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.

If everyone could calm down with their posting that'd be great. This is about toy soldiers, chill people

Baron Klatz wrote:


This is why I really fear for a Wfb sidegame to be made. Instead of bringing the fanbases together I can only see it making us more toxic to each other as we argue over the success of our games.

Baron this is already reality.

Today I got called an assblasted fantasy player, who plays a boring game in his toxic, vile little enclaves. This started, when I asked where are Tomb Kings and Bretonnia.

This is from a white knight AoS player. Its not Shrinos , he is an okay dude

GW should make a entry skirmish game ( AoS style ), which can lead to a WHFB, if you want. By the way folks is the necromancer ( not Kemmler ) on sale again? Its a great mini.

 Just Tony wrote:
during 6th.

But not for 8th. 6th edition was great, but that was then. I remember playing Skaven during 8th, and the FAQ and Errata you needed was incredibly long. Not to mention my rulebook FAQ/Errata (all of which I had on me, in addition to my rulebook). And if you played in tournaments, you needed all of these on hand for reference. Definitely not 4 pages. I ended up switching to Dwarves and Tomb Kings instead.

That being said, 8th wasn't a terribly bloated ruleset imo, compared to others (I'm looking at you, Flames of War). The generic special rules in the main brb applied to most stuff, and all the unit special rules included in the appropriate bestiary entry (much like the current battletome/warscroll) system. I think we can all agree that it was model count that killed WHFB more than anything else. When a box of core troops constitutes about half of a unit (and not even a full half, for the 16 man kits), it definitely creates a barrier of entry and can be somewhat counter intuitive. And with the price increase of some units, making 30-40 man units wasn't always cheap. AoS definitely won't fit the bill for people who enjoyed WHFB's formation-oriented gameplay, and I think that in that regard it's a poor substitute. But AoS as it is fills a different niche for me, and there are definitely alternatives available.

But as to the OP's question? They just announced a new book for AoS (Disciples of Tzeentch) and have revealed some of the new releases we're going to see over the course of the next coming months. So no, I don't think they'll backpedal the rules or background.

Lord Kragan wrote:


Also, do I need to point out he outright references using the rulebook, not armybuilder or any listbuilding software? Because by that same metric both games are equal, yes indeed they are. But by the metric of: finding data in 200+ pages-long book (or two books, if you use the armybook's special rules) vs 10 pages stitched together are NOT equal.

You realize that the summary of the 8th edition rules are on 4 pages....

herjan1987 wrote:

Baron Klatz wrote:


This is why I really fear for a Wfb sidegame to be made. Instead of bringing the fanbases together I can only see it making us more toxic to each other as we argue over the success of our games.

Baron this is already reality.

Today I got called a assblasted fantasy player, who plays a boring game in his toxic, vile little enclaves. This started, when I asked where are Tomb Kings and Bretonnia.

This is from a white knight AoS player. Its not Shrinos , he is an okay dude

GW should make a entry skirmish game ( AoS style ), which can lead to a WHFB, if you want. By the way folks is the necromancer ( not Kemmler ) on sale again? Its a great mini.

That's terrible! It really should be AN assblasted fantasy player.

Joyboozer wrote:

herjan1987 wrote:

Baron Klatz wrote:


This is why I really fear for a Wfb sidegame to be made. Instead of bringing the fanbases together I can only see it making us more toxic to each other as we argue over the success of our games.

Baron this is already reality.

Today I got called an assblasted fantasy player, who plays a boring game in his toxic, vile little enclaves. This started, when I asked where are Tomb Kings and Bretonnia.

This is from a white knight AoS player. Its not Shrinos , he is an okay dude

GW should make a entry skirmish game ( AoS style ), which can lead to a WHFB, if you want. By the way folks is the necromancer ( not Kemmler ) on sale again? Its a great mini.

That's terrible! It really should be AN assblasted fantasy player.

English is not my native language , but thanks for the hint.

Baron Klatz wrote:

Except you can't join characters to units unlike in fantasy, which is mindbogglingly stupid IMO. 

Works for Total War Warhammer.
Also, wasn't that how Warmaster was or did I overlook. Something?

Kings of War does the same, and that's a pretty much universally well regarded ruleset where move and manoeuvre is king. Plenty of other games as well. Pretty sure it's just a design choice that simply differs from WHFB and 40k. I guess if you may not have a broader experience the mechanic seems weird and therefore some might want to lash out at it since it's attached to AoS?

@Joyboozer, Have to exalt good grammer.

@Herjan, Really sorry that happened to you. Fellow hobbyists should be more courteous to one another. (Sadly, internet. -_-*)

Not sure why he got onto you about asking about those factions, though. They're still GW's property and they can still resurrect them as new AoS factions. Unless you pressed the issue there's really nothing to get upset about.

Tomb kings already got two shout-outs in the fluff and I think I saw a Bretonnia shout-out with the Volpone kingdom which has (or rather had) a large knight army and had a sacred river.

Wasn't the entry skirmish game for Wfb basically Mordheim? There was also skirmish scenarios in the BRB like a hero last stand, too bad that stuff never caught on.

Can't say I wouldn't like more easy to get into games from GW, though.

(* I mean, the internet's toxic levels are on the uprise these days. Just look at the new Bretonnia announcement on Reddit. The top is good and informational but the bottom is open season on Bretonnia and lewd comments..

https://www.reddit.com/r/totalwar/comments/5jqgk5/eleventh_day_of_festag/ )

herjan1987 wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:


Also, do I need to point out he outright references using the rulebook, not armybuilder or any listbuilding software? Because by that same metric both games are equal, yes indeed they are. But by the metric of: finding data in 200+ pages-long book (or two books, if you use the armybook's special rules) vs 10 pages stitched together are NOT equal.

You realize that the summary of the 8th edition rules are on 4 pages....

Yes, and all the special rules too, aren't they? Which is my exact point, but nice job missing it. And it's not even 10 pages, that's accounting having a huge-ass image occupying most of it. My army literally takes two pages worth of rules, and I use almost every unit in my rooster.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Yeah, like bookmarks don't exist, OR things like Army Builder, which collects rules for units in one page so you can reference it throughout the game. I realize you really really REALLY love AOS, but try not to be biased. Until you had AOS memorized, you had to flit back and forth through the pages of the rules (all 4) and flitting back and forth between the unit rules. Kind of like every other game that uses printed stat lines. EVERY. OTHER. GAME.
Seriously, this is really starting to border on the kind of belligerence I'd expect from political discussion.

.... Are we going through this again? Do I need to point out the sheer hipocrisy in calling the opposing side biased but ignoring the fact that your side is doing the exact same thing?

Also, do I need to point out he outright references using the rulebook, not armybuilder or any listbuilding software? Because by that same metric both games are equal, yes indeed they are. But by the metric of: finding data in 200+ pages-long book (or two books, if you use the armybook's special rules) vs 10 pages stitched together are NOT equal. Please don't move the goalposts, we were talking of a very specific thing and totally unrelated to your point of a player learning the ropes. In which case I'm still going to say you're going to spend less time flitting through pages as you have 10 versus the 300 of the other ruleset and you may not have heard yet of battlescribe and the like. And those rules won't be scattered across the 10 pages, but contained on their own sections: forget about finding out where's fleet or which was the precision shot's bookmark. Grab a white page to act as cover. Write down 1-4 general rules, 5 x unit, 6 y unit. And so on. You won't be needing bookmarks or anything else.

So are "move the goalposts" and "strawman" your go-to comments when you don't have a legitimate argument except "I like what you don't like"? When it comes down to it, WFB could be scaled down to 4 pages during 6th. I usually carried the printed cheat sheet that came in White Dwarf and the cheat sheet for the magic phase and lores together wedged into my army book's summary page. That was all I needed unless I had magic items, which were written on my list, OR I used them so much I didn't need to reference them. So once again, "EPIC MASSIVE TEDIOUS SIZESESESESES!!!!!!!!!!!1!1!!!!!!!!!!!!" just doesn't hold up, unless you are too lazy to do a little preparation beforehand, like ALL OF US DO WHEN MAKING OUR LISTS AT HOME BEFORE DECIDING TO BUY OUR FIRST MODEL. Notice no goalposts moved, and no strawmen appear. Also, I hate both football AND scarecrows...

So are "you're biased" and "you don't have legitimate arguments" your go to argment when you don't have any actual argument either? Because this is like the fourth fifth time you've used both of those lines (accounting the previous comment) in the last two discussions we've had. Compare me using mtG ONCE and strawman TWICE, thrice if you want to count the time I explain why I'm calling him so, the latter on a legitimate case, on all these conversations. Do I need to point out your go-to argument from the previous discussio:"you're not fantasy related, you shouldn't comment!" or your fallacy of "I'm sure you'd hate it to have haters on your forums! (even though it was a spite-thread towards AoS)". Marvelous and rock solid arguments, mind you.

WHFB's basic rules could be scaled down to 4 pages. But WHFB had a lot more rules than the core ones as well and you know it, which you needed to hunt down through the books and go write yourself instead of doing a simple printing or bringing in your tablet without doing ANY prep-work. And not everyone does this. I've met a ton of 40k players that just listed what they brought and relied on the rulebook for getting the rules, fantasy would be hardly different. So ALL OF US DO WHEN MAKING OUR LISTS AT HOME is not the truth and I've seen it on other game systems.

herjan1987 wrote:

Baron Klatz wrote:


This is why I really fear for a Wfb sidegame to be made. Instead of bringing the fanbases together I can only see it making us more toxic to each other as we argue over the success of our games.

Baron this is already reality.

Today I got called an assblasted fantasy player, who plays a boring game in his toxic, vile little enclaves. This started, when I asked where are Tomb Kings and Bretonnia.

This is from a white knight AoS player. Its not Shrinos , he is an okay dude

GW should make a entry skirmish game ( AoS style ), which can lead to a WHFB, if you want. By the way folks is the necromancer ( not Kemmler ) on sale again? Its a great mini.

*sigh* This hobby has people like that unfortunately no one should be insulted like that for asking such a question.

 shinros wrote:

herjan1987 wrote:

Baron Klatz wrote:


This is why I really fear for a Wfb sidegame to be made. Instead of bringing the fanbases together I can only see it making us more toxic to each other as we argue over the success of our games.

Baron this is already reality.

Today I got called an assblasted fantasy player, who plays a boring game in his toxic, vile little enclaves. This started, when I asked where are Tomb Kings and Bretonnia.

This is from a white knight AoS player. Its not Shrinos , he is an okay dude

GW should make a entry skirmish game ( AoS style ), which can lead to a WHFB, if you want. By the way folks is the necromancer ( not Kemmler ) on sale again? Its a great mini.

*sigh* This hobby has people like that unfortunately no one should be insulted like that for asking such a question.

Nyeh, every body has its donkey-cave, and communities are but a giant body made of many people. Personally this kind of stuff should be ignored expediently, like that time I got called a Sigmatard and a beaten wife-shill. Or that time I got called a mass cigarette-got when debating a haloite. Or...

I get into many heated discussions.

 Azazelx wrote:

Baron Klatz wrote:

Except you can't join characters to units unlike in fantasy, which is mindbogglingly stupid IMO. 

Works for Total War Warhammer.
Also, wasn't that how Warmaster was or did I overlook. Something?

Kings of War does the same, and that's a pretty much universally well regarded ruleset where move and manoeuvre is king. Plenty of other games as well. Pretty sure it's just a design choice that simply differs from WHFB and 40k. I guess if you may not have a broader experience the mechanic seems weird and therefore some might want to lash out at it since it's attached to AoS?

Hero units in Total War Warhammer are on a different order of magnitude to those in WHFB.

Lord Kragan wrote:

herjan1987 wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:


Also, do I need to point out he outright references using the rulebook, not armybuilder or any listbuilding software? Because by that same metric both games are equal, yes indeed they are. But by the metric of: finding data in 200+ pages-long book (or two books, if you use the armybook's special rules) vs 10 pages stitched together are NOT equal.

You realize that the summary of the 8th edition rules are on 4 pages....

Yes, and all the special rules too, aren't they? Which is my exact point, but nice job missing it. And it's not even 10 pages, that's accounting having a huge-ass image occupying most of it. My army literally takes two pages worth of rules, and I use almost every unit in my rooster.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
Yeah, like bookmarks don't exist, OR things like Army Builder, which collects rules for units in one page so you can reference it throughout the game. I realize you really really REALLY love AOS, but try not to be biased. Until you had AOS memorized, you had to flit back and forth through the pages of the rules (all 4) and flitting back and forth between the unit rules. Kind of like every other game that uses printed stat lines. EVERY. OTHER. GAME.
Seriously, this is really starting to border on the kind of belligerence I'd expect from political discussion.

.... Are we going through this again? Do I need to point out the sheer hipocrisy in calling the opposing side biased but ignoring the fact that your side is doing the exact same thing?

Also, do I need to point out he outright references using the rulebook, not armybuilder or any listbuilding software? Because by that same metric both games are equal, yes indeed they are. But by the metric of: finding data in 200+ pages-long book (or two books, if you use the armybook's special rules) vs 10 pages stitched together are NOT equal. Please don't move the goalposts, we were talking of a very specific thing and totally unrelated to your point of a player learning the ropes. In which case I'm still going to say you're going to spend less time flitting through pages as you have 10 versus the 300 of the other ruleset and you may not have heard yet of battlescribe and the like. And those rules won't be scattered across the 10 pages, but contained on their own sections: forget about finding out where's fleet or which was the precision shot's bookmark. Grab a white page to act as cover. Write down 1-4 general rules, 5 x unit, 6 y unit. And so on. You won't be needing bookmarks or anything else.

So are "move the goalposts" and "strawman" your go-to comments when you don't have a legitimate argument except "I like what you don't like"? When it comes down to it, WFB could be scaled down to 4 pages during 6th. I usually carried the printed cheat sheet that came in White Dwarf and the cheat sheet for the magic phase and lores together wedged into my army book's summary page. That was all I needed unless I had magic items, which were written on my list, OR I used them so much I didn't need to reference them. So once again, "EPIC MASSIVE TEDIOUS SIZESESESESES!!!!!!!!!!!1!1!!!!!!!!!!!!" just doesn't hold up, unless you are too lazy to do a little preparation beforehand, like ALL OF US DO WHEN MAKING OUR LISTS AT HOME BEFORE DECIDING TO BUY OUR FIRST MODEL. Notice no goalposts moved, and no strawmen appear. Also, I hate both football AND scarecrows...

So are "you're biased" and "you don't have legitimate arguments" your go to argment when you don't have any actual argument either? Because this is like the fourth fifth time you've used both of those lines (accounting the previous comment) in the last two discussions we've had. Compare me using mtG ONCE and strawman TWICE, thrice if you want to count the time I explain why I'm calling him so, the latter on a legitimate case, on all these conversations. Do I need to point out your go-to argument from the previous discussio:"you're not fantasy related, you shouldn't comment!" or your fallacy of "I'm sure you'd hate it to have haters on your forums! (even though it was a spite-thread towards AoS)". Marvelous and rock solid arguments, mind you.

WHFB's basic rules could be scaled down to 4 pages. But WHFB had a lot more rules than the core ones as well and you know it, which you needed to hunt down through the books and go write yourself instead of doing a simple printing or bringing in your tablet without doing ANY prep-work. And not everyone does this. I've met a ton of 40k players that just listed what they brought and relied on the rulebook for getting the rules, fantasy would be hardly different. So ALL OF US DO WHEN MAKING OUR LISTS AT HOME is not the truth and I've seen it on other game systems.

Unless someone is a complete rockhead, they can pretty much memorize the special rules without having to flit through the book for hours on end during one combat phase. You are aware of this, and you are also aware that AOS has more rules than just the 4 pages. Between the GHB, the data cards for the units themselves, AND any FAQ's or materials exclusive to one of the books, you have just as much to cycle through, especially with alll the interworking synergies (Yep, still vomit a little just typing that word...) of the units. Yet I'm betting you don't have to flip through your rolodex of info. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not one of those rockheads who can't memorize the most widely used rules after two games. Don't prove me wrong.

You do know that people can't play regularly always, don't you? I've met people who would spend a few weeks between games because of their schedule. Playing so sporadically will make you rusty as you'll barely remember the rules, since you've done a lot of other stuff. It doesn't need a morrron to not remember something properly if you use the tools infrequently.

Okay, upon saying that quote of yours of vomiting upon hearing sinergies, I'm realizing that you're either a) the worst fantasy player ever because you just ram your units individually without a care and wihtout rhime or thought for anything else or b) just in plain self-denial. Because I just needed one look at 1d4chan and reading this:

Lore Attribute: Wildheart: Basically, your spells are easier to cast at cavalry, warbeasts or Beastmen.

To find out that there's sinergies on fantasy as there will be more reliable magic on . And that IS sinergy: x is more powerful because of Y, and in turn, x improves Y, making the whole better than the sum of its parts.

The Empire's master engineer is another example, as he allows re-rolls to artillery. That means bring in great utility to artillery lists and crap to infantry hordes. That's unit specific sinergy.

Fantasy had them too. STOP MAKING AN ACT AND BEING DESINGENOUS. And unlike you I'm not giving the benefit of the doubt because you've shown that same act several times.

Lord Kragan wrote:
You do know that people can't play regularly always, don't you? I've met people who would spend a few weeks between games because of their schedule. Playing so sporadically will make you rusty as you'll barely remember the rules, since you've done a lot of other stuff. It doesn't need a morrron to not remember something properly if you use the tools infrequently.

Okay, upon saying that quote of yours of vomiting upon hearing sinergies, I'm realizing that you're either a) the worst fantasy player ever because you just ram your units individually without a care and wihtout rhime or thought for anything else or b) just in plain self-denial. Because I just needed one look at 1d4chan and reading this:

Lore Attribute: Wildheart: Basically, your spells are easier to cast at cavalry, warbeasts or Beastmen.

To find out that there's sinergies on fantasy as there will be more reliable magic on . And that IS sinergy: x is more powerful because of Y, and in turn, x improves Y, making the whole better than the sum of its parts.

The Empire's master engineer is another example, as he allows re-rolls to artillery. That means bring in great utility to artillery lists and crap to infantry hordes. That's unit specific sinergy.

Fantasy had them too. STOP MAKING AN ACT AND BEING DESINGENOUS. And unlike you I'm not giving the benefit of the doubt because you've shown that same act several times.

Lord Kargan I think that Just Tony only points out thats he doesnt like that everything is sinergized. Quite frankly over time it will make the game even complicated then WHFB ever was ( maybe its already is more comlicated ). Its also a worht point out that Just Tony plays mostly 6th edition of Warhammer Fantasy, where any unit sinergys back then?

herjan1987 wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:
You do know that people can't play regularly always, don't you? I've met people who would spend a few weeks between games because of their schedule. Playing so sporadically will make you rusty as you'll barely remember the rules, since you've done a lot of other stuff. It doesn't need a morrron to not remember something properly if you use the tools infrequently.

Okay, upon saying that quote of yours of vomiting upon hearing sinergies, I'm realizing that you're either a) the worst fantasy player ever because you just ram your units individually without a care and wihtout rhime or thought for anything else or b) just in plain self-denial. Because I just needed one look at 1d4chan and reading this:

Lore Attribute: Wildheart: Basically, your spells are easier to cast at cavalry, warbeasts or Beastmen.

To find out that there's sinergies on fantasy as there will be more reliable magic on . And that IS sinergy: x is more powerful because of Y, and in turn, x improves Y, making the whole better than the sum of its parts.

The Empire's master engineer is another example, as he allows re-rolls to artillery. That means bring in great utility to artillery lists and crap to infantry hordes. That's unit specific sinergy.

Fantasy had them too. STOP MAKING AN ACT AND BEING DESINGENOUS. And unlike you I'm not giving the benefit of the doubt because you've shown that same act several times.

Lord Kargan I think that Just Tony only points out thats he doesnt like that everything is sinergized. Quite frankly over time it will make the game even complicated then WHFB ever was ( maybe its already is more comlicated ). Its also a worht point out that Just Tony plays mostly 6th edition of Warhammer Fantasy, where any unit sinergys back then?

Okay, point taken and my bad (considering that info is 8th ed based). Didn't remember that and it's my mistake. Sorry.

As for being more complicated NOW I honestly doubt it. My games at 2000pts clock in at roughly 2 hours always, and most of those that played old 8th ed say it took at least twice as that and an aspirin to finish a similar sized game of fantasy. That's something that I've heard in all the LGS's I've gone to at least once, and I've travelled a lot this year, alongside my army.

In the future? Well, that's talke for another day I have no hurry in finding out. I have enough as it is to paint my army of hulking hooligans.

Herjan got it right, and also that with what little synergies (...) that were in 8th, they were amped up beyond belief in AOS, making it feel like a cross between WM/H and M:TG. THAT is why I don't like it.

Haha! I found it!

This is the video that I refering to when I was talking about that AoS is more complex, then WHFB 8th edition:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlsQRKiACL0

H R marks out that each the removal of universal special rules, which where are the special rules that where in 8th edition main rulebook, are now spread out into the warscrolls under different names. ( this is at around 7 minute mark, but the whole video is interesting enough to watch! ).

[quote=
Okay, upon saying that quote of yours of vomiting upon hearing sinergies, I'm realizing that you're either a) the worst fantasy player ever because you just ram your units individually without a care and wihtout rhime or thought for anything else or b) just in plain self-denial. Because I just needed one look at 1d4chan and reading this:
Lore Attribute: Wildheart: Basically, your spells are easier to cast at cavalry, warbeasts or Beastmen.
.

Yeah, stackable effects to me are way different than a +1 stat buff. And to be honest, whenever I see someone going on about the stackable synergy combos on here, I always picture M:TG players Aaron or Sean from the now-defunct Phoenix Rising in Ft. Wayne, IN saying "..and then I go infinite by turn 6."

 Just Tony wrote:
Yeah, stackable effects to me are way different than a +1 stat buff. And to be honest, whenever I see someone going on about the stackable synergy combos on here, I always picture M:TG players Aaron or Sean from the now-defunct Phoenix Rising in Ft. Wayne, IN saying "..and then I go infinite by turn 6."

When did Pheonix Rising go belly up? I am from Fort Wayne, but havent been back in a long time...are there still some decent stores?

I moved away from there over a decade ago, and I think the Phoenix was gone sometime around 2005-2006. Do you remember that guy that part timed on Wednesdays over there that had the Crimson Fists army?

GW hasn't backpedaled on any change to any rulebook for a very long time, which is 95% of the problem (since they won't go back and errata rules mistakes they have to start designing new rules around broken books). I expect they'll start propping things up on top of the current AoS rules and make a hash of it.

You must remember that years ago EPIC was one of the top 3 games Games Workshop had.. They pulled a AoS on it (over simplified rules;etc) and the sales bottomed out.
So they just dropped the line..years later they tried a small attempt to bring the line back but most people move on to other games and rarely seen on any game tables anymore.

I think most of the sales for Age of Sigmar reasons is Warhammer needed to happen to that about any past gamer could see...

Lower prices (8th edition 10 count witch elves box set was $90 when released)
Lower model count (people needed 100+ models to play)
Easier way into game (you needed to buy close to $500 books and models to play)
Freedom of army choice (Forced unit types can be a bane to any game)

They could have done that clean up with Warhammer but decide there was to many things that needed copyright to keep.

Just felt like they are erasing things to shape the game into a version of game they can sue if people get to close to it.
And warhammer was the only game without marines... and now it does..

 Just Tony wrote:
Herjan got it right, and also that with what little synergies (...) that were in 8th, they were amped up beyond belief in AOS, making it feel like a cross between WM/H and M:TG. THAT is why I don't like it.

Thats a fair assessment, and I agree that AOS is definitely a lot more combo-based. It definitely has a feel similar to WM/H.

I will also say the 100+ models needed for 8th edition is a bit of an exaggeration. Horde armies needed 100+ models. I played chaos, dark elves, and tomb kings. My armies averaged 55-60 models or so. The only armies I saw over 100 models were goblins and skaven. You could do it with empire too if you were going heavy on the state troop side of things, but none of our area did that; empire armies were typically mostly cavalry affairs backed by the council of light build.

I am going off what I had seen locally with the "Horde" rule allowed in any army, it required a unit to be 10 models wide to gain the ability and people played them at least three deep..
With the minimum requirement of three army units; there was Ninety models on the table before you saw anything else... That's where I got the 100+ model number..

But having to paint 50+ models is still not inviting to new players..

Lord Kragan wrote:

herjan1987 wrote:

Lord Kragan wrote:
You do know that people can't play regularly always, don't you? I've met people who would spend a few weeks between games because of their schedule. Playing so sporadically will make you rusty as you'll barely remember the rules, since you've done a lot of other stuff. It doesn't need a morrron to not remember something properly if you use the tools infrequently.

Okay, upon saying that quote of yours of vomiting upon hearing sinergies, I'm realizing that you're either a) the worst fantasy player ever because you just ram your units individually without a care and wihtout rhime or thought for anything else or b) just in plain self-denial. Because I just needed one look at 1d4chan and reading this:

Lore Attribute: Wildheart: Basically, your spells are easier to cast at cavalry, warbeasts or Beastmen.

To find out that there's sinergies on fantasy as there will be more reliable magic on . And that IS sinergy: x is more powerful because of Y, and in turn, x improves Y, making the whole better than the sum of its parts.

The Empire's master engineer is another example, as he allows re-rolls to artillery. That means bring in great utility to artillery lists and crap to infantry hordes. That's unit specific sinergy.

Fantasy had them too. STOP MAKING AN ACT AND BEING DESINGENOUS. And unlike you I'm not giving the benefit of the doubt because you've shown that same act several times.

Lord Kargan I think that Just Tony only points out thats he doesnt like that everything is sinergized. Quite frankly over time it will make the game even complicated then WHFB ever was ( maybe its already is more comlicated ). Its also a worht point out that Just Tony plays mostly 6th edition of Warhammer Fantasy, where any unit sinergys back then?

Okay, point taken and my bad (considering that info is 8th ed based). Didn't remember that and it's my mistake. Sorry.

As for being more complicated NOW I honestly doubt it. My games at 2000pts clock in at roughly 2 hours always, and most of those that played old 8th ed say it took at least twice as that.

That's BS. 2:30h was standard tournament time for a 2.5K game.

Maybe on a casual game with lots of beer or on something like a 10K game you can get there.

 Genoside07 wrote:
I am going off what I had seen locally with the "Horde" rule allowed in any army, it required a unit to be 10 models wide to gain the ability and people played them at least three deep..
With the minimum requirement of three army units; there was Ninety models on the table before you saw anything else... That's where I got the 100+ model number..

But having to paint 50+ models is still not inviting to new players..

Yeah. I just see a lot of people claim that 8th edition games were 100-200 models on each side all the time, and that was rarely the case. There is still a sizable difference between having to paint say 100 models or 50-60. Some people don't want to paint even one model.

That the popular games are all shrinking to be 10-20 models makes me sad.

That's BS. 2:30h was standard tournament time for a 2.5K game.

Maybe on a casual game with lots of beer or on something like a 10K game you can get there.

Most people didn't play tournament-speed. The only people that could pull that off were heavy tournament players. THe vast majority of our community weren't tournament players and indeed a 2500 point game at our campaign days was 4-5 hours for years. The tournament guys would complain that 4-5 hours was way too much and that in real games (tournaments) you only had 2.5 hours. That of course was why they had a hard time recruiting new players into their tournaments... both because of the fast play and because of the patronizing and condescending tones about how 4-5 hours was way too much.

 auticus wrote:


Most people didn't play tournament-speed. The only people that could pull that off were heavy tournament players. THe vast majority of our community weren't tournament players and indeed a 2500 point game at our campaign days was 4-5 hours for years. The tournament guys would complain that 4-5 hours was way too much and that in real games (tournaments) you only had 2.5 hours. That of course was why they had a hard time recruiting new players into their tournaments... both because of the fast play and because of the patronizing and condescending tones about how 4-5 hours was way too much.

If you turned a 2.5K game into a 4-5h either you were checking rules at every step or were deliberately stalling it (like spending 10 minutes to decide which spell to cast, then another 5 on how many dice to use)

Sure any game, even extremely rules-light like X-wing can double usual time if you keep chit-chatting around mid-game which is great (we do that all the time at the club with beer and lots of people coming and going, the game is basically a background for social activity) but it should not count towards game length average. That assumes people are focused on the game and know their way around the rules.

Why would people stall in a game where there was no time limit? Stalling is only a thing in tournament games where you have a time limit. I was discussing campaign day games where there was no time limit.

Yes most casual non-tournament players had a hard time memorizing the rules bible that was whfb. As such, most casual players I have ever encountered in the decades of playing WHFB often had to reference the rules bible many times during the game, and as such, the average game of 2500 points with casual non-tournment players took 4-5 hours.

Our campaign day started at noon and often wrapped up around 6:00 - 7:00. The extra time in there not part of the 4-5 hours of the game were set up, etc and tear down.

You have to realize that the number of people that memorized the rules and were super fast were not the normal player. It may seem that they were if you are a tournament player surrounded by tournament players, but tournament players are not in my experience the norm.

In comparison, we can chit chat and goof off and still get a game of xwing in under an hour. The only games of whfb that I ever played in that were under three hours were tournament games. Most people I know have never done even one tournament though.