NWansbutter wrote:
Just going back to the topic of rumours concerning Age of Sigmar, I saw this on Faet and it sounds both a lot better and a lot more realistic/likely than the text block about Nigmos we've been arguing over:

http://natfka.blogspot.ca/2015/06/an-introduction-to-age-of-sigmar.html

Spoiler:

We have seen a lot of information come through, and I have held a lot as well that came in to me directly, simply because I think there was a lot of guessing and reverb going on. Today I believe we may have a decent look at just what this game will be about, and a run down on some basics of game play and the feel of the game.


Please take this right now as rumor.


via anonymous sources on Faeit 212
I think players should be doing a bit more to give current players more info,
but as they don't seem to want to do that, I thought I'd weigh in with what
I know.

I had to be taught how the new game works in order to
teach it to potential players.

As this info comes from the intro game there may be some simplification of
the rules that I am unaware of, as you don't want to overload a newbie with
too much info.

Anyway, on with what I know:

Age of Sigmar offers a skirmish-level fantasy game, he did not know
whether it would be expanded to a mass-battle game later but he thought it
would.

Players take control over several small units, organised into loose groups.
The models are on round bases. He mentioned that at least at our location,
people can use square bases if they want to, in fact with the new
unit formation rules it might be slightly easier to use squares.

Units can choose how loose their units form up, either very loose (think
8th ed skirmisher loose) with benefits to movement and defense against
shooting, tight, or square.

Tight allows for more maneuvers than square, but is less maneuverable than
loose. However, if you receive a charge in tight formation you're better
off in CC than if you received it in Skirmish.

Square offers almost no maneuverability, you can only move slowly forward.
However, if you receive a charge in Square formation then you're better off
in CC than if you received it in Tight or Skirmish formation.

One of the units in the intro game (the Chosen of Sigmar) can elect to
change their formation when someone declares a charge against them as long
as they pass a Ld check (base Ld 8 so it's fairly easy, hero had Ld 9)

The only real benefit to receiving a charge in Skirmish formation (and
there are a ton of negatives - you don't get a bonus from your numbers,
only the models in base contact with the enemy can strike (see below), and
you can't parry) is that the enemy don't get the bonus for charging you in
your flank/rear, since the skirmish formation means you effectively don't
have any.

A lot of the base rules are the same as in 8th ed fantasy. The same
statline is there (M, WS, BS etc etc), armour works the same, shooting
takes similar penalties (long range, soft cover, shooting at skirmishers
etc), the difference is in the recommended level of play. CC works out in
much the same way, highest I goes first, units in base contact with either
an enemy model or a friendly model in base contact with an enemy model get
to strike, though only the former get to use all their attacks. Casualties
are removed from the back, as per usual. Different kinds of weapons
(halberds, spears, etc) and their associated bonuses weren't brought up
since the models involved only used hand weapons. Hand weapon + shield
still gives you a parry save though, as long as you received a charge (or
charged yourself) in tight or square formation, and the attacks weren't
coming from your flanks or rear.

GW is trying to push this to be played at the 1000-1500pt level. A lot of
focus was put on the heroes leading each force, and leaders will have more
impact on the game. Think LotR Strategy Battle Game and its Warband rules.
He implied that leaders in general will be more expensive, but have
more of an impact on the game. So a 1000pt force might be led by a 300pt
hero who is absolutely the core of the force, and if they die the rest of
the force is at a severe disadvantage. This goes double if the leader is
killed in a challenge by the enemy leader.

On a personal note, the game seemed...fun. The choice between different
types of formation provided a level of tactical flexibility that didn't
exist in the old game, but required more forward thinking. Do you start in
skirmish formation for more maneuverability, risking getting charged with
no bonuses from your numbers? Or do you form up Tight and split the
difference? Or do you make like a Dwarf and form up Square and just risk
getting outflanked? Also, when the two leaders got into a challenge in the
middle it was exciting - mine was faster but not as strong, hers was slower
but more likely to do lasting damage. We stopped before one leader killed
the other though.

Magic wasn't raised in the intro game, but once again I was told
it hasn't hugely changed. Only thing I should mention is that,
aside from some notable exceptions, wizards can't be leaders of a force.

On a background note - I was laughed at for about 10 straight minutes
when I told her about the rumours of "Waaaghkin" led by an all-female caste
of "Nigmos", though he was strangely silent when I mentioned Regalia.

From what little he did mention, the core races are all-but unchanged in their
basic background. Humanity is represented by the Empire, with the Chosen of
Sigmar being an auxiliary detachment that is often fielded alongside Empire
forces. Orcs and Goblins are there, nothing about 'Nigmos' or whatever.
Chaos is obviously there, in both Daemon and Warrior form, he didn't know
anything about Beastmen. Lizardmen weren't mentioned, neither were Skaven,
Elves were though. Elves are becoming a bit more like Space Marines in one
specific aspect - they're all one race, but differentiated on the grounds
of how they wage war, a bit like Chapter Tactics. High Elves will have 'Elf
Tactics' that reflect their training and drilling, Dark Elves will
have 'Elf Tactics' that reflect their cruelty and malice, and Wood Elves
will have 'Elf Tactics' that reflect their reliance on hit-and-run attacks.
I anticipate this means a single Elf book with basic troop units, some
specific units for each type of Elf, and the rest of the differences will
be in these 'Elf Tactics' and colour scheme etc.

I'm trying to remember anything else, the units were about 10-15 models
each. The Chaos forces were comprised of a unit of 10 warriors, 15
marauders, 5 warhounds, and the chaos leader. The Chosen of Sigmar (being
represented by Lizardmen models as the actual models are obviously
currently unavailable) had 15 'warriors of light', 10 'hunters' with
shortbows, and 10 'chosen', plus the leader.

It seemed a little unbalanced
in the Chosen's favour, but my manager said that when you're introducing
people to the game, although you let them pick, you talk up the Chosen more
so that they're more likely to pick them and be the good guy. That way,
although it looks fairly even, the Chosen have an advantage. Like other
intro games that have come before it, it is intended to provide 2 good,
though small, starting forces.

It was implied that both armies would
need 2-3 boxes of troops added to them to get them to 'average game' size.
This was obviously important because a key part of the intro game is not
only selling the intro box, but also upselling the customer to get a couple
more boxes for a bigger force.

Stat-line wise, though I wasn't told any specifics (this was more a matter
of 'Okay so the Warriors of Light are in close combat with the Marauders,
so you go first and hit on...') regarding statlines, this is a rough
breakdown:
- Warriors of Light are a halfway point between marauders and Chaos
Warriors, not as tough or as well armoured, but more skilled than
marauders, they were hitting marauders on 3s and saving wounds on a 4+
- Chosen are basically Chaos Warriors, same armour save, they were hit on a
4+ and wounded on a 4+ by Chaos Warriors, saving on a 4+
- Hunters are skirmishing bowmen, their only unique aspect is that I think
their bows are armour piercing. They were hitting stuff at long range
(range 24") on 5s, wounding Chaos Warriors on 5s, but Chaos Warriors with
shields were only saving on a 4+, instead of the 3+ they were saving on
against the Hunters in close combat.
- Leader of the Chosen was basically the Chosen's statline with +1 to
everything except Movement and Toughness. He had a sword that allowed him
to re-roll failed hits against Chaos things.

I am using the current statlines for Chaos Warriors, Marauders etc in these
estimations, and they are liable to change.

Anyway, that's all I can remember. I hope this is informative!

I've actually been fairly apathetic about Age of Sigmar (just because of the uncertainty) and was prepared to just stick to 6th edition in my closed gaming group, but this actually has enough potential to get me just a tiny bit excited. Maybe we'll end up using Age of Sigmar after all.

 NWansbutter wrote:
Just going back to the topic of rumours concerning Age of Sigmar, I saw this on Faet and it sounds both a lot better and a lot more realistic/likely than the text block about Nigmos we've been arguing over:

http://natfka.blogspot.ca/2015/06/an-introduction-to-age-of-sigmar.html

Spoiler:

We have seen a lot of information come through, and I have held a lot as well that came in to me directly, simply because I think there was a lot of guessing and reverb going on. Today I believe we may have a decent look at just what this game will be about, and a run down on some basics of game play and the feel of the game.


Please take this right now as rumor.


via anonymous sources on Faeit 212
I think players should be doing a bit more to give current players more info,
but as they don't seem to want to do that, I thought I'd weigh in with what
I know.

I had to be taught how the new game works in order to
teach it to potential players.

As this info comes from the intro game there may be some simplification of
the rules that I am unaware of, as you don't want to overload a newbie with
too much info.

Anyway, on with what I know:

Age of Sigmar offers a skirmish-level fantasy game, he did not know
whether it would be expanded to a mass-battle game later but he thought it
would.

Players take control over several small units, organised into loose groups.
The models are on round bases. He mentioned that at least at our location,
people can use square bases if they want to, in fact with the new
unit formation rules it might be slightly easier to use squares.

Units can choose how loose their units form up, either very loose (think
8th ed skirmisher loose) with benefits to movement and defense against
shooting, tight, or square.

Tight allows for more maneuvers than square, but is less maneuverable than
loose. However, if you receive a charge in tight formation you're better
off in CC than if you received it in Skirmish.

Square offers almost no maneuverability, you can only move slowly forward.
However, if you receive a charge in Square formation then you're better off
in CC than if you received it in Tight or Skirmish formation.

One of the units in the intro game (the Chosen of Sigmar) can elect to
change their formation when someone declares a charge against them as long
as they pass a Ld check (base Ld 8 so it's fairly easy, hero had Ld 9)

The only real benefit to receiving a charge in Skirmish formation (and
there are a ton of negatives - you don't get a bonus from your numbers,
only the models in base contact with the enemy can strike (see below), and
you can't parry) is that the enemy don't get the bonus for charging you in
your flank/rear, since the skirmish formation means you effectively don't
have any.

A lot of the base rules are the same as in 8th ed fantasy. The same
statline is there (M, WS, BS etc etc), armour works the same, shooting
takes similar penalties (long range, soft cover, shooting at skirmishers
etc), the difference is in the recommended level of play. CC works out in
much the same way, highest I goes first, units in base contact with either
an enemy model or a friendly model in base contact with an enemy model get
to strike, though only the former get to use all their attacks. Casualties
are removed from the back, as per usual. Different kinds of weapons
(halberds, spears, etc) and their associated bonuses weren't brought up
since the models involved only used hand weapons. Hand weapon + shield
still gives you a parry save though, as long as you received a charge (or
charged yourself) in tight or square formation, and the attacks weren't
coming from your flanks or rear.

GW is trying to push this to be played at the 1000-1500pt level. A lot of
focus was put on the heroes leading each force, and leaders will have more
impact on the game. Think LotR Strategy Battle Game and its Warband rules.
He implied that leaders in general will be more expensive, but have
more of an impact on the game. So a 1000pt force might be led by a 300pt
hero who is absolutely the core of the force, and if they die the rest of
the force is at a severe disadvantage. This goes double if the leader is
killed in a challenge by the enemy leader.

On a personal note, the game seemed...fun. The choice between different
types of formation provided a level of tactical flexibility that didn't
exist in the old game, but required more forward thinking. Do you start in
skirmish formation for more maneuverability, risking getting charged with
no bonuses from your numbers? Or do you form up Tight and split the
difference? Or do you make like a Dwarf and form up Square and just risk
getting outflanked? Also, when the two leaders got into a challenge in the
middle it was exciting - mine was faster but not as strong, hers was slower
but more likely to do lasting damage. We stopped before one leader killed
the other though.

Magic wasn't raised in the intro game, but once again I was told
it hasn't hugely changed. Only thing I should mention is that,
aside from some notable exceptions, wizards can't be leaders of a force.

On a background note - I was laughed at for about 10 straight minutes
when I told her about the rumours of "Waaaghkin" led by an all-female caste
of "Nigmos", though he was strangely silent when I mentioned Regalia.

From what little he did mention, the core races are all-but unchanged in their
basic background. Humanity is represented by the Empire, with the Chosen of
Sigmar being an auxiliary detachment that is often fielded alongside Empire
forces. Orcs and Goblins are there, nothing about 'Nigmos' or whatever.
Chaos is obviously there, in both Daemon and Warrior form, he didn't know
anything about Beastmen. Lizardmen weren't mentioned, neither were Skaven,
Elves were though. Elves are becoming a bit more like Space Marines in one
specific aspect - they're all one race, but differentiated on the grounds
of how they wage war, a bit like Chapter Tactics. High Elves will have 'Elf
Tactics' that reflect their training and drilling, Dark Elves will
have 'Elf Tactics' that reflect their cruelty and malice, and Wood Elves
will have 'Elf Tactics' that reflect their reliance on hit-and-run attacks.
I anticipate this means a single Elf book with basic troop units, some
specific units for each type of Elf, and the rest of the differences will
be in these 'Elf Tactics' and colour scheme etc.

I'm trying to remember anything else, the units were about 10-15 models
each. The Chaos forces were comprised of a unit of 10 warriors, 15
marauders, 5 warhounds, and the chaos leader. The Chosen of Sigmar (being
represented by Lizardmen models as the actual models are obviously
currently unavailable) had 15 'warriors of light', 10 'hunters' with
shortbows, and 10 'chosen', plus the leader.

It seemed a little unbalanced
in the Chosen's favour, but my manager said that when you're introducing
people to the game, although you let them pick, you talk up the Chosen more
so that they're more likely to pick them and be the good guy. That way,
although it looks fairly even, the Chosen have an advantage. Like other
intro games that have come before it, it is intended to provide 2 good,
though small, starting forces.

It was implied that both armies would
need 2-3 boxes of troops added to them to get them to 'average game' size.
This was obviously important because a key part of the intro game is not
only selling the intro box, but also upselling the customer to get a couple
more boxes for a bigger force.

Stat-line wise, though I wasn't told any specifics (this was more a matter
of 'Okay so the Warriors of Light are in close combat with the Marauders,
so you go first and hit on...') regarding statlines, this is a rough
breakdown:
- Warriors of Light are a halfway point between marauders and Chaos
Warriors, not as tough or as well armoured, but more skilled than
marauders, they were hitting marauders on 3s and saving wounds on a 4+
- Chosen are basically Chaos Warriors, same armour save, they were hit on a
4+ and wounded on a 4+ by Chaos Warriors, saving on a 4+
- Hunters are skirmishing bowmen, their only unique aspect is that I think
their bows are armour piercing. They were hitting stuff at long range
(range 24") on 5s, wounding Chaos Warriors on 5s, but Chaos Warriors with
shields were only saving on a 4+, instead of the 3+ they were saving on
against the Hunters in close combat.
- Leader of the Chosen was basically the Chosen's statline with +1 to
everything except Movement and Toughness. He had a sword that allowed him
to re-roll failed hits against Chaos things.

I am using the current statlines for Chaos Warriors, Marauders etc in these
estimations, and they are liable to change.

Anyway, that's all I can remember. I hope this is informative!

I've actually been fairly apathetic about Age of Sigmar (just because of the uncertainty) and was prepared to just stick to 6th edition in my closed gaming group, but this actually has enough potential to get me just a tiny bit excited. Maybe we'll end up using Age of Sigmar after all.

Oryza Sativa wrote:
This sounds like something I would actually be pretty interested in playing. And the described army sizes would allow me to field a huge variety of armies, since I have collected models from a few different armies over time while focusing on building one large (High Elf) force for active play. Cautiously excited.

 Aerethan wrote:
This basically sounds like a mix of Warhammer Skirmish and the Warbands campaign from years back. Nothing sounds so earth shattering that it would deem all of the old books invalid on day 1.

Are we supposed to just accept skirmish as the only official way to play until they hopefully release rules for scaled up games?

Herzlos wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
They're not going to cancel it that quickly. Look at Dreadfleet - AOS will last at least as long as DF did.

Wasn't Dreadfleet pulled from the shelves within a year, never to be spoken of again?

Though they did keep the LE Hobbit box on the shelves for over a year.

That's a thought; do you think there's going to be an initial wave of LE AoS boxes?

 mikhaila wrote:
Part of GW's problem is they base all decisions on the UK model. If they think it works there, they figure it works everywhere. They sort of forget the whole think about different cultures and countries 100 times as big. They also seem to ignore how marketing works differently in different parts of the world. This starts to show in how many times they have tried to unroll stores across the USA and blanket it like the UK. They expand a bit, and then start retreating like the germans trying to take over russia in WW2.

In the UK, Magic the Gathering isn't as big. In the US it is huge, a behemoth that not only rivals GW at it's peak, but surpassed it years ago and has outsold any other game in history. Sales in 2012 were 25 million. Up over 20% in 2013 and more growth in 2014. 2015 is already big with ModernMasters2 leading the way. And while growth and profits are a great thing, lets look at some other things they do:

-Spent millions on a worldwide database of players and stores that is integrated with easy to use tournament software. Stores can enter players, hit a button and the software handles all pairings and at the end uploads info to wizards for player rankings.
-Supports thousands of tournaments each year with advertising and product support, up to national and world championships.
-Gives stores a large amount of freedom in running events and rewards those stores that give the most for their communities with more support from the company.

How i wish GW had done these things. Instead they now run zero events in the US.

This is why GW has competition from MTG. WOTC supports stores heavily. For this pre-release they'll send me many boxes of free packs to hand out as prizes, and the event is guaranteed profitable. It's advertised on their own websites and they drive players to stores. For many stores this is their main profit center. For 90% of stores it isn't even an option to choose whether to support MTG or GW, it's a no brainer. AoS will get chucked on a rack and they'll worry about it the next week.

In fact, every store may be doing just that. GW hasn't sent out demo sets for a long, long time. If they tell stores nothing until right before the release, and If we get in the games a day or two ahead of release, its a bit tough to get demo sets put together, and know enough about the game to run a demo or explain the rules. You will probably just see an open box and you can look at the sprues and thumb through a rulebook.

I wish Sigmar would just take a hammer to Kirby's head and then work his way down the company ladder until he find someone with a clue.

 zedmeister wrote:
Magic, Big? You could say that. Magic single-handedly keeps many hobby and gaming stores in the black. If I ran a store and had to choose between a well publicised and well known about launch of Magic or a murky unknown in the form of Age of Sigmar, then Sigmar's going to be relegated to a handful of stock posters and a small display in the corner. Maybe a demo table if I had the room. Magic will be given centre stage as that's where the money and numbers lie. Plus, I'd know what to expect ahead of time, so can plan properly for it, make sure staff are about and are educated on what they need to know, arrange the store accordingly, get posters and flyers printed, take to the Internet, launch day promotions, etc etc etc.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

BUT MTG is a card game. It's easy to print off cards and fire them all over the country or set up a database, or play it online, like what I used to do. Hell, when it comes to playing the game, what do you need? A table and two players. It's a very low tech game, and a damn good one at that, I love the game.

GW's product is obviously miniatures. You'll know better than me, but getting terrain ready, getting enough tables, getting room for the tables painting minis etc etc is a lot harder than tearing open a booster pack and playing magic.

mikhaila wrote:WOTC supports stores heavily... they drive players to stores.

I wish Sigmar would just take a hammer to Kirby's head and then work his way down the company ladder until he find someone with a clue.

Spoiler:

NWansbutter wrote:

Spoiler:

Players take control over several small units, organised into loose groups.
The models are on round bases. He mentioned that at least at our location,
people can use square bases if they want to, in fact with the new
unit formation rules it might be slightly easier to use squares.

Units can choose how loose their units form up, either very loose (think
8th ed skirmisher loose) with benefits to movement and defense against
shooting, tight, or square.

Tight allows for more maneuvers than square, but is less maneuverable than
loose. However, if you receive a charge in tight formation you're better
off in CC than if you received it in Skirmish.

Square offers almost no maneuverability, you can only move slowly forward.
However, if you receive a charge in Square formation then you're better off
in CC than if you received it in Tight or Skirmish formation.

One of the units in the intro game (the Chosen of Sigmar) can elect to
change their formation when someone declares a charge against them as long
as they pass a Ld check (base Ld 8 so it's fairly easy, hero had Ld 9)

The only real benefit to receiving a charge in Skirmish formation (and
there are a ton of negatives - you don't get a bonus from your numbers,
only the models in base contact with the enemy can strike (see below), and
you can't parry) is that the enemy don't get the bonus for charging you in
your flank/rear, since the skirmish formation means you effectively don't
have any.

On a personal note, the game seemed...fun. The choice between different
types of formation provided a level of tactical flexibility that didn't
exist in the old game, but required more forward thinking.

Spoiler:

in the Chosen's favour, but my manager said that when you're introducing
people to the game, although you let them pick, you talk up the Chosen more
so that they're more likely to pick them and be the good guy.

OgreChubbs wrote:I actually had to google mtg thing to find out what it was lol. The closest gw store is one hour away. Closest store to buy mtg is 3 hours away so gw wins here

 warboss wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

BUT MTG is a card game. It's easy to print off cards and fire them all over the country or set up a database, or play it online, like what I used to do. Hell, when it comes to playing the game, what do you need? A table and two players. It's a very low tech game, and a damn good one at that, I love the game.

GW's product is obviously miniatures. You'll know better than me, but getting terrain ready, getting enough tables, getting room for the tables painting minis etc etc is a lot harder than tearing open a booster pack and playing magic.

Yeah, it's cheaper to ship cards willy nilly across the country. If only there was an existing way that stores could sign up for a program (let's just call it a retailer account for example) where they'd regularly order product from that manufacturer direct and get in the vast majority of cases weekly LARGE shipments from them that those freebies could just be thrown in with instead of costing a whole separate shipping charge... if only!

As for terrain, I'm going to guess that the stores that would benefit from tourny support (like Mikhalia's) for GW games already have made the investments in stuff like tables and terrain. GW already vets stores for a proper retail presence either in person or electronically (pics, videos, and such) so making sure that the stores that would be receiving said tourny support actually could properly use it and qualify for it would be relatively trivial for a $100 million international company that is the current sales leader in the hobby niche. The problem is that there is no will to do so and they expect the money to flow in like a river regardless of how many beaver dams they put up voluntarily.

Chopxsticks wrote:
Ahhhhh less talk about Magic cards, More talk about Round warhammer tables and random void floating movement!!!!

Saldiven wrote:

 monders wrote:

Is MtG that big? I've only seen a handful of very odd people playing it at Manchesters premier stink pit, Fanboy3.

It's bigger than GW.

So is Pokémon, btw.

Edit for stats:

According to Motley Fool in 2014, MtG's direct revenue was around $250,000,000.00. Keep in mind, this is when their primary sales item is a pack of cards that sells for less than $5.00.

"Over the last five years, the Magic brand has grown annual revenue by 182%. That puts the brand's annual revenue somewhere close to $250 million, though Hasbro hasn't released an official figure."

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2014/04/05/magic-the-gathering-hasbros-key-to-growth.aspx

OgreChubbs wrote:
I actually had to google mtg thing to find out what it was lol. The closest gw store is one hour away. Closest store to buy mtg is 3 hours away so gw wins here

Chopxsticks wrote:
Yes clearly when all the rumors sound like a joke its easy to distinguish between them. Would be nice if people would just post real rumors than wouldn't it...

 Bottle wrote:
The new rumours sound nice. So will I be able to make a "square" formation with circle bases???????

And as long as my Empire aren't ghost units I have to summon from another plane, I'm happy.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Good points, but I think it's still easier for WOTC to outgun GW, simply because cards are cheaper than plastic minis, and there's a bigger profit margin for WOTC.

On a personal note, the game seemed...fun. The choice between different
types of formation provided a level of tactical flexibility that didn't
exist in the old game, but required more forward thinking. Do you start in
skirmish formation for more maneuverability, risking getting charged with
no bonuses from your numbers? Or do you form up Tight and split the
difference? Or do you make like a Dwarf and form up Square and just risk
getting outflanked? Also, when the two leaders got into a challenge in the
middle it was exciting - mine was faster but not as strong, hers was slower
but more likely to do lasting damage. We stopped before one leader killed
the other though.

 NWansbutter wrote:
Just going back to the topic of rumours concerning Age of Sigmar, I saw this on Faet and it sounds both a lot better and a lot more realistic/likely than the text block about Nigmos we've been arguing over:

http://natfka.blogspot.ca/2015/06/an-introduction-to-age-of-sigmar.html

Spoiler:

We have seen a lot of information come through, and I have held a lot as well that came in to me directly, simply because I think there was a lot of guessing and reverb going on. Today I believe we may have a decent look at just what this game will be about, and a run down on some basics of game play and the feel of the game.


Please take this right now as rumor.


via anonymous sources on Faeit 212
I think players should be doing a bit more to give current players more info,
but as they don't seem to want to do that, I thought I'd weigh in with what
I know.

I had to be taught how the new game works in order to
teach it to potential players.

As this info comes from the intro game there may be some simplification of
the rules that I am unaware of, as you don't want to overload a newbie with
too much info.

Anyway, on with what I know:

Age of Sigmar offers a skirmish-level fantasy game, he did not know
whether it would be expanded to a mass-battle game later but he thought it
would.

Players take control over several small units, organised into loose groups.
The models are on round bases. He mentioned that at least at our location,
people can use square bases if they want to, in fact with the new
unit formation rules it might be slightly easier to use squares.

Units can choose how loose their units form up, either very loose (think
8th ed skirmisher loose) with benefits to movement and defense against
shooting, tight, or square.

Tight allows for more maneuvers than square, but is less maneuverable than
loose. However, if you receive a charge in tight formation you're better
off in CC than if you received it in Skirmish.

Square offers almost no maneuverability, you can only move slowly forward.
However, if you receive a charge in Square formation then you're better off
in CC than if you received it in Tight or Skirmish formation.

One of the units in the intro game (the Chosen of Sigmar) can elect to
change their formation when someone declares a charge against them as long
as they pass a Ld check (base Ld 8 so it's fairly easy, hero had Ld 9)

The only real benefit to receiving a charge in Skirmish formation (and
there are a ton of negatives - you don't get a bonus from your numbers,
only the models in base contact with the enemy can strike (see below), and
you can't parry) is that the enemy don't get the bonus for charging you in
your flank/rear, since the skirmish formation means you effectively don't
have any.

A lot of the base rules are the same as in 8th ed fantasy. The same
statline is there (M, WS, BS etc etc), armour works the same, shooting
takes similar penalties (long range, soft cover, shooting at skirmishers
etc), the difference is in the recommended level of play. CC works out in
much the same way, highest I goes first, units in base contact with either
an enemy model or a friendly model in base contact with an enemy model get
to strike, though only the former get to use all their attacks. Casualties
are removed from the back, as per usual. Different kinds of weapons
(halberds, spears, etc) and their associated bonuses weren't brought up
since the models involved only used hand weapons. Hand weapon + shield
still gives you a parry save though, as long as you received a charge (or
charged yourself) in tight or square formation, and the attacks weren't
coming from your flanks or rear.

GW is trying to push this to be played at the 1000-1500pt level. A lot of
focus was put on the heroes leading each force, and leaders will have more
impact on the game. Think LotR Strategy Battle Game and its Warband rules.
He implied that leaders in general will be more expensive, but have
more of an impact on the game. So a 1000pt force might be led by a 300pt
hero who is absolutely the core of the force, and if they die the rest of
the force is at a severe disadvantage. This goes double if the leader is
killed in a challenge by the enemy leader.

On a personal note, the game seemed...fun. The choice between different
types of formation provided a level of tactical flexibility that didn't
exist in the old game, but required more forward thinking. Do you start in
skirmish formation for more maneuverability, risking getting charged with
no bonuses from your numbers? Or do you form up Tight and split the
difference? Or do you make like a Dwarf and form up Square and just risk
getting outflanked? Also, when the two leaders got into a challenge in the
middle it was exciting - mine was faster but not as strong, hers was slower
but more likely to do lasting damage. We stopped before one leader killed
the other though.

Magic wasn't raised in the intro game, but once again I was told
it hasn't hugely changed. Only thing I should mention is that,
aside from some notable exceptions, wizards can't be leaders of a force.

On a background note - I was laughed at for about 10 straight minutes
when I told her about the rumours of "Waaaghkin" led by an all-female caste
of "Nigmos", though he was strangely silent when I mentioned Regalia.

From what little he did mention, the core races are all-but unchanged in their
basic background. Humanity is represented by the Empire, with the Chosen of
Sigmar being an auxiliary detachment that is often fielded alongside Empire
forces. Orcs and Goblins are there, nothing about 'Nigmos' or whatever.
Chaos is obviously there, in both Daemon and Warrior form, he didn't know
anything about Beastmen. Lizardmen weren't mentioned, neither were Skaven,
Elves were though. Elves are becoming a bit more like Space Marines in one
specific aspect - they're all one race, but differentiated on the grounds
of how they wage war, a bit like Chapter Tactics. High Elves will have 'Elf
Tactics' that reflect their training and drilling, Dark Elves will
have 'Elf Tactics' that reflect their cruelty and malice, and Wood Elves
will have 'Elf Tactics' that reflect their reliance on hit-and-run attacks.
I anticipate this means a single Elf book with basic troop units, some
specific units for each type of Elf, and the rest of the differences will
be in these 'Elf Tactics' and colour scheme etc.

I'm trying to remember anything else, the units were about 10-15 models
each. The Chaos forces were comprised of a unit of 10 warriors, 15
marauders, 5 warhounds, and the chaos leader. The Chosen of Sigmar (being
represented by Lizardmen models as the actual models are obviously
currently unavailable) had 15 'warriors of light', 10 'hunters' with
shortbows, and 10 'chosen', plus the leader.

It seemed a little unbalanced
in the Chosen's favour, but my manager said that when you're introducing
people to the game, although you let them pick, you talk up the Chosen more
so that they're more likely to pick them and be the good guy. That way,
although it looks fairly even, the Chosen have an advantage. Like other
intro games that have come before it, it is intended to provide 2 good,
though small, starting forces.

It was implied that both armies would
need 2-3 boxes of troops added to them to get them to 'average game' size.
This was obviously important because a key part of the intro game is not
only selling the intro box, but also upselling the customer to get a couple
more boxes for a bigger force.

Stat-line wise, though I wasn't told any specifics (this was more a matter
of 'Okay so the Warriors of Light are in close combat with the Marauders,
so you go first and hit on...') regarding statlines, this is a rough
breakdown:
- Warriors of Light are a halfway point between marauders and Chaos
Warriors, not as tough or as well armoured, but more skilled than
marauders, they were hitting marauders on 3s and saving wounds on a 4+
- Chosen are basically Chaos Warriors, same armour save, they were hit on a
4+ and wounded on a 4+ by Chaos Warriors, saving on a 4+
- Hunters are skirmishing bowmen, their only unique aspect is that I think
their bows are armour piercing. They were hitting stuff at long range
(range 24") on 5s, wounding Chaos Warriors on 5s, but Chaos Warriors with
shields were only saving on a 4+, instead of the 3+ they were saving on
against the Hunters in close combat.
- Leader of the Chosen was basically the Chosen's statline with +1 to
everything except Movement and Toughness. He had a sword that allowed him
to re-roll failed hits against Chaos things.

I am using the current statlines for Chaos Warriors, Marauders etc in these
estimations, and they are liable to change.

Anyway, that's all I can remember. I hope this is informative!

I've actually been fairly apathetic about Age of Sigmar (just because of the uncertainty) and was prepared to just stick to 6th edition in my closed gaming group, but this actually has enough potential to get me just a tiny bit excited. Maybe we'll end up using Age of Sigmar after all.

privateer4hire wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
The new rumours sound nice. So will I be able to make a "square" formation with circle bases???????

And as long as my Empire aren't ghost units I have to summon from another plane, I'm happy.

I'm wondering (assuming that rumor specifically is true) if you don't need counters to show what each unit is doing formation-wise each turn.
Such counters would obviously be available in army specific patterns sold in limited edition tins and later as generic ones.

Yodhrin wrote:
And they in no way whatsoever required GW to take a massive steaming cacky all over the background. Not even slightly.

 Yodhrin wrote:


You know, I'd honestly be more annoyed with something like that than with the pretty mental total overhaul in the rumours you allude to. Why? Because these new rumours don't just sound plausible, they sound pretty good, indeed they sound like exactly the sort of thing that Warhammer needed.

And they in no way whatsoever required GW to take a massive steaming cacky all over the background. Not even slightly.

Switch to a Stormclaw-esque release model for the game going forward, focus the campaigns on smaller conflicts that form part of the wider war, bam, there's your excuse to move to smaller units and game sizes. Moderately ramp up the Chaos threat to "oh balls, they're going to overrun Prague again", and have Valten pop up to work with the Witch Hunters to found a new knightly order and recover some shiny magical relic to Super Saiyan them up to fight the resurgent Chaos threat, and there's your justification for this new Sigmarines nonsense. Bring back Nagash but have him as a Man Behind the Curtain-style villain, still giving justification to amalgamate the Undead. Threaten all the Elven races with daemonic incursion through those magical pathways of the Old Ones or whatever, to justify them uniting.

There are so, so many ways they could have achieved the same outcomes from gameplay and sales/stock management perspectives as the End Times while leaving the existing fiction almost entirely intact that the only reason I can think of for this whole debacle is sheer, utter laziness. Sure, they could have put time, effort, and resources into marketing the new version of the game, but far easier to just smash it with a hammer as an attention-grabber.

Ugh.