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.

 ImAGeek wrote:

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?

He's about the 96 pages book in the starter. It can, imo contain some specific scenario for "competitive" play with a method to balance forces. Hope is a fool's mother they say here though.

There is no way GW would make a $116 Bloodhirster be equal to a $35 Night Goblin regiment. It's not how it works in GW land.

I don't doubt it for a second larger models will have negative to wound and/or to hit modifiers.

But surely those scenarios will only be for the starter, so it won't have any bearing on the greater game as a whole anyway..?

 ImAGeek wrote:
But surely those scenarios will only be for the starter, so it won't have any bearing on the greater game as a whole anyway..?

Could be either. There's no other book(s) coming. So perhaps having the only written scenarios there is another incentive for the starter set if you aren't keen on the models. Or maybe not.

I'm going to go against the grain and say I'm cautiously optimistic about this release. Not to mention a free mini with White Dwarf is just enough to buy my loyalty

(I'm a cheap date)

 rybackstun wrote:

 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.

Here's a direct quote from one of my last posts:

 Sidstyler wrote:
We'll see on Saturday, I guess, but right now it doesn't look very good in my opinion.

So clearly I'm already aware that we don't really have the full picture yet, and I'm basing my opinion on what we know. If we're not allowed to talk about the information as it stands right now (unless you have a positive opinion, apparently, it's only the negative people that aren't "allowed"), then what is the purpose of the thread at this point? You're trying to shut people up, that's what it looks like to me.

I'm allowed to have a negative opinion based on what little info GW will let me have if I don't like what I'm seeing, and I can still change my mind later if it turns out GW actually knew what the feth it was doing and came up with a real winner of a ruleset. I'll eat my words if AoS ends up becoming one of the best miniature wargames ever written, solves all of WHF's previous problems and ends up becoming a huge success. But until then, it's not against the Dakka rules to talk about the rumors we have about AoS in the meantime, nor is it against the rules to have a negative opinion. And I don't care if you're tired of seeing the same negative opinion over and over, for one thing that says more about the quality of this new product or how GW is handling the release than it does the people posting here, and two, it's very easy to just avoid the thread if you find it so displeasing.

I will, after ~10 years of not buying a WD, actualyl buy the new one. I doubt ill be happily suprised but whatever.

 Flashman wrote:
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.

Yes outsourcing just rules to FFG would be great. I don't think it would be that balanced but it would probably be very tactical, which is the most important thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ImAGeek wrote:
But surely those scenarios will only be for the starter, so it won't have any bearing on the greater game as a whole anyway..?

It can be a "pitched battle" scenario that is not about particular forces but a set of guidelines for a balanced battle. Or sth.

What if they are going for a system similar to Open Combat?
This way you would have your own stats for all your models, bases wouldn't matter, indivivual stats for all minis on the table (or "scrolls") etc. And they could focus on producing models
I know it's not very GWish but...

RoninXiC wrote: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.

Well yeah the fact Warhammer Fantasy as we know it is gone is sadly apparent at this stage; Fluff and game dynamics are now gone so it's Warhammer in all but name.

Thing about saying it is 40K is that at least 40K has the very deep background fluff to draw people in. I can't see what the new AoS has in terms of narrative to appeal to new gamers and if the rules are woeful then it can't appeal to many existing WHFB players. It's the new model range that is all that is appealing to people at present; I'll probably pick up the new White Dwarf for the free Sigmarine and to have a proper look at the rules and hold out to see if they bring out any interesting new Dwarf or Undead models!

Flashman wrote: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.

I had thought that myself. What seems evident is that the same drive is not going into the hobby/game side as the model side of things. Would be nice to let somebody else do the rules and let them concentrate on what they do best

I'm convinced now that there has *got* to be *some* sort of balancing at some point in this game... Its been said already, I know, but if the warscrolls were divided into HQ, Core, Special, Rare and each warscroll had a fixed unit size and equipment load-out (so they were actually balanced against each other) then it would work, and frankly be quite a nifty way of building an army. You could play a game where each side gets 1 HQ scroll, 3 Core scrolls, 2 Specials and 1 Rare, or something like that... The points would still be there, but hidden away. Sure, it would take away a great deal of the flexability of list building - which is something I personally enjoy. Putting together an army in a fixed number of points and then seeing how it does on the table is a fun part of fantasy...

If on the otherhand it really is as crazy as "bring whatever you want, throw some dice around and generally shout PEWPEWPEW until your opponent starts crying" then I'm out...

There simply has got to be more to come... Right?...

Pepticsalve wrote:
If on the otherhand it really is as crazy as "bring whatever you want, throw some dice around and generally shout PEWPEWPEW until your opponent starts crying" then I'm out...

Isn't that what people do any way once they've min/maxed their cheese and turned supposedly restricted list choices into a full on Fondue of Death?

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

That's one of the most sensible things I've heard in this entire thread - GW could focus entirely on creating amazing miniatures and license out the actual game systems to a company that gives a damn! I recently played Descent 2nd edition from FFG and it was fantastic - very balanced and enjoyable rule-set.....

Ugh... All hail the mighty pauldrons of the thunder warriors!

Funny. 40k started as a Fantasy parody in space. Now fantasy immitates 40k...

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 Flashman wrote:
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.

Yes outsourcing just rules to FFG would be great. I don't think it would be that balanced but it would probably be very tactical, which is the most important thing.

It would be great for us, but GW seems to think it needs overpowered rules to force sales of certain models, apparently. That and they wouldn't get all that sweet, guaranteed short-term cash flow from selling massively overpriced limited editions anymore.

Pepticsalve wrote:
There simply has got to be more to come... Right?...

Guess we'll find out Saturday.

I don't understand the obsession with "the fantasy we know it is dead!!" line, you do realise you can play any edition you like, right?

If you don't like the system, play the system you do like?

 SJM wrote:
I don't understand the obsession with "the fantasy we know it is dead!!" line, you do realise you can play any edition you like, right?

If you don't like the system, play the system you do like?

It's not that easy unless you have a gaming group of people who also want to carry on with an edition you do like.

 SJM wrote:
I don't understand the obsession with "the fantasy we know it is dead!!" line, you do realise you can play any edition you like, right?

If you don't like the system, play the system you do like?

You're the first person to say that! Really!

Whenever folks say a game is dead, what they mean is that it's not officially supported. Which generally has a negative impact on the ability to get games going.

 -DE- wrote:

 SJM wrote:
I don't understand the obsession with "the fantasy we know it is dead!!" line, you do realise you can play any edition you like, right?

If you don't like the system, play the system you do like?

You're the first person to say that! Really!

Whenever folks say a game is dead, what they mean is that it's not officially supported. Which generally has a negative impact on the ability to get games going.

True. That said, the change is radical enough that there might be a genuine D&D 4th/Pathfinder-style split, which you wouldn't have seen with more gradual (relatively) transitions such as 6th to 7th or 7th to 8th.

I see very few people who currently actively and regularly play Warhammer Fantasy 8th switching to AoS. Admittedly, said scene is tiny to begin with (as opposed to the "played Fantasy many years ago and dream nostalgic-about it"-crowd).

 SJM wrote:
I don't understand the obsession with "the fantasy we know it is dead!!" line, you do realise you can play any edition you like, right?

If you don't like the system, play the system you do like?

Not an obsession, just an unfortunate reality. Yes we can play any edition but in reality once GW changes the game completely the real effects to the existing game only become noticeable 2-3 years down the line when the existing model range has completely changed. Age of Sigmar is a totally different game to Warhammer Fantasy Battles so it's not really a case of saying they are different editions of the same game. Yes, other GW games down through the years still have cult followings but they are now unsupported and marginilised.

 SJM wrote:
I don't understand the obsession with "the fantasy we know it is dead!!" line, you do realise you can play any edition you like, right?

If you don't like the system, play the system you do like?

The problem is that Warhammer, for many people, is not DnD. With games like DnD, you plan beforehand, you decide what edition and what modules you are running and everyone agrees and everyone is happy. This works for games like DnD because it is primarily and story-telling game, which WHFB generally isn't (GW can say 'forge thee narrative!' as many times as they like.) WHFB and WH40K are played by most as competitive, player-versus-player games with tournaments and such, where rule structure and standardised rules are important. Most games are played as pickup games between people who have not planned their game out prior to meeting each other and may not of even known each other beforehand, which of course requires both players to use and understand the same ruleset, which is the main reason the majority of players play the most recent edition of both WHFB and WH40K, despite having preferred a previous edition. At least now it might be possible to say "AoS or 8th?" before a game. I can definitely foresee a split in systems happening.

 -DE- wrote:

 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.

Sure for the existing models. Don't expect new models to have the rules for free. They'll be on the warscrolls inside the box, which will likely be limited edition too.

nudibranch wrote:
WHFB and WH40K are played by most as competitive, player-versus-player games with tournaments and such, where rule structure and standardised rules are important. Most games are played as pickup games between people who have not planned their game out prior to meeting each other and may not of even known each other beforehand...

[citation needed]

I should clarify that by 'competitive', I do not mean WAAC but rather that the system of the game has two or more players compete against each other to achieve some form of victory. And that, at least in my area and from what others have told me, most games are pick-up games.

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

Except this is exactly what many people have been suggesting that GW do on countless threads - usually in comparison to their many competitors who do exactly this?

Free rules and "army lists" is pretty huge - if they game is nice, simple and above all playable then again - huge step forward IMO. Then rather than spending time on the rules we can look at what tactics are required to win. Army building could be quick and easy with select these cards - so Malifaux / X Wing / WMH / Heroscape style - may even have upgrade cards similar to the fist two games?

If this is as clever as HeroScape was at this then it could be great - isn't the combat mechanic also similar to Kings of War? Not that familiar with it but that seemed to have set "to-hit" modified by special rules?

Free rules are great.

Free rules that are utter garbage are not great but rather just garbage.

I am very excited about this release. It checks a lot of boxes on my wish list. Low model count, low entry price, more narrative games, mixing of factions, simple rules. This sounds like a win. And strangely enough I like the Sigmarines. I understand a lot of the frustration here though. As a RPG/Wargames player of 25 years I have played and purchased many rule sets, and points cost is a relatively new innovation considering the history of Wargames. Fubar is my current go-to rule set for just about any genre. It runs 2 to 4 pages and is FUN with no points buy. Tournament WAAC style games have never been fun for me and frankly in the large metro area I live in it is not even present. WHFB is rarely seen in these parts. 40 K is easier to find opponents for, yet is rarer than many other games. I love collecting GW minis but find it difficult to find people to play with. My wife and sons all paint/model and game to some extent. I have a number of friends who also play games like FFG etc. but blanch at the idea of learning WH rules or purchasing vast armies and army books or codices. It is very easy to buy a box for one of the kids of a unit they think looks cool, slap some paint on it and get to playing immediately. This cuts into their sports and video game time much less than the previous versions. So AOS sounds just about perfect to me. I own a literal room full (and garage) of games and to be honest I have had more fun with RPGs and Wargames that were rules lite. I find more opportunity for creativity and strategic surprises than in "balanced" rules. You haven't lived until you have Daleks versus Space Marines battles

What is more narrative now? Honest question.

RoninXiC wrote:
What is more narrative now? Honest question.

. I'm not certain I understand the question. Can you elaborate?

ShaneTB wrote:

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.

Thank you Shane. This is exactly what I was going to say,but you did that job for me. If you have fixed numbers for to hit, to wound and so on it is so much easier to balance things ou against each other. No more invincible deamons, no more puny spearmen. There is still more behind this, as a thirster wont loose attacks till he lost his last wound and whatnot. Concerning the ' we cant take options anymore' maybe there will be more than one scroll where it would be appropriate? Easiest example statetroops. Sword/shield gets a better save, Spear has a longer reach and halbs better to wound.
Yeah this is all speculation and wishfull thinking, but I was really looking foreward to use my fantasystuff again and maybe even get some friends into the game if the modelcount will sink as drastic as the rumours suggest.