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.

 Talys wrote:

 Thud wrote:
30 Bloodthirsters was an extreme example to underline my point; if your best counter-argument is "lol you're silly for buying expensive models" you might want to try to think of something better.

Also, if there really is a wargear that auto-kills Bloodthirsters within 12" (or something equivalent) how the hell is that supposed to be an argument for the game being better than it seems? "Don't worry, the game might not be broken, it might be ridiculously broken. Yay! Fun! Progress!"

Some of them say "any number of models" and some of them say, "only one model". So I guess you could say, 30 bloodthirsters vs. 3000 goblins?

But seriously, is nobody considering this game as a game just for fun? If it's deployed and played in the spirit of entertainment and enjoyment, it looks like it could be pretty fun.

How can you be so active on here, have so many people eloquently explain to you the problems inherent to gaming when you don't occupy the gaming utopia you inhabit and still post something so ill thought out as that?

 pretre wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Enkiel wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
Yes it does feel that elite armies are much more benefitted, as you get so much more bang for your buck on Warscroll, Model and Sudden Death terms. Not sure how it will work, but can only imagine Nagash and other big baddies are now much easier to kill by grunts.

D3 mortal wound per caster per turn can make one sad Nagash/Glottkin

If the main attempt at game balance is to make it easier for rank and file units to kill powerful monsters/characters then that creates a disincentive for gamers to buy big expensive kits.

Keep in mind that big numbers of shooty troops is also balanced by sudden death victory. So suddenly, a tiny bit of balance appears.

True but that doesn't really help to determine a typical game size. My Bret army has a peasant bowman regiment of 30 archers which I'm assuming would be 1 warscroll but if I use the whole regiment I get nerfed/penalized for the high model count even though that would be a normal unit size in 8ed. Do I bring my whole army to a game night at the local FLGS or GW store and just hope somebody else wants to play a game with 8ed size armies? Is the byproduct of lowering the barrier of entry cost that I'll now usually only play a game with 1/3 of the army I've collected? If a 5 warscroll size game could still easily vary from 20 models per army to 100+ models per army then it's hard to play any kind of show up and play pick up game. Why should putting a larger portion of my purchased, assembled and painted army on the table increase my chances of losing? I'm having trouble understanding how the design team expects AoS Warhammer to work.

So are just the rules free or will they put up a PDF of the fluff/scenario book? If they don't offer the 96 page book except as part of the box set...

There is obviously some stuff missing, perhaps to be filled in by scenarios, perhaps expanded rules. The rules mention stuff held in reserve, but don't say anything more about the reserves that I could see. So perhaps this,and other things, are expanded upon in scenarios.

Still, the rules sound pretty terrible to me. I don't like every piece of terrain having some stupid effect to any unit within 3". Practically every unit on the table will have to remember to apply one of those terrain effects, maybe more than one. Plus all the unit/character abilities that add bonuses/penalties to rolls, and which units they apply to at any given time.

There isn't a very big range of stats, especially considering the number of things that give bonuses to hit or wound. It doesn't seem like it will feel right that a particular weapon hits and wounds on the same value whether attacking a goblin or a bloodthirster, but IS affected by standing near the right piece of terrain.

There isn't really objectives, just wipe out the army, or the sudden death stuff which doesn't seem like much fun. Unless, again, there are going to be scenarios to improve that.

Obviously the army construction doesn't make much sense unless that Warscrolls that aren't in the boxed game have points on them or something.

It seems like they want a more narrative driven game, but having no objectives for the battles, and having units that don't really feel very different from each other, seems like it will make the game less story-driven.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
The thing is that the game should be playable in a tournament setting

Why?

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 Bottle wrote:

I'm interested to see how combined units will now work, like Screaming Bells and Fanatics. Also interested in seeing how warmachines and crew work and chariots too. Can't wait to see more warscrolls!

Its looking less and less likely that they will even be in the game.

Do you mean you don't think fanatics will be in the game or that combined units won't? It'll also be interesting if fanatics are now an independent unit of sorts.

Albino Squirrel wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
The thing is that the game should be playable in a tournament setting

Why?

Why not?

As the rules seem now you're going to have to bring your entire collection as it would be pointless building a list beforehand.

Perhaps the standard game for my store is 5 warscrolls and 100 models max, I will enjoy making my list with my undead range, I would take a zombie dragon and a coven throne, 5 blood knights, 3 vargheists and 50 skeletons. That's my collection as it is.

I show up for my pre-booked game, my opponent has brought 96 chaos warriors and 4 bloodthirsters.

Oh dear.

Albino Squirrel wrote:
There is obviously some stuff missing, perhaps to be filled in by scenarios, perhaps expanded rules. The rules mention stuff held in reserve, but don't say anything more about the reserves that I could see. So perhaps this,and other things, are expanded upon in scenarios.

Still, the rules sound pretty terrible to me. I don't like every piece of terrain having some stupid effect to any unit within 3". Practically every unit on the table will have to remember to apply one of those terrain effects, maybe more than one. Plus all the unit/character abilities that add bonuses/penalties to rolls, and which units they apply to at any given time.

There isn't a very big range of stats, especially considering the number of things that give bonuses to hit or wound. It doesn't seem like it will feel right that a particular weapon hits and wounds on the same value whether attacking a goblin or a bloodthirster, but IS affected by standing near the right piece of terrain.

There isn't really objectives, just wipe out the army, or the sudden death stuff which doesn't seem like much fun. Unless, again, there are going to be scenarios to improve that.

Obviously the army construction doesn't make much sense unless that Warscrolls that aren't in the boxed game have points on them or something.

It seems like they want a more narrative driven game, but having no objectives for the battles, and having units that don't really feel very different from each other, seems like it will make the game less story-driven.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:
The thing is that the game should be playable in a tournament setting

Why?

Oh, let's see... maybe because people will want to play tournaments? Maybe?

No one is forcing people to play in a tournament setting - but balanced rules help everyone.

Contrary to what the White Knights among us would have people believe - balanced rules do not make a game unplayable by casual players.

If anything, balanced rules help folks get some good out of their casual armies - so if the player fields an army of nothing but Nerf Herders then he will have a chance against the army of Hill Trolls, if only because there are a lot of Nerf Herders.

Unless the game is vastly different than what I am seeing... GW is forging the narrative by typing The End at the bottom of the page.

The Auld Grump

I like the Chaos Warriors. Most of them at least. Hate the heads. Anyone know if the heads are separate like the Sigmar warriors? A few Skull Crusher or Berzerker helmets would be an easy fix to make them look epic.

Onto the fluff portion. From what I've read only the realm of Heavens is safe, Sigmar's lore. Does this mean that Bubblehammer or Realmgatehammer or whatever is just going to have each of the Winds of Magic be a different reality? Sigmar rules the Realm of Heaven, Nagash rules the Realm of Death, Malekith the Realm of Shadows, etc.

I guess that'd explain how armies go and fight each other. They travel through realm gates to different Winds of Magic realms to invade one another and such. Could be better. Could be worse. I just give it a big meh if my theory proves correct.

 Pojko wrote:
Does this mean that Bubblehammer or Realmgatehammer or whatever is just going to have each of the Winds of Magic be a different reality? Sigmar rules the Realm of Heaven, Nagash rules the Realm of Death, Malekith the Realm of Shadows, etc..

That's what was posted earlier, yes.

 Pojko wrote:
I like the Chaos Warriors. Most of them at least. Hate the heads. Anyone know if the heads are separate like the Sigmar warriors? A few Skull Crusher or Berzerker helmets would be an easy fix to make them look epic.

Onto the fluff portion. From what I've read only the realm of Heavens is safe, Sigmar's lore. Does this mean that Bubblehammer or Realmgatehammer or whatever is just going to have each of the Winds of Magic be a different reality? Sigmar rules the Realm of Heaven, Nagash rules the Realm of Death, Malekith the Realm of Shadows, etc.

I guess that'd explain how armies go and fight each other. They travel through realm gates to different Winds of Magic realms to invade one another and such. Could be better. Could be worse. I just give it a big meh if my theory proves correct.

The background says there are 7 realms / mortal realm. The realm of fire is mentioned in the rules, where you dice off and decide what realm your in (it mentions this may effect some units)

Death.Gate.Cycle.

So scenarios will dictate what sort of scrolls you bring.. It's almost like someone said something about other game systems that don't use points telling you how many of what type of unit to bring.. Gee.. I wonder who would've said that...

We have not seen all the units warscrolls yet though, Only an extremely small sample size, and not even the whole army at that. So to call the game unbalanced isnt fair, White knighting or not.

 MLaw wrote:
So scenarios will dictate what sort of scrolls you bring..

Which still doesn't give you any sort of balance when scrolls can be units of unlimited size.

If the scenario tells you how many scrolls you can take, isn't it equally likely that it will tell you more specifics? IMO it will probably be approached like a population cap in an RTS. If you take this then you can take that type of thing. Maybe it's wishful thinking but a lot of people are getting butthurt over speculation when we don't have all the facts.

Crazy thing is.. I'm so tired of GW's same old that I'm actually excited about this and it sucks that there are people on here acting like that's a bad thing.

Pepticsalve wrote:
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....

My thoughts exactly. Unfortunately logic like this is being completely ignored in favor of the various forms of 'no literal points=no balance" hyperbole.

This theory is exactly what I would want as a game mechanic in a game meant to be enticingly simple for new players.

 insaniak wrote:

 MLaw wrote:
So scenarios will dictate what sort of scrolls you bring..

Which still doesn't give you any sort of balance when scrolls can be units of unlimited size.

Unlimited size, but the larger you go the more you run the risk of your opponent calling your bluff, ending the deployment phase with a 1/3rd less and using a sudden death victory condition.

Tournaments also bring extra layers of fun and even campaigns that enhance the overall game experience.
Ignoring it is not in the best interest of a game that aims to lure in more people.

The game is looking more and more like a bluff exercise at deployment, its a different type of game I guess. Nothing wrong with it just seems that the tactical planing you do pre battles with the points system and extra gear will be stripped away in AOS.

I think that the movement should be measured from the base, thats more precise than say the tip of a sword. Lots of tweaks can be done to play some casual stuff with your friends at home... but not more than that.

Warscrolls for the new models will be in the box and in the new books we publish

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Talys wrote:

 Thud wrote:
30 Bloodthirsters was an extreme example to underline my point; if your best counter-argument is "lol you're silly for buying expensive models" you might want to try to think of something better.

Also, if there really is a wargear that auto-kills Bloodthirsters within 12" (or something equivalent) how the hell is that supposed to be an argument for the game being better than it seems? "Don't worry, the game might not be broken, it might be ridiculously broken. Yay! Fun! Progress!"

Some of them say "any number of models" and some of them say, "only one model". So I guess you could say, 30 bloodthirsters vs. 3000 goblins?

But seriously, is nobody considering this game as a game just for fun? If it's deployed and played in the spirit of entertainment and enjoyment, it looks like it could be pretty fun.

Spoiler:

How can you be so active on here, have so many people eloquently explain to you the problems inherent to gaming when you don't occupy the gaming utopia you inhabit and still post something so ill thought out as that?

I place a higher level of importance over gaming, fun, and entertainment over winning by loading up on lists. There are more people locally that are like this than I could ever hope to play with, even if i were to give up my day job, and j get invited to groups all the time.

I'm not saying that Sigmar might be a terrible competitive game (I'm not saying it is or is not... Until everything is available, a lot is still speculation). I'm just asking, has nobody considered that this might be a FUN game, taken out of the context of ultracompetitive, win if I can?

If that's so, I think there is a good place for that type of game. Expecting that the people you're playing with are cool people you are or would like to be friends with and enjoy the company of is not gaming utopia. I call it being human and participating in normal social interaction. I mean if you participate in marathon, MUST you try to place first, or is it enjoyable to just do the run, and finish where you finish, and make some friends in the process?

So far, the biggest complaint seems to be, you can abuse army building and wreck the game. Aside from not knowing how that all actually works (we don't have scenarios yet) is it so far out of the realm of possibility that some people just not abuse army building and actually have fun? Or is that totally impossible where you live? It just isn't such a stretch where I live.

By the way, Az, there are many things I'm not fond of in life. But I choose to spend my time being active with a positive attitude about the things I do like, rather than being active in a negative way about the things I don't like. But really, I'd appreciate if you could address my points rather than make it personal. I fully understand that different things make you and me tick when it comes to miniatures and wargaming.

 adamsouza wrote:


Warscrolls for the new models will be in the box and in the new books we publish

Sounds like a Warma/Hordes method.

 insaniak wrote:

 MLaw wrote:
So scenarios will dictate what sort of scrolls you bring..

Which still doesn't give you any sort of balance when scrolls can be units of unlimited size.

In a points based system the amount of points you can bring is an unlimited size, so before hand you agree with your opponent how many points the game will be and build a list from there. So if scenarios do dictate how many scrolls you can take then i would assume there would be some sort of agreement with your opponent as to how many models. That doesnt really work with horde armies so there would have to be some other type of modifiers built into the scenario.

 adamsouza wrote:


Warscrolls for the new models will be in the box and in the new books we publish

Wyrd and Privateer Press have shown them how that business moidel can work... Cards in the boxes. Arsenal packs. Books with fluff and some model/unit stat cards (Sorry, Warscrolls(tm)). You can potentially sell the same thing three times(!)

Valete,

JohnS

 adamsouza wrote:


Warscrolls for the new models will be in the box and in the new books we publish

Essentially, the WMH model, right? Free card, or pay for optional book with it all put together.

And Taco Bell has actual Warscrolls up! 1/4 page (A6) each, with a pretty picture, stats and rules. Interesting that weapon stats simply give the target number of 3+, 5+, etc.

I spoke with our GW rep this morning and was told in no uncertain terms that there would be no 9th edition Fantasy. Fantasy as we know it is gone. AoS will be the new system going forward. I've known this guy for awhile and see no reason why he would fib about something like that. Unfortunately or fortunately, this is the future of Warhammer. I personally think the way people are thinking of the Warscrolls will be different than the way they will function. I believe the old stats and point values will be thrown out the window. Nagash will have a warscroll that will detail his powers and movement, magic, attack stats, etc but it will not be the same as we have remembered with special powers, etc.

To be fair, 40K used to include datacards with all it's vehicles, back in second edition, before Warmachine was a thing.

Really my point was that there would be books.

I get that the free rules are a great way to get new people to try it, but I can't see them not printing a rulebook. Kings of War and Infinity built up lots of fans with free rules, but there is still a big market for people who like dead tree format at the gaming table, and you can't really sell 4 page rulebook.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
And Taco Bell has actual Warscrolls up! 1/4 page (A6) each, with a pretty picture, stats and rules. Interesting that weapon stats simply give the target number of 3+, 5+, etc.

They're here a couple pages back as well.

 Talys wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:

 Talys wrote:

 Thud wrote:
30 Bloodthirsters was an extreme example to underline my point; if your best counter-argument is "lol you're silly for buying expensive models" you might want to try to think of something better.

Also, if there really is a wargear that auto-kills Bloodthirsters within 12" (or something equivalent) how the hell is that supposed to be an argument for the game being better than it seems? "Don't worry, the game might not be broken, it might be ridiculously broken. Yay! Fun! Progress!"

Some of them say "any number of models" and some of them say, "only one model". So I guess you could say, 30 bloodthirsters vs. 3000 goblins?

But seriously, is nobody considering this game as a game just for fun? If it's deployed and played in the spirit of entertainment and enjoyment, it looks like it could be pretty fun.

Spoiler:

How can you be so active on here, have so many people eloquently explain to you the problems inherent to gaming when you don't occupy the gaming utopia you inhabit and still post something so ill thought out as that?

I place a higher level of importance over gaming, fun, and entertainment over winning by loading up on lists. There are more people locally that are like this than I could ever hope to play with, even if i were to give up my day job, and j get invited to groups all the time.

I'm not saying that Sigmar might be a terrible competitive game (I'm not saying it is or is not... Until everything is available, a lot is still speculation). I'm just asking, has nobody considered that this might be a FUN game, taken out of the context of ultracompetitive, win if I can?

If that's so, I think there is a good place for that type of game. Expecting that the people you're playing with are cool people you are or would like to be friends with and enjoy the company of is not gaming utopia. I call it being human and participating in normal social interaction. I mean if you participate in marathon, MUST you try to place first, or is it enjoyable to just do the run, and finish where you finish, and make some friends in the process?

So far, the biggest complaint seems to be, you can abuse army building and wreck the game. Aside from not knowing how that all actually works (we don't have scenarios yet) is it so far out of the realm of possibility that some people just not abuse army building and actually have fun? Or is that totally impossible where you live? It just isn't such a stretch where I live.

Talys mate is it hard to understand that the defenition of FUN varies from person to person but when talking about games we need to adress gamers foremost? Optimal game is the game that puts both competitive players and casual players enjoying it... I believe that the perfect game is the one that manages to satisfy everyone equally not just the fluff driven folks or collectors of beer&chips type of gamer.