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.

 rybackstun wrote:
I love how the idea of "Wait and See" is nearly impossible for some people to comprehend.

I shall wait and see how much bigger this train wreck gets. Thank you for your advice.

Eumerin wrote:

Nocturnus wrote:
There are miniature games that don't have a points system. Tomorrow's War and Force on Force are two off the top of my head. They are fun to play. I think the problem is that anything GW makes. people want to use it for tournament play. I don't have an issue with that, but GW has been actively moving away from organized play for years. Maybe this is their solution?

Such games are completely unable to handle pick-up games, though. They're fine if you want to design scenarios for literally every single meet-up. But they don't work when two random people who just happen to both have armies show up at the game store at the same time.

Actually, it really only requires having two sensible individuals that want to have a game, not WAAC. Regardless, I don't know what GW is thinking at this point.

I think it stands to reason that 'stats' are going to narrow and be much closer to one another now. I.e. in the oft-used example previously, I would wager that a Bloodthirster's stats are going to be -much- closer to a Spearman's stats than they were in previous editions.

That way, if you DO take a BT, and I take my 10 speardudes, I actually have a shot at killing him - whereas before, I might not have even been able to harm him.

And putting caps on the number of 'warscrolls' you can use... that could very well be the 'balancing factor', but I still find it hard to believe that will provide much of a balance. I dunno. If they really super-simplified it to where stats/abilities were all within the same ballpark as one another, I guess it could work...

But the whole 'take anything you want' really annoys me. I have -zero- interest in seeing someone's Chaos warband mixing with some high elves and undead. If you're going to allow that - why bother with 'factions' at all? Oh, I know - 'there will be bonuses for keeping your list pure to one faction'.... well, I'm eager to see what those are, too.

Days are counting down, though... getting closer.

 Sidstyler wrote:

 rybackstun wrote:
I love how the idea of "Wait and See" is nearly impossible for some people to comprehend.

Well you know what, let's just lock the fething thread then until Saturday. No one's allowed to discuss what we know anymore until we have the full story!

Seriously, the lengths some people will go to in order to silence dissent. I sometimes wonder if people aren't getting paid by GW themselves to come here and talk everyone down.

Statement of observation = silencing dissent.

That's a leap in logic that even I can't follow, so I'm impressed.

I'm not even sure free rules is a fantastic idea.

There's a running club near me which started charging junior members an annual fee. Everyone was in uproar and claimed it would kill off junior attendance. Instead, the opposite happened and attendance went through the roof i.e. I'm paying for this now little Timmy, so you're damn well going to go to run club and not lie in bed.

You buy something like a rulebook / armybook etc, you're more likely to want to do something with it. because you don't want the money to have been wasted.

I think people will enjoy flicking through the free stuff on Saturday, but most will have got bored within a month or so.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Talk about super-dumbed down.

And that break test rule is bull gak.

I guess to open a new market for 6 year olds who saw daddy play with small soldiers.

This sure is a rollercoaster... I have such a hard time believing there is NO balancing mechanic. I mean, they have created rules for EVERY MODEL they make, apparently. That is a huge task! Think of the man hours that had to go into that. Why would they go through all that effort if they didn't care about the rules? Why would they create what looks like a simple, but quite fun, ruleset, only to screw it all up like that? It defies belief. There has to be SOMETHING, even if it's coming later. Still, even if that's the case, it's such a huge dick move against retailers that I can't believe it. Obviously they want retailers to carry it, and a lot of it, otherwise they wouldn't give them good incentives to do so. How could they not realize that this one bit of info would make retailers cut down their orders to nearly nothing? Yeah, I have no idea what's going on.

Nocturnus wrote:

Eumerin wrote:

Nocturnus wrote:
There are miniature games that don't have a points system. Tomorrow's War and Force on Force are two off the top of my head. They are fun to play. I think the problem is that anything GW makes. people want to use it for tournament play. I don't have an issue with that, but GW has been actively moving away from organized play for years. Maybe this is their solution?

Such games are completely unable to handle pick-up games, though. They're fine if you want to design scenarios for literally every single meet-up. But they don't work when two random people who just happen to both have armies show up at the game store at the same time.

Actually, it really only requires having two sensible individuals that want to have a game, not WAAC. Regardless, I don't know what GW is thinking at this point.

The word I think you are realy looking for is understanding, two individuals that understand the systems Rules, Flaws and what they both want to achieve with a game.

Sensible is highly contextual in a wargame, Two people can both say. 10 scrolls 2000 points, or even 1hero 2 core, 2 special. And still turn up to the game looking for completely difernt things.
GW still needs to make sure that the rules and guide they provide, do provide structure.

Even if two sensible, non-WAAC, fluffy players show up and are willing to compromise to get a balanced game... How would they know how to do it? It's essentially asking the players to design the game and assign points costs, a job that would take months, right there and then.

It all sounds pretty horrible at the moment. My original stance was "I don't think GW will be able to write a decent game to replace WHFB". I still think that is the case.

But if the WD has a free model on it, I'll go pick one up and have a read of the new rules.

Mymearan wrote:
This sure is a rollercoaster... I have such a hard time believing there is NO balancing mechanic. I mean, they have created rules for EVERY MODEL they make, apparently. That is a huge task! Think of the man hours that had to go into that. Why would they go through all that effort if they didn't care about the rules? Why would they create what looks like a simple, but quite fun, ruleset, only to screw it all up like that? It defies belief. There has to be SOMETHING, even if it's coming later. Still, even if that's the case, it's such a huge dick move against retailers that I can't believe it. Obviously they want retailers to carry it, and a lot of it, otherwise they wouldn't give them good incentives to do so. How could they not realize that this one bit of info would make retailers cut down their orders to nearly nothing? Yeah, I have no idea what's going on.

It's only a huge task if they did it right and attempted to balance it.

It would take around a day for someone to half-ass assign stats and some generic +/- modifiers as "Special Rules" to all the units in Warhammer.

I know which one I think happened.

It is somewhat funny people still think GW will produce something later to introduce (a semblance of) balance.

GW couldn't give a rat's bottom about balance with 40K, where they still have point values - for heritage reasons I suppose - but frequently mock them with silly formations, D-Weapons at no extra costs and widely disparaging levels of power for different units and armies of the same points value, free transports/equipment from some armies and not others, etc.., etc...

Now that they've taken the next "logical" step and removed the points, which aren't doing nothing in 40K anymore either, they'd start creating a new system for balance, something they explicitly took a stance again in 40K with "forge the narrative"? I don't think so.

If anything, expect further (albeit slowly trickled-in) stuff for no points in 40K too. Because.

AoS is genius.

Want to use alternate models? Well, they don't come with a war scroll so how are you going to use them?

Losing battles? Buy more models to give yourself the strategic edge!

Want to win a tournament? Turn up with 1000 models, 2000 models!!

If there's no factions I guess the Stormcast allied with Goretide is going to be the new ready salted flavor of army.

Well, time to make all my models with square bases. Backwards compatible with 8th.

This is just not Warhammer Fantasy. They destroyed a game most of us loved for 20+ years.

This is 40k. Nothing of this is Fantasy anymore. No blocks of infantry, no rank'n'files, no nothing.

Some more info here.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/06/age-of-sigmar-world-background-more-rules.html

Someone asked about unit types a few pages back. I earlier recall Heroes/Core/Rate but can't find the source.

Element Games has now divided the armies by unit type (http://elementgames.co.uk/wargames-and-miniatures/warhammer-fantasy/warriors-of-chaos).

So there is a unit type. And it'll be on the War Scroll. Which suggests the scenarios in the bigger book state what you can take.

To be honest, if AOS kills the fantasy competitive scene, I say good riddance. Here, it is filled with immature adults, WAAC players, drama queens and generally unpleasant people.
Still, I believe the starter has no point system because the armies are prebuilt. Anyway, this week end we'll see the rules.

 Bottle wrote:
AoS is genius.

Want to use alternate models? Well, they don't come with a war scroll so how are you going to use them?

By downloading the appropriate warscroll from the GW webzone. This is no different than previous Warhams.

Losing battles? Buy more models to give yourself the strategic edge!

Just like any other non-historical wargame.

Want to win a tournament? Turn up with 1000 models, 2000 models!!

Games will still require each player to use the same number of warscrolls.

If there's no factions I guess the Stormcast allied with Goretide is going to be the new ready salted flavor of army.

I doubt flavor is a word will come much into play with AoS. I doubt there will be any tournaments, either. This is the least tournament-worthy wargame I've ever seen.

Well, time to make all my models with square bases. Backwards compatible with 8th.

That's the idea. Now to find a cheap source of square bases...

 -DE- wrote:


Games will still require each player to use the same number of warscrolls.

Not in the leaked rules we've seen. Where's that info from?

@DE

What makes you think there are ANY kind of restrictions to the amount of Scrolls a player can use? You have 0 evidence for this.

All we know is the one rule that says: Play whatever you want.

Wonderwolf wrote:

 -DE- wrote:


Games will still require each player to use the same number of warscrolls.

Not in the leaked rules we've seen. Where's that info from?

RoninXiC wrote:@DE

What makes you think there are ANY kind of restrictions to the amount of Scrolls a player can use? You have 0 evidence for this.

All we know is the one rule that says: Play whatever you want.

They'll be on the same line of thinking as me - there's a number of scenarios in the big book. We expect that will state War Scrolls to be taken.

We'll see when the big book leaks.

Conjecture on my part. If there is 0 (ZERO) restrictions to how an army is built, then AoS is simply not a game.

Equal number of warscrolls per player is the simplest solution there is, it doesn't get any more basic.

There can be no scenarios in the fluff book, because that would only cover the contents of the starter set. It would make it impossible to play the game with any other combinations of units, past or future.

 -DE- wrote:
Conjecture on my part. If there is 0 (ZERO) restrictions to how an army is built, then AoS is simply not a game.

Equal number of warscrolls per player is the simplest solution there is, it doesn't get any more basic.

There can be no scenarios in the fluff book, because that would only cover the contents of the starter set. It would make it impossible to play the game with any other combinations of units, past or future.

Conjecture is still conjecture. Can't blame Bottle for working with what is actually known, and refuting his points on the basis of personal conjecture should at least make that clear.

Because a Bloodthirster scroll is as balanced as a 20 man Nightgoblin unit.. that seems plausible.

Its a poorly written ruleset if there is not more to come. And since the sales rep said there wont be anything else
-> bad rulesset.

ShaneTB wrote:
Someone asked about unit types a few pages back. I earlier recall Heroes/Core/Rate but can't find the source.

Element Games has now divided the armies by unit type (http://elementgames.co.uk/wargames-and-miniatures/warhammer-fantasy/warriors-of-chaos).

So there is a unit type. And it'll be on the War Scroll. Which suggests the scenarios in the bigger book state what you can take.

Element Games has always divided armies by type like that, with sections for Lords/Heroes, Core, Special, and Rare. That's not new.

People are saying maybe the game will be balanced by how many models are on each scroll, like 3 chaos warriors = 10 goblins or whatever, but surely that only works for units? Because a Skaven Cheiftain would be one scroll, and a high elf Lord on dragon would be one scroll (maybe two? One for the Lord and one for the dragon) but there's no way 1-2 Cheiftains would be equal to a dragon elf Lord...

If GW just want to sell minis, they should give FFG (or somesuch) a licence to produce a balanced ruleset.

FFG love writing rules and doing box sets with cool cards and tokens.

ShaneTB wrote:

Wonderwolf wrote:

 -DE- wrote:


Games will still require each player to use the same number of warscrolls.

Not in the leaked rules we've seen. Where's that info from?

RoninXiC wrote:@DE

What makes you think there are ANY kind of restrictions to the amount of Scrolls a player can use? You have 0 evidence for this.

All we know is the one rule that says: Play whatever you want.

They'll be on the same line of thinking as me - there's a number of scenarios in the big book. We expect that will state War Scrolls to be taken.

We'll see when the big book leaks.

What big book?

yeah.. sales rep said THERE WONT BE ANY OTHER RULEBOOK.

 rybackstun wrote:
I love how the idea of "Wait and See" is nearly impossible for some people to comprehend.

Wait and see is boring though and there's quite a chance this thread is more fun than Age of Tabling will ever be.

It's on GW btw and the way of creating exciment they choose. We could have had that information long before they canceled army books etc, "hey we're doing a narrative ruleset for multiples collectors, buy what you need while we still produce and go to hell"/ "hey don't wory it will be a simpleton but balanced as your 6 small models will be equal to 3 fat models, 2 ripped models or one big model/wizard it's great who needs a codex" or sth

RoninXiC wrote:
Because a Bloodthirster scroll is as balanced as a 20 man Nightgoblin unit.. that seems plausible.

But it could be as all unit rules are being re-written.

For example:
Ten average lads hit on 4+ and wound on 4+. 1 wound each. Bravery 7. Save 6+.
1 big Daemon bugger. 5 attacks. 3+ to hit. 3+ to wound. 5 wounds. Auto Mortal Wounds. Save 4+.

So normal guys hit first. 50% hit. 50% wound. That's 2-3 wounds before a save.
Daemon causes 2-3 wounds back.
Both take bravery checks. Daemon loses a wound and unit 3 more.
Unit has lost 5-6 models. Daemon has lost 3 wounds.

The straight 'to wound roll' means there is no longer toughness. So a blob of previously weak models could take on anything through sheer volume. Especially as there is no winner in combat - both sides take a daemonic instability/moral check.

This is all conjecture, though. The Bloodthirster might be 2+ across the board with twelveteen wounds.

Edit: Also, units don't flee. Retreating is a decision and stops that unit from doing anything else that turn (so can't retreat and re-charge or shoot). So you can tarpit....probably.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ImAGeek wrote:

What big book?

The one in the starter set. Fluff, painting and scenarios. I am quite confident that's the case.