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.

Will play casually, as there are no real army-building rules that are necessary to create reasonable games.

No matter what, though, I won't be buying the boxed-set. Neither force appeals to me and the box has no other contents worthy of a $100+ purchase.

 Haight wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:
But that's also the point - play how YOU want! Cmon gamers, why is this a bad thing??

I'll sum up dozens of posts that you seem to be unwilling to at least lend ANY credence: arbitrariness does not equate to balance. Freedom doesn't equate to fairness.

3 skaven slaves are not equal to Archaon when we look at sudden death. Archaon says i win that because i choose eradicate.

Or i take 5 Dark Elf assassins, i pick a hero, and GG, i win.

Freedom is great, but freedom requires some moderate framework to avoid being arbitrary.

No I get that. Do you lend any credence to my posts? I've said numerous times TALK TO YOUR OPPONENT. Do you guys not know how to do that? Who the hell is going to play 3 Slaves vs Archaon? Who is going to agree to play against 20 Karl Franzes? Unless of course, these are actual friendly agreements for sh*tsngiggles. Jesus, can you guys stop being so extreme and dramatic.

I had said this with the most recent edition of 40k and I think it applies equally here:

The issues with the game will come not from extreme situations as Archaon vs. Skaven slaves, but instead from the shades of grey constant imbalances as people attempt to get games balanced and/or have skewed views on "what's fair" compared to an opponents army. I think people will be able to have fun experiences, but there will be little value in victories. Again, this will be fun for a time, but I think people enjoy the ability to win a game with a sense of balance. As it stands, AOS is less balanced than Yahtzee, but with a higher cost.

As compared to WHFB, it feels like a sad outcome, especially since AOS is only missing a couple of key components to make it something sustainable.

My justification is simple. I like the models and I love playing scenarios. Mass battles no longer interest me, point values are irrelevant when the scenario dictates what to bring, as long as scenario's are balanced I will enjoy AoS.

I also want to add that I think I am loving the role-playing aspect they bring in, I used to love d&d and WW now war-hammer has similar "flair" added to it... I shall grow a mustache just in case.

Do you know guys if gw will do balance tweaks and update the warscrolls? At the moment dark elf dark shards are better than wood elf glade guard and wood elfs supposed to be superior at archery.

devestator 7777777 wrote:
Do you know guys if gw will do balance tweaks and update the warscrolls? At the moment dark elf dark shards are better than wood elf glade guard and wood elfs supposed to be superior at archery.

probably not. Those Warscrolls for old models/units will be creeped out in a year probably.

Thx for replay. Although this does not seem promising.

I already own the rules for Pulp Alley, Songs of Blades and Heroes, and Havoc if I want to play skirmish with my fantasy stuff. I also have kickstartered Kings of War 2e, and own every edition of WHFB from 5 to 8 and ebayed a copy of 3e a few years back. I'm also thinking of picking up Frostgrave later this month.

My point being, I've already shaken lose the mindset I need to try the latest GW game just because GW made another attempt at a game. I already have great rules to use with my fantasy minis - why should I bother trying obviously crappy rules or put effort making them less crappy? The short answer is that I shouldn't, and I'm not going to.

I gave GW the benefit of the doubt and the chance to pull me back with a quality ruleset, even though their track record has been bad lately. Ive read the new rules and several warscroll compendiums, and I feel its obvious that compared to other rulesets I have or soon will have available, AoS is an embarassment of a failure on GW's part.

So no, Im not trying AoS, I'll be playing other games instead.

I have a game scheduled for tomorrow. I'll give it a few tries but I don't see myself sticking to it.

I'm so excited I just dropped easy $500, Tomb king battalion, Necrosphinx each of the new paints, hardcover AoS book and the game itself. But feth me, the new spray is $48

honestly, as w/ all games I play, the #1 determining factor for me if I continue to play AoS is the local meta and accessibility.

Here is what I know so far:
- my 2 close gaming friends who I essentially game w/ first usually will probably not play
- 1 local meta is maybe a handful or 2 of mostly easy-going guys relatively young, a few of whom so far seem to really like it, a bunch of others have yet to play (see: easy-going, they aren't in a rush I don't think)
- another local meta is full of a handful or 2 of really competitive powergamers, most of whom seem to hate it and are finding new games, possibly sticking to 8E

I have my Dwarfs and Empires. If enough people look for games here and there - say 1 or 2 a month - then I'm down to play. The key for me will be once the new waves come out and the old models/units become power creeped out or just phased out as models (i.e. I want an Ork army, but rather than buy the now OOP models, I'll await for the AoS models), will they be enough for me to want to invest in AoS, both financially and time-wise? Or just stick to my Dwarfs and Empire and play 1 or 2 games a month? Will the new waves cause the local meta to play more regularly instead of casually? etc etc.

So essentially, I can't say where AoS will be on my gaming hierarchy in 2, 6, or 10 months. Or even 2 years. But it'll be there somewhere.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
oh, but that's just the game. It's a new, rebooted fluff, so I intend to definitely "stick around" to at least read the fluff progression!

At this point, I really hope for two things:

a) GW completing the ruleset for AoS: the rules currently lack force composition rules that are direly needed. I really hope that GW somehow comes up with a solution. AoS has a good chance to be an entry-level tabletop, shallow, but fun for a short while, getting people interested in the hobby.

b) Continuation of WHFB: WHFB 8th had a very solid set of rules (PRE-End Times!) that only needed a few adjustments to be, dare I say it, good. Worse, if GW truly abandoned GW, what would people do that got hooked via AoS? Further maintaining WHFB despite there being AoS would be a splendid idea as you hook people with AoS and, oh look!, you can use your miniatures from AoS to play WHFB too! Customer flow etc.

GW has a good chance to do really well at this point.

Yet seeing their recent track record, I fear for the worst...

Hot garbage, no thanks. The new universe excited me and the minis are great. But the "rules" are just awful.

I look forward to the fluff progression. If it's true they're sending reps everywhere at least they are putting effort in, while people may not like the rules that's still more effort then they put into promoting even 40k

 Thraxas Of Turai wrote:
A simple poll to see how people feel about The Age Of Sigmar.

My personal view...I will be buying the box set. From there...we shall see.

Shame no option for "no, I really don't like the models"

That whole space marines as fantasy battle dudes is awful.

I'll give it a try if their rules for dwarves aren't as ridiculous as their rules for legacy dwarves.

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:

No I get that. Do you lend any credence to my posts? I've said numerous times TALK TO YOUR OPPONENT. Do you guys not know how to do that? Who the hell is going to play 3 Slaves vs Archaon? Who is going to agree to play against 20 Karl Franzes? Unless of course, these are actual friendly agreements for sh*tsngiggles. Jesus, can you guys stop being so extreme and dramatic.

No I do not believe most people out there are capable of such an act.

Now, I was unsure until I read the Rules and now I like them and once I can play it I think I will Love it.

The Rules: I have always wanted to play Fantasy, but every time I tried my brain would melt from the Complexity. It has always been hard to just pick up the book and learn to play that way without Veterans showing the way.

The Armies: I can now play the army I want without all of those "Tax Units" you had to buy first. And then some armies required movement trays to push everything around.

Now I can pick up any box of Beastmen and in four hours of assembly [with out painting] have an army on the table top. I have not been able to do that since the early days of Rouge Trader.
As for 'No Points'...I say good riddance to them. If you really want some level of organization just put a limit of each side can field 4-60 models.

The Silly Rules: Warhammer has always had silly rules, Look at the 'Holy Hand Grenade' and 'Morbo' (and that is how I spell it). People are upset that GW has finally pulled the Stick out of their . They want you to go out and have fun. If you can not have fun by doing silly little things you are taking the "Game" way to seriously.

 Melissia wrote:
I'll give it a try if their rules for dwarves aren't as ridiculous as their rules for legacy dwarves.

Haha, you really can't get over that beard, huh?

What other rules are ridiculous for DWARFERDINS?

I'm gonna give it a whirl.

Sure, the rules are clearly laughable in places, but it's GW skirmish fantasy. That means a) it's got a decent chance to become a typical thing (ie, pickup games will be doable), and b) it's friggin' skirmish fantasy. I've never been able to stick with FB because of all the damned dudes; this is far more up my alley.

I mean, I'll get to take a Stegadon, a Slann, a bunch of skinks and some skink support and call it an army (instead of "a start"). That's worth a ton to me.

(I will be measuring from bases, though.)

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:
TALK TO YOUR OPPONENT.

This is all well and good but as I've said multiple times, whereas if you turned up to a WHFB pick-up game, you could quickly arrange a points value for your game and you'd be certain that the game you were about to have would be on a level playing field and, since WHFB 8th edition was generally pretty balanced, aside from taking optimal army lists (and we're still not exactly talking 3 Wraithknights like in 40k), your opponent couldn't really do anything to field an auto-win list. Basically, you can be sure any one game of WHFB you have is even, with minimal effort.

However, with Age of Sigmar I have to sit down with my opponent, examine both our collections and discuss what we think is fair. Yes, I am socially able to sit down, talk and come to an agreement with a fellow human, but this is not something we should have to do in a wargame. Can you imagine if your football (or soccer, as you'll know it) team turned up to a game and you had to sit down with the opposing team and say "Right then lads, who's allowed to touch the ball with their hands then?" or "do you reckon we should be allowed to shoot inside this box thing here?" It's just stupid, a waste of time and, frankly, completely unnecessary - all thanks to GW's laziness and, admittedly, slightly clever business tactics. Furthermore, even if my opponent and I do sit down and come to an agreement, we can't be sure that our estimates will result in an equal game and, if my opponent happens to be that kind of person, he is well within his rights set down by the rules to say "no I don't want an even game, I want to take nagash, archaon and 300 chaos warriors" and there's nothing I can do about that. Sure, I can, and will, refuse this person. But, funnily enough, I like playing wargames and I do actually want a game or two, especially when I've traveled 40 minutes to get to my FLGS/GW store. Travelling back in the car after refusing two people such games, I won't feel warm inside, proud of myself that I have risen above these scoundrels, I'll feel annoyed that I've wasted my time and petrol and not got a game in.

I am lending credence to your posts. Yes, you can sit down and come to an agreement with your opponent and, yes, if you happen to have lots of friends into the game this is probably easier. But my issue, and the issue of many others is that this is not always possible and, even when it is, you can't be sure if the game will be even (unlike WHFB) and that it takes a lot of time (unlike WHFB).

Perhaps we all lack the same wargame diplomacy skills as you, but surely you can lend credence to our posts and see why, actually, we aren't being "extreme" or "dramatic" but actually have legitimate concerns brought about by this lackluster ruleset?

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:

 Haight wrote:
Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:
But that's also the point - play how YOU want! Cmon gamers, why is this a bad thing??

I'll sum up dozens of posts that you seem to be unwilling to at least lend ANY credence: arbitrariness does not equate to balance. Freedom doesn't equate to fairness.

3 skaven slaves are not equal to Archaon when we look at sudden death. Archaon says i win that because i choose eradicate.

Or i take 5 Dark Elf assassins, i pick a hero, and GG, i win.

Freedom is great, but freedom requires some moderate framework to avoid being arbitrary.

No I get that. Do you lend any credence to my posts? I've said numerous times TALK TO YOUR OPPONENT. Do you guys not know how to do that? Who the hell is going to play 3 Slaves vs Archaon? Who is going to agree to play against 20 Karl Franzes? Unless of course, these are actual friendly agreements for sh*tsngiggles. Jesus, can you guys stop being so extreme and dramatic.

Sure. Can you admit the rules are a mess and stop being so illogical ?

Some of us want the rules to make sense without having a filibuster like segue every game with our opponent. Some of us want to be able to walk into any game store when we travel with our army and be able to pick up a game without an hour's long SYOP meeting beforehand.

In other words, some of us are legitimately pissed that an already VERY LOOSE ruleset, despite long in length (WHFB), became a hot mess of no sense-making four page long alphabet soup.

I mean, you do realize, functionally, letter of the rules, the game is night unplayable on it's face right now? For christ sake, by the Rules as Written (RAW), a flier with a flying peg base can pass out bubbles of Gandalf-ian "you shall not pass" that your opponents models can't get into. I would legit, playing the rules as written, feel like a gigantic jerk playing a Phoenix right now. Unless of course charging isn't moving, which makes zero sense and causes a bunch of rule conflicts and certain things to no longer trigger on a charge. How should I play it ? Or should the almighty "TALK TO YOUR OPPONENT" (emphasis yours, btw) govern ?

Silly me for not wanting Charging to be movement when i play Tim, but not when i play Miranda.

Give me a break. You make it sound so simple, but it's not and you (should) know it. Do you play tournaments or competitive play at all ? Talk to you Opponent is not going to be a dispute resolving stance. The rule of Roll Off is all well and good but it shouldn't govern core mechanics like "is charging movement this game or not" ?




I will say this: Lulztacular rules aside, the warscrolls are gaining traction with me. They managed (probably by mistake...) to pull off some very subtle but elegant things.
Next round of games is tomorrow, we'll see how that goes.

 The Shadow wrote:

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:
TALK TO YOUR OPPONENT.

This is all well and good but as I've said multiple times, whereas if you turned up to a WHFB pick-up game, you could quickly arrange a points value for your game and you'd be certain that the game you were about to have would be on a level playing field and, since WHFB 8th edition was generally pretty balanced, aside from taking optimal army lists (and we're still not exactly talking 3 Wraithknights like in 40k), your opponent couldn't really do anything to field an auto-win list. Basically, you can be sure any one game of WHFB you have is even, with minimal effort.

However, with Age of Sigmar I have to sit down with my opponent, examine both our collections and discuss what we think is fair. Yes, I am socially able to sit down, talk and come to an agreement with a fellow human, but this is not something we should have to do in a wargame. Can you imagine if your football (or soccer, as you'll know it) team turned up to a game and you had to sit down with the opposing team and say "Right then lads, who's allowed to touch the ball with their hands then?" or "do you reckon we should be allowed to shoot inside this box thing here?" It's just stupid, a waste of time and, frankly, completely unnecessary - all thanks to GW's laziness and, admittedly, slightly clever business tactics. Furthermore, even if my opponent and I do sit down and come to an agreement, we can't be sure that our estimates will result in an equal game and, if my opponent happens to be that kind of person, he is well within his rights set down by the rules to say "no I don't want an even game, I want to take nagash, archaon and 300 chaos warriors" and there's nothing I can do about that. Sure, I can, and will, refuse this person. But, funnily enough, I like playing wargames and I do actually want a game or two, especially when I've traveled 40 minutes to get to my FLGS/GW store. Travelling back in the car after refusing two people such games, I won't feel warm inside, proud of myself that I have risen above these scoundrels, I'll feel annoyed that I've wasted my time and petrol and not got a game in.

I am lending credence to your posts. Yes, you can sit down and come to an agreement with your opponent and, yes, if you happen to have lots of friends into the game this is probably easier. But my issue, and the issue of many others is that this is not always possible and, even when it is, you can't be sure if the game will be even (unlike WHFB) and that it takes a lot of time (unlike WHFB).

Perhaps we all lack the same wargame diplomacy skills as you, but surely you can lend credence to our posts and see why, actually, we aren't being "extreme" or "dramatic" but actually have legitimate concerns brought about by this lackluster ruleset?

comparing a physical sport to a miniature hobby but seriously, how many people just randomly go to their FLGS/GW and play random people they have never met? most of the time I always see a regular, its a tabletop wargame, get to know people, sign up on their facebook ,have meet ups... this is not the pokemon league, and anyways... if you have to travel 40min by car to your local gaming zone I suggest you REALLY make some friends so your time is not wasted (I have 3 gw stores all within 40 min walking distance and I love walking), what if you spend 40min traveling and there is no one at your local FLGS/GW store? are you going to blame peoples social lives for your lack of "gaming".

 The Shadow wrote:
This is all well and good but as I've said multiple times, whereas if you turned up to a WHFB pick-up game, you could quickly arrange a points value for your game and you'd be certain that the game you were about to have would be on a level playing field and, since WHFB 8th edition was generally pretty balanced, aside from taking optimal army lists (and we're still not exactly talking 3 Wraithknights like in 40k), your opponent couldn't really do anything to field an auto-win list. Basically, you can be sure any one game of WHFB you have is even, with minimal effort.

Is that why Beastmen had to get 300 additional points on ETC to be even remotely playable (and even then were bottom ladder spot takers)?


Okay, joking aside:

 The Shadow wrote:
he is well within his rights set down by the rules to say "no I don't want an even game, I want to take nagash, archaon and 300 chaos warriors" and there's nothing I can do about that. Sure, I can, and will, refuse this person. But, funnily enough, I like playing wargames and I do actually want a game or two, especially when I've traveled 40 minutes to get to my FLGS/GW store. Travelling back in the car after refusing two people such games, I won't feel warm inside, proud of myself that I have risen above these scoundrels, I'll feel annoyed that I've wasted my time and petrol and not got a game in.

I believe there is not a point made on all of Dakka that I agree more with than this one. Too bad some people are too ignorant to even imagine that.

I'd buy you a beer for this post if I were there.

as it stands .... i see no way to play this as a "game", with rule army building i would gladly try it.

but as written I would just prefer to play Cataan or Axis and Allies. I play Warhammer for large scale fantasy mass combat. So in order to scratch that need AoS does not work. but we will continue playing 8th

Was a warhammer fantasy player of VC and TK.

Read all the new rules of this game, tried them for a few times and I'm liking the results.

So, I'm in

 Klerych wrote:

 The Shadow wrote:
This is all well and good but as I've said multiple times, whereas if you turned up to a WHFB pick-up game, you could quickly arrange a points value for your game and you'd be certain that the game you were about to have would be on a level playing field and, since WHFB 8th edition was generally pretty balanced, aside from taking optimal army lists (and we're still not exactly talking 3 Wraithknights like in 40k), your opponent couldn't really do anything to field an auto-win list. Basically, you can be sure any one game of WHFB you have is even, with minimal effort.

Is that why Beastmen had to get 300 additional points on ETC to be even remotely playable (and even then were bottom ladder spot takers)?


Okay, joking aside:

 The Shadow wrote:
he is well within his rights set down by the rules to say "no I don't want an even game, I want to take nagash, archaon and 300 chaos warriors" and there's nothing I can do about that. Sure, I can, and will, refuse this person. But, funnily enough, I like playing wargames and I do actually want a game or two, especially when I've traveled 40 minutes to get to my FLGS/GW store. Travelling back in the car after refusing two people such games, I won't feel warm inside, proud of myself that I have risen above these scoundrels, I'll feel annoyed that I've wasted my time and petrol and not got a game in.

I believe there is not a point made on all of Dakka that I agree more with than this one. Too bad some people are too ignorant to even imagine that.

I'd buy you a beer for this post if I were there.

the last comment from both of you is very sensible and in all honesty I kinda of agree but there is a single flaw with that, if everyone at the local FLGS/GW wants to play with nagash and 300 warriors and you are the only one who wants ye old warhammer style, I guess... you are in the wrong place :/ you cannot blame the other person for not wanting to play the way you want to play, its why the internet is so awesome, you can prepare for exactly the game you want instead of "chancing" it...

I would buy you both a beer and spike it so that we could wake up together spooning

peace and love to you all

I tried it, didn't like it much.

Admittedly the staff tried to balance it by having the same amount of wounds on each side but really a points system would be better.

The problem with the rules is not that someone can insist on using Nagash, Sigmar and the Spase Emporer of Space to have an unbalanced game. The problem is that there is nothing to indicate that this would result in an unbalanced game. We can only guess how much a model with 2 wounds is worth more than a model with 1.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The problem with the rules is not that someone can insist on using Nagash, Sigmar and the Spase Emporer of Space to have an unbalanced game. The problem is that there is nothing to indicate that this would result in an unbalanced game. We can only guess how much a model with 2 wounds is worth more than a model with 1.

This is the key problem. The problem isn't just the overexaggerated 200 Barbarians vs. 10 Skaven Slaves situations. The problem is the huge grey zone in between. Is 10 Sigmarites vs. 50 Slaves balanced? Or 30 Slaves? Or 70? is one Bretonnian lance balanced to 2 units of NIght Goblins? One? Three? There's no means to get to a viable result and this is why AoS is currently a bloody mess.