Switch Theme:

A retrospective, AoS and WFB  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in es
Regular Dakkanaut




Motivation for this thread came from a blog, tabletop gaming diary, the user connected to it on this forum goes by the pseudonym of MongooseMatt if I am not mistaken. In one of the posts on the blog the common arguments against AoS are discussed.

I have eneterred WFB in the late 2014 and quite frankly I never exerienced the competitve 'meta' alot of the people talk about when discussing AoS and WFB, but I enjoyed just with a simple starter set and two battalion boxes, we didn't have heroes for two faction so they unofficially joined the elves or the skaven. Many people say that AoS is less competitive than WFB and I would definately agree, but it does have it's own problems, in the meta as multi-wound/multi-damage models are definately much more powerful than a lot of other things and often whole armies of said models can have an unfair advantage especially in the initial meta. The reduction of competitive play is welcomed by many in the community from what I saw as it is often frustrating going up against the same armies over and over and if you wish to atain any chance of winning you must resort to also bringign the same army again and again. Speaking for myself, after the hardcore meta of the W40k 7th edition, 8th edition was a breath of fresh air and a reset for the over competitve meta (alike to AoS) allowing for more casual play.

A lot of people said that AoS has a lot more synergy than WFB and to a degree I would agree, but WFB had it's own way of synergy in terms of spells and hero insiring presence and abilities.

An argument I do have with AoS is that strength and toughness are down-played almost hilriously. A goblin would be wounding a mighty dragon on a 4+ and wounding his bretheren greenskin on the same 4+, piercing dirty cloth with a rusty blade is as difficult as piercing dragon scale. It makes very little logic to me, but on the other hand it is balanced out somewhat by the armour saves which are done in a slightly better manner than in WFB atleast in my opinion.

I can say that Although WFB provided much more detailed Lore, AoS strays away from it, which isn't particulary bad or good as AoS allows more freedom leaving more of the world open for the player's imagination, but at the same time it lacks many compelling characters like: Azhag the sorceror orc, Teclis and Tyrion two brothers of godlike powers, Balthasar Gelt the man in the golden mask. Each of those characters had a story and a personality which was often unique and intresting, in contrast in AoS we have very bland characters: Godrak the Fist of Gork is your avergae albeit sronger warboss, Celestant-Pime is a faceless angel with nothing else to go for him, Alarielle is a generic godess of life; Although the characters carried over retain their charm, the treacherous Manfred who is even willing to ally with the stormcasts, Neferata is the same as she was way back being the first vampire and the dynamic skeleton duo of Nagash and Arkhan are back to their powerhungry selves as determined as ever to reclaim the souls he lost to sigmar during the forging of the strormcasts. The Chaos Gods and the skaven addition are fine and characterfull as ever, although it's hard to make a chittering trecherous ratman high on warp dust boring and dull.

Please I would really like to know how are people liking the new warhammer (I suppose it was wise to wait a couple of years with this post as Warhammer is not a computer game that dies in a year and lives for a dozen at best, it is a hobby which existed for over thirty years now).

"Beyond that opening are my enemies. Behind me are warriors who would happily turn their weapons on me if they thought they could get away with it. Do you really think I'm doing this to try and impress anyone? I know who I am, and I don't give a greenskin's fart what anyone thinks of me."
- Honsou

Iron warriors 3000pt
 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka




Well I find that the gameplay is much worse. It went from rank and file with varying toughness and 'speed' at hitting to weird skirmish but on a big scale where it's equally easy to not only hit but hurt a small goblin as it is a greater demon. Instead of hitting based on their weapon and general speed the soldiers now take turns in fighting each other which is ridiculous.
Shooting was decent in WHFB - You had penalties for things like distance and cover but shooting felt like it did damage. Now some shooting feels good but most of it feels bad and it's equally easy to hit a dragon as a person fighting my troops in combat who are magically safe.

The lore in WHFB felt good. It was a world I liked with various nations and factions who all had their own histories and cultures. Now it's a weird mix of peoples living on different planets/planes/realms/who the hell knows, most characters feel pretty eh to me as their background is bland.
It's a bit better for making your own places and such up but that's not worth the cost of a good and pretty interesting world.

tremere47-fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate, leads to triple riptide spam  
   
Made in es
Regular Dakkanaut




I agree largely with the gameplay, but that gameplay spawned a very agressive/powergaming meta, which is extremely unpleasant to get in to and at first the same knd of meta pushed me away from w40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Like the triple riptide spam mentioned in under your messages pm713

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/28 17:56:43


"Beyond that opening are my enemies. Behind me are warriors who would happily turn their weapons on me if they thought they could get away with it. Do you really think I'm doing this to try and impress anyone? I know who I am, and I don't give a greenskin's fart what anyone thinks of me."
- Honsou

Iron warriors 3000pt
 
   
Made in us
Clousseau




The powergaming meta in whfb is identical to the powergaming meta in aos in terms of its severity and how it can rub people the wrong way if they aren't wanting to power game.

AOS also spawns very aggressive powergaming meta. Its cornerstones are spamming as many mortal wounds as you can get (we have a stormcast player who averages roughly 35 a turn but on a good roll can get 54), going for 2+ rerollable saves wherever you can, and spamming high quality ranged attacks.

With the new rules, the next cornerstone will be one that existed in the release of AoS... that being optimizing how many free points you can also add to your roster.

In WHFB 8th edition it started out as crafting the mega blob unit to abuse steadfast, but that turned into taking as many wizards as you can and your winning tactic throwing six dice at a purple sun hoping for two sixes.

Neither games played at the extreme level are much fun or are very great. Quite frankly either game played at the extreme level like this is rubbish to me because both games can remove the game aspect completely and turn it into rolling a ton of dice and fapping over a power coefficient in your excel spreadsheet.
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka




sushi2001 wrote:
I agree largely with the gameplay, but that gameplay spawned a very agressive/powergaming meta, which is extremely unpleasant to get in to and at first the same knd of meta pushed me away from w40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Like the triple riptide spam mentioned in under your messages pm713

While I agree that it has it's not a problem that's new. WHFB had lists that were clearly strongest and objectively best ways to play armies as well as AOS and 40k. I imagine most wargames do to some extent.

tremere47-fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate, leads to triple riptide spam  
   
Made in au
Hacking Proxy Mk.1





Australia

GW has never been good at balancing games for competitive play, but the design philosophy behind AoS (before the Generals Handbook) seemed to be to not even try.

I also really disliked the move from Rank and File to Skirmish style and the total lack of fluff we got on release. I'm really gonna sink my teeth into the RPG book when it comes out and hopefully it will be able to lay things out in a way that can actually get me interested in the setting but GW really dropped the ball on release and because of that I've not followed as they began developing it.

Really, in hindsight, I think GW should have run End Times less as a 'death of WHFB' story and more as a way to split the timeline. Maybe present two endings, one where Archaon is defeated and the world would be on the precipice of a (relatively) peaceful age that isn't an ending, but leave us feeling like the good guys won. Then there is the parallel one where the world was blown up. Let AoS be introduced while WHFB still existed and just slowly ramp down support for WHFB while developing AoS. Killing WHFB and then introducing AoS as it's replacement was really bad for AoS, which I don't think it's too controversial to say couldn't compare at release.

As to the simple question of if I like the new Warhammer AoS, I'm entirely apathetic towards it. I see cool models but the fluff doesn't interest me enough to buy in, or I look at my old WHFB models but the rules for them now don't make them enjoyable to field, stuff like that.

 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.
 
   
Made in gb
Mekboy Hammerin' Somethin'





Dorset, England

 jonolikespie wrote:
GW has never been good at balancing games for competitive play, but the design philosophy behind AoS (before the Generals Handbook) seemed to be to not even try.

The no points thing was a really interesting attempt to drag Warhammer away from a power gamer mentality and into a realm where you and your opponent just bring the models necessary to tell a cool story or create an interesting challenge.
I think it was a bit of a shame that GW chickened out and added points back into the game, it would have been interesting to see how that more 'free form' approach developed.

I love the lore of WHF (I still play Warhammer Fantasy Role Play every month!), but they are doing a good job with the AoS lore as well.
The trouble with WHF was that I felt very constrained with the stories I could tell because everything was so defined, whilst AoS gives you so much more freedom.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/05/29 11:48:40


 
   
Made in us
Clousseau




The power gamer mentality today is pretty much THE market though. For a company that has public share holders, moviing away from power gaming is the worst thing that they could have done, and that was shown.

It was a neat social experiment but it ultimately bombed really hard. Power gaming and minmaxing is here to stay and is where you get your money.
   
Made in gb
Dakka Veteran




 Kroem wrote:
 jonolikespie wrote:
GW has never been good at balancing games for competitive play, but the design philosophy behind AoS (before the Generals Handbook) seemed to be to not even try.

The no points thing was a really interesting attempt to drag Warhammer away from a power gamer mentality and into a realm where you and your opponent just bring the models necessary to tell a cool story or create an interesting challenge.
I think it was a bit of a shame that GW chickened out and added points back into the game, it would have been interesting to see how that more 'free form' approach developed.

I love the lore of WHF (I still play Warhammer Fantasy Role Play every month!), but they are doing a good job with the AoS lore as well.
The trouble with WHF was that I felt very constrained with the stories I could tell because everything was so defined, whilst AoS gives you so much more freedom.


Points are pretty much a necessary way for 2 gamers without much prior knowledge being able to play against each other.
   
Made in au
Hacking Proxy Mk.1





Australia

 Kroem wrote:
The no points thing was a really interesting attempt to drag Warhammer away from a power gamer mentality and into a realm where you and your opponent just bring the models necessary to tell a cool story or create an interesting challenge.
I think it was a bit of a shame that GW chickened out and added points back into the game, it would have been interesting to see how that more 'free form' approach developed
See, I don't think of it as dragging the game away from a powergamer mentality. If you wanted to stop powergaming put a lot of effort into balancing the damn thing so powergamers can't break it. Removing points leaves people in a position where the powergamers can go nuts, but also hurts casual gamers who just wanna go down to their FLGS with a list ready for a pickup game. It makes it harder for kids getting into the game when one of them mops the floor with their friend every game but they don't understand it well enough to balance it themselves yet. Even entirely well intentioned people are going to encounter scenarioes where they either think something is balanced until they play an utterly lopsided game, or cause arguments as one player thinks his force is balanced but the other player's experience with that army has him worried it's an OP army to go up against.

What I think it was is an attempt at just making a fun, simple, casual game for well established clubs to play together with people they've known for decades, because that's the culture in the UK gaming community and within GW itself. Except when you go from tight knit clubs in the UK to pick up games in the US the system just breaks down entirely.

 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.
 
   
Made in gb
Mekboy Hammerin' Somethin'





Dorset, England

Ah some interesting points!

Where I was coming from is that, in my experience, power gamers love interacting with points systems, calculating efficient options, optimising their lists etc.
Having no points effectively makes that impossible! So power gamers gravitate towards other systems that they find more fun in.

What I found interesting about having no points is that it made people more willing to change their army, whereas when the armies are equal on points people will insist its fair even in they just gave their opponent a right drubbing!
I would love it if people instigated a golf style handicap system for pick up games of Warhammer, that would solve a lot of complaints and allow players of all stripes to easily play together imo.

   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka




The way to stop people power gaming is balance. Because a game is unbalanced armies of equal points can still be greatly different in power.

Removing points just changes how you take OP things. Like how you could take Fateweaver/Screaming Bell and make early AOS games decided by who had first turn.

tremere47-fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate, leads to triple riptide spam  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






power gaming isn’t even bad. What is bad is bringing your cheese list to the noob friendly store campaign and going seal clubbing, or insisting that you play your tournament list at a friendly event/match.

You guys talk like min maxing is bad. There is nothing wrong with knowing how to play optimally. What is wrong is not knowing when it’s okay to play optimally.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/01 18:53:13


 
   
Made in de
Battlefield Tourist






Nuremberg

The system is so ludicrous that the idea of "optimal" play is totally nonsensical.

   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut





AoS is reasonably fun. Yes, I really miss strength, toughness and initiative, I still wish they'd bring those back. But you also get more freedom, it would be somewhat rare to see a zombie dragon in WHFB, but in AoS if I really wanted to I could have 3. It also makes objectives more usable, it's no longer "kill everything" but more of objectives, timed challenges, it's fun.

AoS when played with some of the newer books has tons of options and playing legions of nagash, I personally prefer that to 40k (I played both WHFB and 40k simultaneously, enjoying both systems, but currently I'm almost inclined to say AoS is more fun)
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






 Jaxler wrote:
power gaming isn’t even bad. What is bad is bringing your cheese list to the noob friendly store campaign and going seal clubbing, or insisting that you play your tournament list at a friendly event/match.

You guys talk like min maxing is bad. There is nothing wrong with knowing how to play optimally. What is wrong is not knowing when it’s okay to play optimally.
This, this is a very good way of putting it.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in us
Clousseau




Yeah there's nothing wrong with powergaming. Its just a way of playing. The problem is always when powergaming is thrust into an environment where its asked not to be. Thats pretty much the root of the problem every time someone complains about it.
   
Made in us
Blood Angel Terminator with Lightning Claws





Baal Fortress Monastery

 Jaxler wrote:
power gaming isn’t even bad. What is bad is bringing your cheese list to the noob friendly store campaign and going seal clubbing, or insisting that you play your tournament list at a friendly event/match.

You guys talk like min maxing is bad. There is nothing wrong with knowing how to play optimally. What is wrong is not knowing when it’s okay to play optimally.

I very much so agree with this. Honestly more people need to understand this.
   
Made in us
Second Story Man





Astonished of Heck

auticus wrote:
Yeah there's nothing wrong with powergaming. Its just a way of playing. The problem is always when powergaming is thrust into an environment where its asked not to be. Thats pretty much the root of the problem every time someone complains about it.

Well, powergaming only became a named thing when people started doing exactly that. There are more than a few people who can't or won't see away from the tournament setting, any more than some people cannot live past high school. They clutch their net-lists to themselves like the faded quarterback who never went to college clutches his football to his chest.

Now, some don't know any better, because they were brought in with this concept, but it is also a community thing as well. I can't tell you how often I'd show up at the LGS and it was "tournament-prep only" for the people who did show up.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






Lets call it what it is; it's not people refusing to see beyond the tournament setting. It's people who just can't tolerate losing. Approaching everything as if it's tournament level is just another way of approaching everything with a fear of losing a freaking board game.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in us
Clousseau




In my neck of the woods its more or less a controlled group of guys that don't believe you should be playing wargames in any other way other than competitive tournament (if you want to play narrative, go play Dungeons and Dragons or another RPG), so they crash public campaigns to make sure that new players are learning "properly" how to play.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2018/06/03 15:16:25


 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






Sounds like thinly veiled dick-waving.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Seattle, WA USA

auticus wrote:In my neck of the woods its more or less a controlled group of guys that don't believe you should be playing wargames in any other way other than competitive tournament (if you want to play narrative, go play Dungeons and Dragons or another RPG), so they crash public campaigns to make sure that new players are learning "properly" how to play.


NinthMusketeer wrote:Sounds like thinly veiled dick-waving.

Agreed. This is a big reason why I dropped out of the Warmachine community (well, there were plenty of other reasons, too).

Our AOS "group" is so far mostly just myself and 4-6 friends (some more frequent than others), so we're not hitting this problem. Of that group, only 2 or 3 previously played WHFB (and I wasn't one of those).

   
Made in gb
Mighty Vampire Count






UK

sushi2001 wrote:
Motivation for this thread came from a blog, tabletop gaming diary, the user connected to it on this forum goes by the pseudonym of MongooseMatt if I am not mistaken. In one of the posts on the blog the common arguments against AoS are discussed.

I can say that Although WFB provided much more detailed Lore, AoS strays away from it, which isn't particulary bad or good as AoS allows more freedom leaving more of the world open for the player's imagination, but at the same time it lacks many compelling characters like: Azhag the sorceror orc, Teclis and Tyrion two brothers of godlike powers, Balthasar Gelt the man in the golden mask. Each of those characters had a story and a personality which was often unique and intresting, in contrast in AoS we have very bland characters: Godrak the Fist of Gork is your avergae albeit sronger warboss, Celestant-Pime is a faceless angel with nothing else to go for him, Alarielle is a generic godess of life; Although the characters carried over retain their charm, the treacherous Manfred who is even willing to ally with the stormcasts, Neferata is the same as she was way back being the first vampire and the dynamic skeleton duo of Nagash and Arkhan are back to their powerhungry selves as determined as ever to reclaim the souls he lost to sigmar during the forging of the strormcasts. The Chaos Gods and the skaven addition are fine and characterfull as ever, although it's hard to make a chittering trecherous ratman high on warp dust boring and dull.

Please I would really like to know how are people liking the new warhammer (I suppose it was wise to wait a couple of years with this post as Warhammer is not a computer game that dies in a year and lives for a dozen at best, it is a hobby which existed for over thirty years now).


Focusing on the lore element - I would tend to agree - its great to still have many characters we have loved (or hated) or both and its taken quite some time for AOS to bring new characters to any kind of life, not totally helped by the initial unrelenting focuss of Followers of Khorne and the Stormcast. However, especially in the novels they are starting to come - some really great ones in the Josh reynolds books in particular where he is also blending the new and the Old. His questing knights of the Order of the Fly who appear in many of his books are really interesting and often strangely sympathetic for followers of Nurgle.

And of course Skaven, there is always Skaven but I also really enjoyed his Slann and Lizardmen in Pestilans - getting their POV was good. If you want to get to grips with the new lore - highly recomend his novels.

I AM A MARINE PLAYER

"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos

"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001

www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/528517.page

A Bloody Road - my Warhammer Fantasy Fiction 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






Yeah Skaven Pestilens novel is really sweet.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page

I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.

I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. 
   
Made in us
Stoic Grail Knight






Yendor

 jonolikespie wrote:
GW has never been good at balancing games for competitive play, but the design philosophy behind AoS (before the Generals Handbook) seemed to be to not even try.

I also really disliked the move from Rank and File to Skirmish style and the total lack of fluff we got on release. I'm really gonna sink my teeth into the RPG book when it comes out and hopefully it will be able to lay things out in a way that can actually get me interested in the setting but GW really dropped the ball on release and because of that I've not followed as they began developing it.

Really, in hindsight, I think GW should have run End Times less as a 'death of WHFB' story and more as a way to split the timeline. Maybe present two endings, one where Archaon is defeated and the world would be on the precipice of a (relatively) peaceful age that isn't an ending, but leave us feeling like the good guys won. Then there is the parallel one where the world was blown up. Let AoS be introduced while WHFB still existed and just slowly ramp down support for WHFB while developing AoS. Killing WHFB and then introducing AoS as it's replacement was really bad for AoS, which I don't think it's too controversial to say couldn't compare at release.


While End Times were going on, I was hoping for an Orc victory. Grimgor uniting the Orc Tribes, and the Waaargh defeating Archaon and the might of the Chaos Gods in a climactic show down- Grimgor v Archaon, Gork and Mork v the Chaos Pantheon, Spider and Squig v Rat and Daemon. An Orc victory would have been perfect because it allows for an easy "reset" of the WHFB world without destroying it. The Orc Waaaargh washes over the world and once the Orc's have run out of opponents to fight, their mighty empire will collapse due to infighting and the various factions can emerge from hiding and reestablish their civilizations, exploring and interacting in a brave new world. It lets the Orcs act as sort of a planetary immune system to chaos, and it would be a nice homage to Grimgor's original curb stomping of Archaon in the global campaign.

The one thing I really miss about WHFB was the ranks of infantry. It gave the game a unique look on the table, and ranked up formations of fantasy troops looks really good when it all comes together and is fully painted. It gives the game a feel comparable to a lot of historicals, except in a fantasy setting. It was a unique experience that offered unique tactical thought when dealing with charge arcs and unit formations. It had some problems and balance issues, but what Games Workshop experience doesn't? But I'm just old and salty and sitting on a large collection of Bretonnian Knights

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2018/06/18 16:40:23


Xom finds this thread hilarious!

My 5th Edition Eldar Tactica (not updated for 6th, historical purposes only) Walking the Path of the Eldar 
   
Made in us
Clousseau




Toward the mid 2000s, ranked games started falling out of favor and in their place people were clamoring for non ranks, not having to paint the same model a bunch of times, and much lower model count.

   
Made in gb
Bounding Assault Marine




United Kingdom

 Kroem wrote:
 jonolikespie wrote:
GW has never been good at balancing games for competitive play, but the design philosophy behind AoS (before the Generals Handbook) seemed to be to not even try.

The no points thing was a really interesting attempt to drag Warhammer away from a power gamer mentality and into a realm where you and your opponent just bring the models necessary to tell a cool story or create an interesting challenge.
I think it was a bit of a shame that GW chickened out and added points back into the game, it would have been interesting to see how that more 'free form' approach developed.


It was the lack of points costs that was a selling point to me with the original AoS. I played Tomb Kings at the time, and if I wanted to field an army of cavalry and/or chariots I could do so without having to worry about detachments or battle lines. I could field an army of monsters if I wanted to. It made for a much more interesting game. The lack of points meant that neither player would bring too big an army because it gave their opponent an potential auto win. Once everyone clamored for points and got their way the game became much less fun.


40k: Space Marines (Rift Wardens) - 8050pts.
T9A: Vampire Covenants 2060pts. 
   
Made in au
Hacking Proxy Mk.1





Australia

auticus wrote:
Toward the mid 2000s, ranked games started falling out of favor and in their place people were clamoring for non ranks, not having to paint the same model a bunch of times, and much lower model count.


I think I'd actually be playing AoS right now if it did have a lower model count. As a skirmish game with 20-30 models per side I'd quite happily put up with the rules I don't like and make up my own fluff and just play with some well painted models. But every time I see a table being played (or god forbid a GW battle report or pictures in WD where the tables are covered in models) all I can think is holy hell why did you move from rank and file to skirmish but keep the same number of models?

 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.
 
   
Made in us
Clousseau





East Bay, Ca, US

AoS core rules favor strong shooting and mortal wounds. This core imbalance is made even stronger by the existence of double turn.

I was recently made aware of artillery that can do D6 damage witih -3 rend from like 36" away. How does that not ruin a game that is built on melee? Hang back at max range and wait for the double turn.

I'm glad no one i play with brings gak like this.

 Galas wrote:
I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you

Bharring wrote:
He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
 
   
 
Forum Index » Warhammer: Age of Sigmar
Go to: