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.

 xttz wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

 Talys wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Oblivious!

I've been reaching for a word to encapsulate Talys' attitude for weeks, and it just struck me!

Utterly oblivious to problems that exist for other gamers, and apparently unwilling to attach any weight to them.

This is untrue. How many times have I said, if you're into small competitive games, 40k isn't the best selection?!

You seem to be totally unwilling to consider that a large population of players might actually enjoy relatively casual, entertaining games and that there nay be a market foe such things, centered around miniatures.

Also, as I've asked, pleas attack my positions rather than me, personally.

You know tight balanced rules would benifit those casual players as much, if not more, than the competitive players right? And you seem unwilling to consider the flip side, that a large population of players might enjoy a tight competitive game.

It's not a question of if a balanced ruleset would be beneficial to anyone; of course it would. The underlying issue is that Games Workshop as a company have never ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever ever shown the slightest interest in producing a game like that.
This is what astounds me about the hardcore tournament folks. Games like 40k and WHFB have never been written or intended for that purpose, yet people insist on twisting, tweaking and outright rewriting them regardless to make them fit. It's like buying a motorbike and complaining it's not fit to plough fields with, rather than buying a tractor.

If you want a tabletop equivalent of Starcraft then by all means, find and buy that. But please don't pretend that a company with zero history of interest in this goal is suddenly going to shift direction overnight thanks to the 2,439,397th Internet post on the subject. They're too busy knocking off early to the pub after collectively writing 4 pages of rules for a major product.

Lol.

The funniest thing here is the fact that GW created a few tourney rulesets (or tried to) and it was confirmed by Rick Priestley, he was about 3rd edition 40k and 5th or 6th fantasy afair.

Then the design studio said about 5 that it was too balanced and competitive and they want more craziness in 6th. They created the competitive ayer base themselves only to crap all over it later and hide their incompetence behind narrative excuses and cheap random mechanisms.

Doesnt stop casual players from spewing ignorant bs like your claim though.

Not to mention that a game without any balance, if not targeted at seasoned wargamers is just a pewpewing vehicle. Why do you evn need rulesets, just throw dice at minis.

 Necros wrote:
I could have old person brain right now and not know what I'm talking about, but.. thinking about the last time I got a starter box, it was the WFB one that had skaven in it. I think I remember the book listing the units in the box didn't really have the points or anything, just stats and it was like "Hey, just set up these guys and play" .. could be the same thing here? Make it simple for what comes in the box, and the web rules/scrolls or some secret book we'll suddenly have to buy will have points or some other you-can-only-have-this-many rule?

I was thinking that too, but these units, unlike any previous starter I can think of, has new units never before seen. How can people expand on the set without knowing its points etc? Because unlike previous starters these models have no rules elsewhere?

Maybe they will have rules elsewhere so I don't know.

 oni wrote:
Everybody calm down...

When this steaming pile of gak gets flushed after 5 or 6 months, GW will rush out a rehashed version of WFB. All will rejoice and all will be right with the world.

GW has already committed to this "New Coke" mess, so we all just have to weather the storm until "WFB Classic" arrives.

It will come, because AoS has zero chance of success.

Slight problem with this line of thought: it WILL be successful. Here's why: the models are gorgeous. A lot of us want them. I'm buying a kit to build up my Chaos army. That's a box sold for GW. The Chaos army will be used for older Warhammer editions and KoW. But GW doesn't know that. They know I bought a box and "love" their AoS.

Surprised we aven't seen more of the chaos models. Has anyone seen the WD? Are there any more pictures or have we seen everything?

Plumbumbarum wrote:
The funniest thing here is the fact that GW created a few tourney rulesets (or tried to) and it was confirmed by Rick Priestley, he was about 3rd edition 40k and 5th or 6th fantasy afair.

It hasn't been that long since GW stopped doing their own tournaments, has it? I mean, if people have been playing as long as they claim, then surely they would remember Slayer Swords and the like?

Chopxsticks wrote:

 Thokt wrote:
Looks dead in the water to me. No points could be okay, but how's a total new guy gonna know what to play with?

Beyond that, because there's no wound allocation mechanic, hits are rolled on a model by model basis. I can't even..

Were did you read this? I thought I read the rules and they said roll wounds towards the entire unit and then alot the wounds how you wanted.

Yeah, if I'm reading the rules correctly every model in the attacking unit makes their attacks, all the wounds they inflict are then allocated to the unit they attacked by the player commanding the unit that was attacked. Once a player allocates a wound to a specific model that model keeps taking wounds until all the wounds are used up or the model dies.

 streetsamurai wrote:
The rules doesn't seem to explain this well.

So, since their is no initiative, wich side fight first ? And does dead models can fight back?

I think this is how it works:


Roll off at start of turn, winner decide who goes first...

(Skip to assault phase)
First player picks a unit, charges or piles in, rolls his attacks, kills gak.

Second player picks a unit...

Repeat until all units done.

No initiative needed. Dead things are dead. There is no "fighting back". A unit fights when selected.

 insaniak wrote:

When the first player stops, the second player is still allowed to keep going until he runs out of either models or table space.

So in your example, player a goes on to deploy another 27 Bloodthirsters, gains Sudden Death victory conditions, and the game is practically over before it begins.

Hmmmm. okay, I gave the rules page a proper read. So really, a player's strategy must be to optimize their battleforce to fit the size of table they wish to play on, based on deployment space. Or some maximum model count, if there's such a limit.

 Necros wrote:
I could have old person brain right now and not know what I'm talking about, but.. thinking about the last time I got a starter box, it was the WFB one that had skaven in it. I think I remember the book listing the units in the box didn't really have the points or anything, just stats and it was like "Hey, just set up these guys and play" .. could be the same thing here? Make it simple for what comes in the box, and the web rules/scrolls or some secret book we'll suddenly have to buy will have points or some other you-can-only-have-this-many rule?

I don't think so, because the scrolls that have been leaked allow for units to include any number of models. If they were pre-set to the models in the starter set or something we could imagine that versions with point values (or something else) could come out later, but that is not the case here.

There are no points, and do not seem to be any other realistic balancing factors involved. The only two limiting factors seem to be:

1) You can only play with as many models as you can manage to fit in your deployment zone.
2) If you have 1/3 less models than your opponent at the start then you're able to pick a sudden death victory condition that you can achieve, but even that advantage is really questionable.

This means unless there is some other rules hidden somewhere, there is literally no reason to not take just the most powerful models as your entire force...like an army filled with all-powerful characters, monsters, etc. (multiples of whatever you consider to be the most powerful single model). Taking anything besides uber-powerful models is just insane, because you are only penalized for:

A) having more models and
B) losing models.

So the only true determining factor is to make sure your army only includes models that pack the most punch and are as durable as possible.

The best plan therefore would be to just have a collection of something like a hundred bloodthirsters (or however many will fit into the deployment space you're playing on). Then you guys start setting up your armies (alternating deploying units). Once your opponent stops deploying, you keep deploying bloodthirsters until you are one model shy of the 1/3 more models limit or run out of deployment space.

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 oni wrote:
Everybody calm down...

When this steaming pile of gak gets flushed after 5 or 6 months, GW will rush out a rehashed version of WFB. All will rejoice and all will be right with the world.

GW has already committed to this "New Coke" mess, so we all just have to weather the storm until "WFB Classic" arrives.

It will come, because AoS has zero chance of success.

Slight problem with this line of thought: it WILL be successful. Here's why: the models are gorgeous. A lot of us want them. I'm buying a kit to build up my Chaos army. That's a box sold for GW. The Chaos army will be used for older Warhammer editions and KoW. But GW doesn't know that. They know I bought a box and "love" their AoS.

Well, from that perspective, any time GW pops a box of around 50 cool models for about $120, I'll happily buy it. I mean, it doesn't get much better in terms of price per model, even if they are snapfit. The detail on them is fantastic. And by the way, I'd say (and do) exactly the same thing if PP came out with a similar box!

picture of sprue in spoiler

 theHandofGork wrote:

 Torga_DW wrote:


I think this is make or break time for fantasy. When this steaming pile gets flushed, there won't be anything afterwards.

Mantic. Mantic will be left afterwards.

For some of us, that's just like there being nothing.

 yakface wrote:

 Necros wrote:
I could have old person brain right now and not know what I'm talking about, but.. thinking about the last time I got a starter box, it was the WFB one that had skaven in it. I think I remember the book listing the units in the box didn't really have the points or anything, just stats and it was like "Hey, just set up these guys and play" .. could be the same thing here? Make it simple for what comes in the box, and the web rules/scrolls or some secret book we'll suddenly have to buy will have points or some other you-can-only-have-this-many rule?

I don't think so, because the scrolls that have been leaked allow for units to include any number of models. If they were pre-set to the models in the starter set or something we could imagine that versions with point values (or something else) could come out later, but that is not the case here.

There are no points, and do not seem to be any other realistic balancing factors involved. The only two limiting factors seem to be:

1) You can only play with as many models as you can manage to fit in your deployment zone.
2) If you have 1/3 less models than your opponent at the start then you're able to pick a sudden death victory condition that you can achieve, but even that advantage is really questionable.

This means unless there is some other rules hidden somewhere, there is literally no reason to not take just the most powerful models as your entire force...like an army filled with all-powerful characters, monsters, etc. (multiples of whatever you consider to be the most powerful single model). Taking anything besides uber-powerful models is just insane, because you are only penalized for:

A) having more models and
B) losing models.

So the only true determining factor is to make sure your army only includes models that pack the most punch and are as durable as possible.

The best plan therefore would be to just have a collection of something like a hundred bloodthirsters (or however many will fit into the deployment space you're playing on). Then you guys start setting up your armies (alternating deploying units). Once your opponent stops deploying, you keep deploying bloodthirsters until you are one model shy of the 1/3 more models limit or run out of deployment space.

1 warscroll, if current warscrolls are anything to go buy, can consist of unlimited models. I can have 1 unit of angel thingies with 700,000 models and it still counts as one warscroll. Apparently that is equal to a warscroll that limits you to one battle lizard.

How do you balance this as it currently sits? Well you cant unless you get rid of the warscrolls or change how a warscroll works.

I think the sudden death rule is brilliant and creates a self limiting game environment with clever gamble/ bidding element that adds an entirely new aspect to the game.
Each player will likely want to have one superhero capable of dealing with the likes of a greater demon of khorne single handedly though as potential counter.

 Jambles wrote:

Albino Squirrel wrote:

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

Why?

Why not?

The game should be playable in a tournament setting.

The game should be playable for a league.

The game should be playable when any two people want a pick up game.

Because the more ways you can play the game, the larger the community. And community makes the game.

With no points, this is a clusterfeth. You could play it as a narrative or scenario driven game. But if a game can't be played by two people meeting up at a store/club, then it fails. And right now, this one does just that. One of my employees asked about the game today, I told him we'd get a game in on Thursday when I get my demo set. I told him to bring whatever, so would i, we'd play. And slowly his eyes got big as to how screwed up this rules set is

I'm considering changing all the Warscrolls into cards similar to Epic/Spacemarine, and putting in points and model count as a way to play games at the store. Waiting to see full rules. Like to run a tournament soon, had one scheduled for the 12th, but....

Prestor Jon wrote:

Chopxsticks wrote:

 Thokt wrote:
Looks dead in the water to me. No points could be okay, but how's a total new guy gonna know what to play with?

Beyond that, because there's no wound allocation mechanic, hits are rolled on a model by model basis. I can't even..

Were did you read this? I thought I read the rules and they said roll wounds towards the entire unit and then alot the wounds how you wanted.

Yeah, if I'm reading the rules correctly every model in the attacking unit makes their attacks, all the wounds they inflict are then allocated to the unit they attacked by the player commanding the unit that was attacked. Once a player allocates a wound to a specific model that model keeps taking wounds until all the wounds are used up or the model dies.

Not quite, the melee weapons have a range, so if your charge and pile in move doesn't get you in that range, that model can't attack. The allocation part is correct.

AoS is bound to be a failure. Its a total change of a beloved 30 year product. There jettisoning there core players for mythical "new" players. Young people with whom they have to compete with CCGs & video games. Loser proposition.

Also any comments from GW officially or their booster club about past attempts to save the game are a pack of lies. Constantly changing the rules isn't fixing them. New army books are not balanced army books.

Kendo wrote:
I think the sudden death rule is brilliant and creates a self limiting game environment with clever gamble/ bidding element that adds an entirely new aspect to the game.
Each player will likely want to have one superhero capable of dealing with the likes of a greater demon of khorne single handedly though as potential counter.

Why just one superheroe? Take 6.

 Silent Puffin? wrote:

 xttz wrote:

It's not a question of if a balanced ruleset would be beneficial to anyone; of course it would. The underlying issue is that Games Workshop as a company have never ever shown the slightest interest in producing a game like that.

Given the popularity of competitive wargaming do you not think that, maybe just maybe GW should be producing a game like that?

Of course not, because actual competitive wargaming is a tiny niche that Warmahordes has already captured.

Milhaila, give up; as someone mentioned earlier, there are people who will look at the steaming pile of rules and just see the pretty, plastic models and therefore excuse any deficiencies. So be it, to each his/her joy. The question is are there enough of such people to make this new game a success or will it go the way of Dreadfleet?

 Samurai_Eduh wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Chopxsticks wrote:

 Thokt wrote:
Looks dead in the water to me. No points could be okay, but how's a total new guy gonna know what to play with?

Beyond that, because there's no wound allocation mechanic, hits are rolled on a model by model basis. I can't even..

Were did you read this? I thought I read the rules and they said roll wounds towards the entire unit and then alot the wounds how you wanted.

Yeah, if I'm reading the rules correctly every model in the attacking unit makes their attacks, all the wounds they inflict are then allocated to the unit they attacked by the player commanding the unit that was attacked. Once a player allocates a wound to a specific model that model keeps taking wounds until all the wounds are used up or the model dies.

Not quite, the melee weapons have a range, so if your charge and pile in move doesn't get you in that range, that model can't attack. The allocation part is correct.

Why do the melee weapons have a range stat when the rules clearly state that any model within 3" can make a melee attack? Doesn't that essentially give every melee weapon a range of 3"?

 insaniak wrote:

When the first player stops, the second player is still allowed to keep going until he runs out of either models or table space.

So in your example, player a goes on to deploy another 27 Bloodthirsters, gains Sudden Death victory conditions, and the game is practically over before it begins.

 Swastakowey wrote:
1 warscroll, if current warscrolls are anything to go buy, can consist of unlimited models. I can have 1 unit of angel thingies with 700,000 models and it still counts as one warscroll. Apparently that is equal to a warscroll that limits you to one battle lizard.

How do you balance this as it currently sits? Well you cant unless you get rid of the warscrolls or change how a warscroll works.

The fact that you can take unlimited models in many units is not really an issue at all until we see any evidence of limitations on the number of warscrolls you can include in a game, and so far there isn't any such indication.

The much bigger problem is that all the victory conditions are tied to the fundamental concept that every single model is equal, which is a complete an utter game-breaking decision.

I really hope that the no points thing is GW purposefully creating misinformation so when they reveal that there are in fact points in this game we all praise them for their great rule making. I mean at this point everyone would be ecstatic if there was really a balancing mechanic, but if they had showed the balancing mechanic from the start (they have at least a general knowledge when, and from where leaks will happen) then we would have just discussed the other flaws with this rule set.

On the bright side, if there are no template weapons then there is no longer a reason to try to keep your models as far from each other as possible. This means people could leave their hordes ranked up for faster movement. It seems to me moving 30 tyranid gaunts so that they are spaced correctly to minimize damage from a blast slows down games significantly.

That's the thing though: what we have is a simple and quite possibly amazing ruleset that will have tons of blending depth and tweaking to it. But without points, it's meaningless. The game and rules WOULD be praise-worthy if points were a part of it. I think GW just earned the title of "almost". They almost got it...

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Samurai_Eduh wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Chopxsticks wrote:

 Thokt wrote:
Looks dead in the water to me. No points could be okay, but how's a total new guy gonna know what to play with?

Beyond that, because there's no wound allocation mechanic, hits are rolled on a model by model basis. I can't even..

Were did you read this? I thought I read the rules and they said roll wounds towards the entire unit and then alot the wounds how you wanted.

Yeah, if I'm reading the rules correctly every model in the attacking unit makes their attacks, all the wounds they inflict are then allocated to the unit they attacked by the player commanding the unit that was attacked. Once a player allocates a wound to a specific model that model keeps taking wounds until all the wounds are used up or the model dies.

Not quite, the melee weapons have a range, so if your charge and pile in move doesn't get you in that range, that model can't attack. The allocation part is correct.

Why do the melee weapons have a range stat when the rules clearly state that any model within 3" can make a melee attack? Doesn't that essentially give every melee weapon a range of 3"?

I think within 3" is is the range which you are "in combat", but the rules for attacking also state that you have to be within the listed range of the weapon in order to make an attack.

 yakface wrote:

 Swastakowey wrote:
1 warscroll, if current warscrolls are anything to go buy, can consist of unlimited models. I can have 1 unit of angel thingies with 700,000 models and it still counts as one warscroll. Apparently that is equal to a warscroll that limits you to one battle lizard.

How do you balance this as it currently sits? Well you cant unless you get rid of the warscrolls or change how a warscroll works.

The fact that you can take unlimited models in many units is not really an issue at all until we see any evidence of limitations on the number of warscrolls you can include in a game, and so far there isn't any such indication.

The much bigger problem is that all the victory conditions are tied to the fundamental concept that every single model is equal, which is a complete an utter game-breaking decision.

I would think it would be a big problem in regards to setting up a game. I mean how would say you and I figure out what size game we'd play? Choose a number of warscrolls? Even the same number of warscrolls could still lead to a huge disparity in army size and power. Do we have to set a number of models? Not all models are equal so that doesn't really help have a balanced battle either. Do we have to only play scenarios? That seems to limit us to the scenarios that GW provides or to generate our own scenario that we agree upon prior to playing. Without point values or unit sizes it seems like a huge unnecessary hassle just to set up a game.

Have we considered that some of the scenarios will perhaps only allow narrow deployments? 6" squares for instance.

Also, if the terrain ends up in the deployment zones this could create unfair advantages.

This is all still very much in the realm of we don't fething know anything yet. We've seen things sure.. but what we have seen may not be nearly as important as what we have not.

Having another look through the rules, it seems to me that you can just walk away from combat? Charging seems to be the only way to get in combat, but if on your turn you are within that 3" range you can just retreat away. There is no more locked in combat.

 Talys wrote:

 timetowaste85 wrote:

 oni wrote:
Everybody calm down...

When this steaming pile of gak gets flushed after 5 or 6 months, GW will rush out a rehashed version of WFB. All will rejoice and all will be right with the world.

GW has already committed to this "New Coke" mess, so we all just have to weather the storm until "WFB Classic" arrives.

It will come, because AoS has zero chance of success.

Slight problem with this line of thought: it WILL be successful. Here's why: the models are gorgeous. A lot of us want them. I'm buying a kit to build up my Chaos army. That's a box sold for GW. The Chaos army will be used for older Warhammer editions and KoW. But GW doesn't know that. They know I bought a box and "love" their AoS.

Well, from that perspective, any time GW pops a box of around 50 cool models for about $120, I'll happily buy it. I mean, it doesn't get much better in terms of price per model, even if they are snapfit. The detail on them is fantastic. And by the way, I'd say (and do) exactly the same thing if PP came out with a similar box!

picture of sprue in spoiler

Spoiler:

That is a space marine. Only thing missing is a bolter.....


hmmm.... Hay wait a minute....

I want some of these guys, now. might need those chaos ones, for some gak and giggles.

 Samurai_Eduh wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 Samurai_Eduh wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

Chopxsticks wrote:

 Thokt wrote:
Looks dead in the water to me. No points could be okay, but how's a total new guy gonna know what to play with?

Beyond that, because there's no wound allocation mechanic, hits are rolled on a model by model basis. I can't even..

Were did you read this? I thought I read the rules and they said roll wounds towards the entire unit and then alot the wounds how you wanted.

Yeah, if I'm reading the rules correctly every model in the attacking unit makes their attacks, all the wounds they inflict are then allocated to the unit they attacked by the player commanding the unit that was attacked. Once a player allocates a wound to a specific model that model keeps taking wounds until all the wounds are used up or the model dies.

Not quite, the melee weapons have a range, so if your charge and pile in move doesn't get you in that range, that model can't attack. The allocation part is correct.

Why do the melee weapons have a range stat when the rules clearly state that any model within 3" can make a melee attack? Doesn't that essentially give every melee weapon a range of 3"?

I think within 3" is is the range which you are "in combat", but the rules for attacking also state that you have to be within the listed range of the weapon in order to make an attack.

I don't mean to be argumentative but when I read the Combat Phase description in the rules it seems to definitively state that units within 3" get to make attacks with any and all melee weapons. Since every melee weapon can be used within 3" it seems like a melee range stat is irrelevant.