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.

Roadkill Zombie wrote:

Rihgu wrote:
Your group has a very poor understanding of the rules if they think there's any level of that stuff going on. Or, they should at least be saying the same thing about any of the other wargames they play...

No, they just think the rules are that stupid. And considering I have read the rules and seen the silly things in the game such as getting bonuses to dwarfs to hit rolls because you have a longer beard than your opponent, they aren't far wrong. It doesn't matter if those rules are simply a get you by list, they are still the only current rules set. And that is just too much for some people.

At least the GM is not making the Players sing 'Denton' from the 'Rocky Horror Picture Show' every time the name 'Denton' came up.

That was a wrong WoD Game.

 BobtheInquisitor wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Here's the thing, balance isn't necessary for a fun game. By extension points or equivalent system isn't needed for AoS to be good. But without such a system in place, AoS has alienated all of the players who wanted that. If it had a points system, then players who wanted to play without it could still do so but there is this pervasive idea that AoS somehow invented playing without points out of thin air and it is impossible to do that if the game had points. Similarly, WAAC/TFG could not be ignored in a game with points; we HAD to play against those people. But now with AoS we can walk away when they try to break the game, which we were somehow unable to do before.

To put it another way, most people want some semblance of balance in their games. A version of chess where one side has pawns instead of rooks might be fun for some folks, but would never sell as well as the version where both sides were equal.

I know what I'm saying here is an exaggeration, but regardless of one's opinion on the rules themselves we should be able to agree the total lack of a balance mechanism was not a good choice for players or for business. GW may want to be a model company with a light game on the side, but that attitude is not what made them successful in the first place, and will never sell as many models than if they had a great game alongside them.
.
Sidenote: AoS can have tactics, but that requires some semblance of balance first. The tactics available won't help you if my force is crushingly superior (which, as has been stated before, is possible even among friendly players trying to have a balanced game).

Obviously abandoning everything their long term customers loved about WHF was a mistake if they care about repeat customers or word of mouth. However, AOS can still have its own merits once one gets past that. If one gets past that.

I expect to see gamers using KoW rules for their armies and only supporting the GW products they find worthwhile, such as FW or 40k starter sets.

Fair enough. My post was a bit strongly worded due to frustration; I do see merits in AoS, its the attempts to justify what are clearly flaws in the design (regardless if one likes the result or not) that rub me the wrong way. Count me among those shipping over to KoW for mass fantasy battles, and if a balance system starts getting widely accepted (I'm looking at the PPC in proposed rules in particular) I would likely end up playing AoS on the side. Still, with the way GW released AoS they have really diminished my interest in them long term because what little confidence I had in the continuity of their games is now gone. I briefly looked to getting back into 40k but then thought "its not unlikely that they sigmarify (or something equivalent) 40k in the next two years" and gave up on the idea almost immediately.

99% of table top war games move in the same way as this game... ruler, move models for best strategic placement for shooting, assault, or objectives, etc. ...
Yes there is no flanking but I rather like the less restrictive movements.

The movement in the game is less pivotal than it has been in previous editions of warhammer. The randomness of how charging works now (particularly for rolling off for who goes first) and the removal of psychology and fleeing both simplify movement far too much for my liking.
You're calling it less restrictive and I'm calling it less nuanced. I guess we have to agree to disagree.

Movement does matter due to pile ins and weapon ranges if you get in the side of a unit theres less to hit back at you. Oh look flanking. Hit ghem front and back your opponant either splits attacks or takes a full units attack damage. how do you do this? by movement with fast units how to stop it is setting up 3" nogo zones with your own troops which require movement and thought.

Are you suggesting movement matters because you want to get closer to the enemy so you can hit more of them? If that's what I'm reading then that's not really comparable to previous editions of WFB which included definite charge ranges and fleeing.
As to your comment about flanking, if you hit them in the flank, you're just as limited in the number of attacks you can bring to bear, given that its all based on who's in base to base contact.
As to hitting them in the front and back, I cede to you that yes, if you have more units in combat with a single unit, they have to split their attacks. And the easiest way to achieve this is through higher movement speed.

I believe I said that there did still seem to be some degree of tactics in the game but that they paled in comparison to previous editions of warhammer. If you are happy with AoS, I'm happy for you. I don't enjoy that everything has been simplified.

 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:

99% of table top war games move in the same way as this game... ruler, move models for best strategic placement for shooting, assault, or objectives, etc. ...
Yes there is no flanking but I rather like the less restrictive movements.

The movement in the game is less pivotal than it has been in previous editions of warhammer. The randomness of how charging works now (particularly for rolling off for who goes first) and the removal of psychology and fleeing both simplify movement far too much for my liking.
You're calling it less restrictive and I'm calling it less nuanced. I guess we have to agree to disagree.

Movement does matter due to pile ins and weapon ranges if you get in the side of a unit theres less to hit back at you. Oh look flanking. Hit ghem front and back your opponant either splits attacks or takes a full units attack damage. how do you do this? by movement with fast units how to stop it is setting up 3" nogo zones with your own troops which require movement and thought.

Are you suggesting movement matters because you want to get closer to the enemy so you can hit more of them? If that's what I'm reading then that's not really comparable to previous editions of WFB which included definite charge ranges and fleeing.
As to your comment about flanking, if you hit them in the flank, you're just as limited in the number of attacks you can bring to bear, given that its all based on who's in base to base contact.
As to hitting them in the front and back, I cede to you that yes, if you have more units in combat with a single unit, they have to split their attacks. And the easiest way to achieve this is through higher movement speed.

I believe I said that there did still seem to be some degree of tactics in the game but that they paled in comparison to previous editions of warhammer. If you are happy with AoS, I'm happy for you. I don't enjoy that everything has been simplified.

Your are definitely in a stronger position if you attack the flank, provided you play the vanilla AoS pile-in rules. If you play the 40k moshpit pile-in, then no, you won't think there is any point to flanking. Also, when you charge, only 1 model has to end 1/2" from the target - you can position the rest of your unit in a way to maximise the damage you cause, minimise the counter-damage he causes, or somewhere in between. Remember, the pile-in is not mandatory, and the way you position your models affects the way he can pile-in.

I take your point about psychology and fleeing, but to some degree this is replaced by battleshock (which is fleeing with no hope of return), and retreating.

Isn't AoS really Jervis' revenge?

There's an old WD article bin which Jervis laments his mistake in helping push points and tournament play, .

He suggested playing as the studio does without points at all.

AoS is GW finally showing their players how they really play in house.

Which enlightens why points values and balancing is the way it is.

I think the biggest problem AoS has is the failure of GW to make it really clear to people that this is a totally different type of game to WHFB. The "narrative" type game does not appeal to everyone, certainly not to existing WHFB players who prefer an all-encompassing rule structure, rather than the more "make it up as you go along" GM type of genre.
These players will either leave, and concentrate on KOW etc. or try to introduce points systems and army compostion structures to "fix" AoS.
If GW don't start bringing out the equivalent of the roleplay books needed to support this type of game, they will not recruit significant numbers of new players.
Frankly, given the failure of Inquisitor, their previous attempt at a narrative game, and the handing over of Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay to FFG, the future doesn't look bright for this area of the business at the moment.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Here's the thing, balance isn't necessary for a fun game.

I'm sorry, but I think there are very few things more wrong than saying "balance isn't necessary for a fun game". If I scoop enough of my free time to have that one or two odd games in a week, I want to play a game where I actually can beat my opponent without having to hope that I roll only 6's the whole match or I'm outright going to lose. Sure, there are fun scenarios that I sometimes play with friends like 10 Sternguard marines and a techmarine operating a Thunderfire Cannon holing up in rubble barricades for their last stand amidst the ruins of an imperial city swarming with hormagaunts and genestealers to see how many turns they can survive, but those are just substitutes, occasional little fun games between bigger battles.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
By extension points or equivalent system isn't needed for AoS to be good.

Except that it just simply is! I know that "good" is a subjective thing, but trying to be as objective in your opinion as possible, basing it on other games and their forums you can tell that a game with such glaring issues can't be "good". It can be improved, sure, but isn't yet. You can't just ignore a huge aspect of the game and still say it might be good. You know what makes a good game in my opinion? A balanced one where you both can have fun making a cool army AND be able to play competitively with it. See, the issue here is that this is a wargame. It's a competitive game. Even when playing for fun, with beer and pretzels, you still play against each other and while losing might not be a problem for either or both of you, you still do your best to defeat the opponent. Now add limited free time to play games every week and you'll end up with having unchallenging, meh games where one player obviously lost not even due to his bad tactics. Sure, it might not have been a wasted evening, because he had some fun, but it definetely wasn't a "good" experience, it'd be good if they both had equal chances to win and skill determined it, not one of their forces being outright weaker than the other.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
If it had a points system, then players who wanted to play without it could still do so but there is this pervasive idea that AoS somehow invented playing without points out of thin air and it is impossible to do that if the game had points.

Now THAT would be a good call. Giving both the old and new players an option to enjoy the game the way they want. Especially that old players make up about 90% of AoS playerbase, and suddenly they've been cut off from their game and left on ice.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Similarly, WAAC/TFG could not be ignored in a game with points; we HAD to play against those people. But now with AoS we can walk away when they try to break the game, which we were somehow unable to do before.

I think I fail to see how is this any different from before - you always could have walked away from a game. AoS, WFB, chess, WM/H - you don't HAVE to play against anyone. You can always stand up and leave. Be it whether he brings the cheesiest Tau-Eldar army that has 90% chance to win against your Orks or when he brings Nagash with necromancers and Tzeentch daemons to pump out a billion miniatures on the table in one turn. You are a free man, you can go anytime you want and, just the same way, if you walk out of an AoS tournament or WFB tournament you lose, so it doesn't change anything at all. Also comparing it to WFB or 40k is a bad idea, because these games were poorly balanced, everyone knows that. Grab anything else, though, and you will never have any problems like Tau-Eldar popping up.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
[...]and will never sell as many models than if they had a great game alongside them.

That's true. A bad game won't sell as well as a good one.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
Sidenote: AoS can have tactics, but that requires some semblance of balance first.

AoS at the moment has little to no tactics. As simple as that. The only tactic right now is to get a charge off first before he does it just to attack first, because you rarely get any bonuses for charging at all. What killed a lot of tactics is lack of flank charges. 40k might be fine with that because it's focused on shooting and even if two armies fight in melee, it's many, many more models in action. Here it's those odd 20, 30 models having a mosh pit in the middle, rolling 4+/3+ all the time. There's no incentive for you to try to surround your enemy as you don't get any bonuses for that at all.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
[...] as has been stated before, is possible even among friendly players trying to have a balanced game).

I disagree wholeheartedly. It takes time and effort to come up with at least a little balanced forces for two players. You never know if 10 greatswords will be good enough a counter to his 10 stormvermin, or how many clanrats equal 10 greatswords. You will never be sure if the proportions you two came up with are right, because one side may win through luck or skill rather than balanced forces - that's what playtests are for. That's what GW should've done and that's what point values/balancing mechanisms are for - to give the players an indicator of how "good" one unit is. If greatsword is 4 points and clanrat is 2 you can easily decide to have 2:1 ratio. See, the points aren't just for competitive players, they can help with fun games too - coming up with a nice ratio for, say, attacker and defender is much easier with points than without them.

That being said, please, don't say that AoS is good at something else, because as it is now, you could do everything it does in WFB, and it was just better there and had more depth. Maybe aside from the regiment movement system which I hated, but you had skirmishers too. Right now it's like turning back from advanced, realistic Airsoft games to some silly Laser Tag "Call of Duty" run forward and have fun shooting game with little to no tactics. Sure, it might be fun for some, but that doesn't mean it's good.

Right now the only good sides I see in the game are:
- viable units and monsters. As simple as that - overall many units became viable while they were meh before, although it was WFB's issue in the first place that they weren't priced appropriately.
- simplified stats. I like them, all those statistics were unnecessary and bloated the game.
- oval bases and overall skirmish movement - hated the regiments, especially once the Horde rule kicked in - I liked a couple 15-20 man units from before better than having just two 30-40 man units in a 2400 points army.
- little synergies between heroes and units through their abilities and command skills - they're no longer just walking Ld bubbles/solo beatsticks.

And... that's it. I hate oversimplified magic, which is a joke and noone can convince me otherwise, I hate lack of balance, I hate poorly designed rules that require players to make the game playable, I hate mindless melee in the middle... and many more.

Now don't get me wrong - I want to like AoS and I still hope that they'll fix it's issues to make it a good system, but the longer it stays raw and unappealing, the worse it seems to be.

I have only played a few games so far but flanking seems pretty good to me. It lets you get more of your models into melee, so they actually get to attack instead of just sitting there trapped behind their friends. I suppose that is my perspective as someone who's been playing chaos vs sigmarines and so has many more models, meaning my frontage matters whereas the sigmarines maximise their frontage without even trying.

I am not sure what to make of points. It is true that if you have a system with points you can also just ignore the points, but I have never really seen anyone actually do that. Points are also context-free - they don't account for synergies in the models (which, from a certain perspective, is the whole idea). It's possible forcing players to actually think about balancing the armies instead of just providing a very flawed alternative will lead to better games.

ETA: it occurs to me that from the sigmarines' perspective, they don't want my models to be in melee so they have an incentive to not get flanked, get fights at good angles, etc.

This is perfect.

 Anpu42 wrote:
So what I am reading as one of the issues is once melee starts it become a confusing mess of most everyone for themselves in the middle of the battle field.

Sound like every War I was in with my Medieval Recreation Group.

Very false.
Medieval warfare was far more organized than what we see in movies. If you don't maintain your formation you will loose as the enemy flank you and roll you up. The "pile in the middle" idea comes from amateurs and Hollywood.

That AOS is all about piling in the middle makes it even less attractive.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
So what I am reading as one of the issues is once melee starts it become a confusing mess of most everyone for themselves in the middle of the battle field.

Sound like every War I was in with my Medieval Recreation Group.

Very false.
Medieval warfare was far more organized than what we see in movies. If you don't maintain your formation you will loose as the enemy flank you and roll you up. The "pile in the middle" idea comes from amateurs and Hollywood.

That AOS is all about piling in the middle makes it even less attractive.

Yes for Organized Units that Train together constantly, but we are talking about about a bunch of Want-To-Be-Weekend-Stick-Jocks [We used real swords though]. With only a few exceptions this how most of our wars went.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
So what I am reading as one of the issues is once melee starts it become a confusing mess of most everyone for themselves in the middle of the battle field.

Sound like every War I was in with my Medieval Recreation Group.

Very false.
Medieval warfare was far more organized than what we see in movies. If you don't maintain your formation you will loose as the enemy flank you and roll you up. The "pile in the middle" idea comes from amateurs and Hollywood.

That AOS is all about piling in the middle makes it even less attractive.

Piling in the middle is one reason for prolonged close combats.
Another is the lack of game objectives.

However, there is the possibility of retreat from combat.
I guess this is a less favorable option.
It could be interesting in WMH since turns are not handled by phases but by unit activation.

 wuestenfux wrote:

However, there is the possibility of retreat from combat.
I guess this is a less favorable option.
It could be interesting in WMH since turns are not handled by phases but by unit activation.

You can already retreat from combat in WMH.

I think you misunderstood me entirely. I wasn't speaking in support of AoS' design choices, quite the opposite. Your example of the doomed techmarine is the sort I was referring to when I said an unbalanced game can be fun, but my ultimate point is that a game will simply be better when it IS balanced. Similarly, I am saying that we could just walk away from TFG before, and I disagree with arguments being presented which imply that we couldn't do that with points costs in place. I largely agree with everything you said, and wholeheartedly with the final comment, I just didn't intent to present myself at the original position you took me for!

PhantomViper wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

However, there is the possibility of retreat from combat.
I guess this is a less favorable option.
It could be interesting in WMH since turns are not handled by phases but by unit activation.

You can already retreat from combat in WMH.

Indeed, but most of the units or models will get free strikes.
Not when the unit is ghostly or whatever.

 wuestenfux wrote:

PhantomViper wrote:

 wuestenfux wrote:

However, there is the possibility of retreat from combat.
I guess this is a less favorable option.
It could be interesting in WMH since turns are not handled by phases but by unit activation.

You can already retreat from combat in WMH.

Indeed, but most of the units or models will get free strikes.
Not when the unit is ghostly or whatever.

Which is perfectly reasonable in my opinion - there should be harsh penalties for leaving combat, free strikes are a good idea. You are, in fact, running from an enemy who gets a chance to answer to your actions after all!

Well, we played some AoS battles in our gaming group today.
The overall opinion is positive. We may organize an internal tourney in Sept. using the rule extensions from Toronto floating around at the 75 wound level.

AoS is probably the most boring and broke miniature wargame out there.
If was from a new company ,it would have been a bankruptcy.
90&of the old Whfb in my meta talks about AoS only to makes Jokes. The 10% that wanna play it and modify comes from bored player of 40k that missed the last 2 ed.....
We are all waiting from the guys of swed comp some good news

If your games are turning into middle of the field mosh pits, you are playing it wrong. Most of the time, you do want to stay in a formation, because the weapons have a rang value and being in a block maximises your damage potential due to reach and needing to move towards the nearest model (meaning if you are swinging around other models and reaching other enemy models, you are actually going against the rules.)

The balance come from your collection. Two players with e variety of units to put on the table are having a good game of it. Those who are trying to force house rules into the system and playing it exactly the same way as before with minimal terrain and a pre built army roster are the ones failing to get the picture.

Watching battlereports I am seeing a slow swing towards favorability by people deciding to play by (all) the rules instead of sitting around complaining about how the game changed. That is because they are letting go of the old, unnecessarily bloated warhammer rules and realising that the game has legitimacy in regards to tactics that aren't reliant on trying to get around shoddy game mechanics.

To the guy who couldn't stop the vampire counts spells, where were your cavalry, archers, deepstirking units, artillery and flyers? When he put down necromancers and sat a box of skeletons to the side, those should have been dropped into your deployment zone first chance you had. If those weren't available, then pile on more models when he gets done and hope to overwhelm him before his reinforcements become a major factor.

The game wants you to bring a collection, not an army. You will start to see more balanced games when you both agree to do that.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
If your games are turning into middle of the field mosh pits, you are playing it wrong. Most of the time, you do want to stay in a formation, because the weapons have a rang value and being in a block maximises your damage potential due to reach and needing to move towards the nearest model (meaning if you are swinging around other models and reaching other enemy models, you are actually going against the rules.)

The balance come from your collection. Two players with e variety of units to put on the table are having a good game of it. Those who are trying to force house rules into the system and playing it exactly the same way as before with minimal terrain and a pre built army roster are the ones failing to get the picture.

Watching battlereports I am seeing a slow swing towards favorability by people deciding to play by (all) the rules instead of sitting around complaining about how the game changed. That is because they are letting go of the old, unnecessarily bloated warhammer rules and realising that the game has legitimacy in regards to tactics that aren't reliant on trying to get around shoddy game mechanics.

To the guy who couldn't stop the vampire counts spells, where were your cavalry, archers, deepstirking units, artillery and flyers? When he put down necromancers and sat a box of skeletons to the side, those should have been dropped into your deployment zone first chance you had. If those weren't available, then pile on more models when he gets done and hope to overwhelm him before his reinforcements become a major factor.

The game wants you to bring a collection, not an army. You will start to see more balanced games when you both agree to do that.

This comes across as exactly the sort of holier-than-thou attitude that annoys people. If you want others to listen to what you have to say and successfully argue a point, than insulting those who disagree with you (implied or directly) is the exact opposite of what to do. And as an aside, when playing strictly by the rules formations mean even less than if you add house rules, because you can literally stack your models on top of each other in a pile if you like. Further, any sort of tactical potential is meaningless if your opponent puts down a force ten times stronger than yours or pulls one of the numerous game-breaking combos which are completely legal by the rules given. Of course doing these things is ridiculous, but so is the argument that a large number of disgruntled players are simply "doing it wrong" or even the argument that such people trying to have fun their way could be 'wrong' at all.

Looking at the rules, I don't see it as too bad as its own game.
In the grand scheme of things though, I find it a bit weird that they would choose to replace the already well developed WHFB setting with a new one. The ruleset also looks like it may lead to a few issues in the competitive light, and since AoS is a replacement for 8th edition from what I heard, it may be difficult to bring 8th ed back for stuff like tournaments.
Just my opinion of course.

I really fail to see why AoS actually needed to completely replace warhammer. How could have two systems that use the same models been a bad thing for GW? If people don't like games with ranked units, you have AoS. If people like games with ranked units you have warhammer. Keeping AoS on round bases would of allowed for crossover between the two. People of then used AoS as a gateway product.

I'm not really impressed with the rules, but if GW doesn't want my money, I can spend it on other things.

I actually liked alot of AoS

then the whole no points, bring whatever nonsense happened, and seeing how I had an army of Bretonnian peasants, everything curbstomps them.

where I used to have 2-3 peasants for every model my opponent had, I now have 1 peasant. And they're still just as crappy.

I have now moved my WHF monthly stipend to Bolt action, seeing as how my $50 can get me 30-40 models instead of the new GW 5 man boxes, I feel like I get my moneys worth.

Frostgrave also looks interesting, may try that

The Sylvaneths models look fantastic.
I'm inclined to get me a 100 wounds force for a local tourney in Sept.
One Treelord, 2 units of Dryads, and 2 Wizards seem to be a good starter.

It's a great shame that GW didn't keep WHFB available to satisfy the more competitive gamers. Of course, the rulebook will still be available on ebay etc. but that's just not the same is it.
The new AoS rules are really only ever going to suit people who want to go beyond the purely competitive side of things, which seems to be quite a small minority of gamers. You can't convert a tractor into a racecar, even if it does have a powerful engine
I don't think its a question of being a more advanced, or experienced gamer, as some would like to think. I know people who have been narrative gamers right from the start, and also veterans who are happy to be dyed in the wool points obsessive! Neither is right, or wrong - just different.
I for one am looking forward to developing some interesting narrative games in the Old World using the new AoS rules, the Realms setting doesn't really interest me, ingenious though it may be. However, this forum is obviously not the place to discuss such a tender flower, being very firmly competitive person territory!

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
If your games are turning into middle of the field mosh pits, you are playing it wrong. Most of the time, you do want to stay in a formation, because the weapons have a rang value and being in a block maximises your damage potential due to reach and needing to move towards the nearest model (meaning if you are swinging around other models and reaching other enemy models, you are actually going against the rules.)

The balance come from your collection. Two players with e variety of units to put on the table are having a good game of it. Those who are trying to force house rules into the system and playing it exactly the same way as before with minimal terrain and a pre built army roster are the ones failing to get the picture.

Watching battlereports I am seeing a slow swing towards favorability by people deciding to play by (all) the rules instead of sitting around complaining about how the game changed. That is because they are letting go of the old, unnecessarily bloated warhammer rules and realising that the game has legitimacy in regards to tactics that aren't reliant on trying to get around shoddy game mechanics.

To the guy who couldn't stop the vampire counts spells, where were your cavalry, archers, deepstirking units, artillery and flyers? When he put down necromancers and sat a box of skeletons to the side, those should have been dropped into your deployment zone first chance you had. If those weren't available, then pile on more models when he gets done and hope to overwhelm him before his reinforcements become a major factor.

The game wants you to bring a collection, not an army. You will start to see more balanced games when you both agree to do that.

This comes across as exactly the sort of holier-than-thou attitude that annoys people. If you want others to listen to what you have to say and successfully argue a point, than insulting those who disagree with you (implied or directly) is the exact opposite of what to do. And as an aside, when playing strictly by the rules formations mean even less than if you add house rules, because you can literally stack your models on top of each other in a pile if you like. Further, any sort of tactical potential is meaningless if your opponent puts down a force ten times stronger than yours or pulls one of the numerous game-breaking combos which are completely legal by the rules given. Of course doing these things is ridiculous, but so is the argument that a large number of disgruntled players are simply "doing it wrong" or even the argument that such people trying to have fun their way could be 'wrong' at all.

As a rebuttal, your being able to stack bases (especially with square ones) means you will still get more models in range if you are in formation. The majority of what I am seeing in regards to complaints are people forcing restrictions and attempting to balance the game themselves are not enjoying themselves. Like the bretonian player above being forced to have the same number of wounds their opponent does, why? They will obviously have a huge number of these models, why are their opponents limiting them arbitrarily because they don't think the game is balanced? I wasn't trying to be condescending, but blaming the game for lack of enjoyment when you have houseruled it before ever putting down models (which people did, the moment the rules leaked. I was reading along on the rumor forum) is not the fault of the game or the company that made it. When you see the comment " we played with 50 wounds a piece, and the game was crap" you did that to yourself, that was you limiting the game in scope, not the game itself lacking depth.


Also, with the 100 times stronger force, every army in the game has access to summoning, board edge reinforcements, and/or artillery. If you want to stop their superior force, choose assassinate and slaughter a single character or monster. It isn't hard to do, they can't hide in a unit for protection anymore.

Also, with the 100 times stronger force, every army in the game has access to summoning, board edge reinforcements, and/or artillery.

Tell me which dwarf army model can summon dwarfs or ouflank.

Ninth I have been reading most posts in thr SOS forums and can say lyth's post was far from a 'holier than thou' attitude. He actually made positive suggestions and said if you always end up in one large melee you are playing wrong (true, the game is based on scenarios from the books in which there are objectives... it is not a 'meat grinder' style game).

He also didn't insult or call names which you did in a way withvit 'holier than thou' comments.

I have seen a mix of positivity and negativity here, why do most of the negative ones try to cut down or slander those who like the game? Lets keep it civil folks and get back on topic on how the game is doing in your area among gamers (at home, gw stores, and your flgs).

Cheers

Makumba wrote:

Also, with the 100 times stronger force, every army in the game has access to summoning, board edge reinforcements, and/or artillery.

Tell me which dwarf army model can summon dwarfs or ouflank.

There aren't really armies in that sense. Dwarfs have the same access to Chaos Lords, Slann Mage Priests, Lords of Change, Branchwraiths, etc as everyone else does.

Rihgu wrote:

Makumba wrote:

Also, with the 100 times stronger force, every army in the game has access to summoning, board edge reinforcements, and/or artillery.

Tell me which dwarf army model can summon dwarfs or ouflank.

There aren't really armies in that sense. Dwarfs have the same access to Chaos Lords, Slann Mage Priests, Lords of Change, Branchwraiths, etc as everyone else does.

And that's part of the problem for a supposedly "narrative" game. If I wanted to use my Dwarf army because I like the lore, well, feth me. I get punished because I don't want to destroy my favorite army and throw in Bloodthirsters and whatnot.