhammer in 5th/6th/7th, and I'm put off by points now too. As much as I think some 40k models are cool, the points system and all the rules make it a dead end for me. Speaking for myself, no points has given me a freedom and ease of entry that has made my hobbying go up ten fold. I'm into making units and armies that I think are cool, not trying to take a certain number of models in order to fit inside a points limit and army comp.
Bear in mind though, there is a difference between a points system, and a gw points system.
There is no reason to suggest that a use of points translates into a lack of freedom or a difficulty of entry into a game. You can still do armies that are cool. If you want more, up the points limits. Its just another way of saying 'take more stuff'. Points are basically just a structural tool that can be used to help assign in-game value.
Yes, I mean points in general. I wrote in that post I don't want to follow a points limit or army comp, so that is my reason to suggest no points gives me more freedom and ease of entry. I don't want to have to paint 5 units of core for the one unit I actually want and be constrained about how to put together my force. I don't disagree there's value in both ways.
coldgaming wrote: I used to play Warhammer in 5th/6th/7th, and I'm put off by points now too. As much as I think some 40k models are cool, the points system and all the rules make it a dead end for me. Speaking for myself, no points has given me a freedom and ease of entry that has made my hobbying go up ten fold. I'm into making units and armies that I think are cool, not trying to take a certain number of models in order to fit inside a points limit and army comp.
Bear in mind though, there is a difference between a points system, and a gw points system.
There is no reason to suggest that a use of points translates into a lack of freedom or a difficulty of entry into a game. You can still do armies that are cool. If you want more, up the points limits. Its just another way of saying 'take more stuff'. Points are basically just a structural tool that can be used to help assign in-game value.
Yes, I mean points in general. I wrote in that post I don't want to follow a points limit or army comp, so that is my reason to suggest no points gives me more freedom and ease of entry. I don't want to have to paint 5 units of core for the one unit I actually want and be constrained about how to put together my force. I don't disagree there's value in both ways.
That's still a very GW-centric view of points.
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions.
And I lurk the P&M section looking at pretty models and wishing I could paint better. And reading the very useful tips and tricks as I try to improve beyond the point of totally embarrassing.
Coming from the other end, I could easily spend much less money on many more minis - especially with £100 Archaons and £60-for-3 cav floating around - and get 
Blood Angels, 
Ultramarines,
