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.

 warboss wrote:
You're in (bad?) luck! A secondary rumor says that they'll fix some of that... for a monthly fee.

Well when you put it that way... sign me up!!!

And lo, they didst descend into semantics. War was fought but not a single D6 was thrown.

And therein lieth the failing in great Games Workshoppe's plan.

They didst create war from nothing, with no ruleset, and it doth occupy their player base admirably.

And thus it came to pass that not a single dollar, pound, or Euro was ever spent on the miniatures from thee Citadelle again.

Wordhammer: Age Of Semantics was verily a smash hit.

ShaneTB wrote:


Need to re-read those rules tonight and check if this is true.

Bases are completely ignored by these rules, so you can just charge up onto the base. Isn't that great?

Norsed wrote:

I don't think you really understand... The story is created by the players, through the actions of their characters, and the results of those actions. There's no "scenes" that have to unfold in a certain way. Have you ever played a roleplaying game? There are dice involved in that yes? Apply those same concepts to a wargame. That is a narrative game. Something that has been happening for decades.

And no, you're right, there aren't many wargames that cater specifically to that style of play now. There used to be, indeed the earliest editions of Warhammer catered specifically for it. These days, it mostly seems to have been overtaken by the fast-play style of game.

The difference is that I call what you've described a role-playing game. Because that's what it is, not a wargame. I set up miniatures and stuff for my RPGs all the time. I bought sand huts for a game of Star Wars: Edge of the Empire, for a fight (that didn't materialize because my clever players talked their way through/out of it) that would have taken place on Tatooine. There are also most definitely "scenes" that take place in RPGs.

Honestly, it sounds like you've redefined both terms at this point and are wondering why no one agrees with you.

ShaneTB wrote:


Need to re-read those rules tonight and check if this is true.

It's true. The rules are very clear that bases don't matter, players measure from model to model. Those two models are more than 0.5" apart even though they are in base to base contact. The rules also state that it's ok to put models on top of the bases of other models (which strikes me as impractical due to how some scenic bases are constructed and can have destructive effects on bases) which needs to happen to get the actual models within 0.5" to avoid the situation shown in the picture. According to the rules the Chaos Warrior model should be moved forward and its base should be placed on top of the Ogre's base to get the models within 0.5" of each other. It certainly seems like a problematic rule but that's the way GW wrote it.

Really, The weapons are very close together. They said 'model' not 'feet'.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Really, The weapons are very close together. They said 'model' not 'feet'.

\

Both models have weapons in their right hand, which means that there's more than a 0.5" diagonal between their weapons.

I cant see myself enjoying this game sadly, I mean I hardly care for winning, I just like to make fluffy cool looking lists that fit the army fluff. Looks like I wont be doing that with Age of Sigmar since I will just be choosing what I need to counter my opponent there and then.

I really love the models and the story seems interesting since it seems to be ever evolving so I will still buy the set and maybe the novel but cant see myself playing a game, unless of course all our problems are solved.

Im still saying the Prosecutors are gonna make one badass minotaur captain, guess its an excuse to start that chapter.

I haven't read the leaked rules yet, but I've read a fair bit of comments on them.

Right now, I'll probably play a couple games of this. The games will be very small- things like a Hero or two, and maybe 5-10 Core or Elites models to play a very small, skirmish game. I really want to try my 10 Empire Spearmen against a Greater Deamon of Khorne just to see how badly the game will play. If anything, I'll buy a model or two from armies I don't play just to throw them on the table to play a game. If that is the intention of AoS, then good job GW! You hooked me. I've always wanted to play Vampire Counts, but I never wanted to have to paint so many Skeletons, or Zombies, or Ghouls. I just wanted to field a Vampire on an Undead Dragon. I always wanted to try a unit of Troll Slayers, but not the rest of a Dwarven army. I'd love to play a game with a unit of Pegusas Knights, but didn't want to use the rest of the Empire models. Basically, there has always been 1-2 models/units I've wanted to use in a game without the rest of the army.

Well, now is my chance.

This is very much a skirmish game, and I can't see myself ever playing a game with the size of armies I would in 8th edition.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Really, The weapons are very close together. They said 'model' not 'feet'.

"I did. I have a half inch melee gauge from WMH. It is possible to get within half an inch with these models, but base contact is no guarantee."
http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?410594-WTF-moments-in-the-AoS-rules&p=7480308&viewfull=1#post7480308

Actually, a living document online that has a monthly charge, like Xbox Live, isn't necessarily a bad thing. Depends on their cost. If it's $5 a month...that's $60 a year. If it's all inclusive on the rules, that means you get EVERY "army book" plus the rules and all point costs for $60/year. That's actually fantastic. Split it among a group of friends, and everyone gets access to the points. There are no surprises on rules or reasons to not know what something does. By GW standards, it's actually a brilliant choice. I'm happy to grump at their decisions when wrongdoings happen. But this online living document to avoid piracy is actually a good thing. Now, if it's $5/month for EACH army book, that's BS.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I don't have to keep paying to use something I already... oh why am I even bothering? You knew exactly what I meant...

No need for exasperation, I'm not here to fight you.

GW has been churning out content that invalidates previous releases at a staggering rate. While it's technically true that your 5th edition Lizardmen army book is as usable today as it was a decade ago, you're still forced to buy the new one to keep playing. I'd wager that, for the vast majority of gamers, only the latest version of the product holds relevance. It's not even like GW invented forced obsolescence anyway.

I'm not particularly thrilled by the idea of a subscription fee, or being forced to always be online to play a game, but it would at the very least be an honest admission on GW's part on how they treat their rules supplements.

One of the main aims for this revamp is to make the game more accessible, kids (parents) cant afford to buy 100+ skeletons and stuff.

Charges monthly for list building.

Honestly, I still think GW is purposely holding back. They probably didn't even give their sales reps the full story because khorne forbid someone leaks something, that wasn't designed purposely to be leaked to spread false info. So we can all be like "Oh, so that's how it works" on saturday.

I wish GW would stop pretending to be Apple, but that's never going to change under the current regime. But I guess it's working, we're all taking about it, so there's a buzz.. I guess bad buzzing is still buzzing, so that makes it good.

I'm still being cautiously optimistic and hoping for the best

Err... no! No one is going to put their scabby Bases on MY! base!

 His Master's Voice wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I don't have to keep paying to use something I already... oh why am I even bothering? You knew exactly what I meant...

No need for exasperation, I'm not here to fight you.

GW has been churning out content that invalidates previous releases at a staggering rate. While it's technically true that your 5th edition Lizardmen army book is as usable today as it was a decade ago, you're still forced to buy the new one to keep playing. I'd wager that, for the vast majority of gamers, only the latest version of the product holds relevance. It's not even like GW invented forced obsolescence anyway.

I'm not particularly thrilled by the idea of a subscription fee, or being forced to always be online to play a game, but it's at the very least an honest admission on GW's part on how they treat their rules supplements.

There's a big step between forced obsolescence and a subscription model. Forced obsolescence you can decide at any point you don't want to keep paying, you retain all your books, everything you paid money for you still own, if a year later you want to play a game and the rules have been replaced you can still just pull out your old rules and play it.

From the rumour it sounds more like you'll only have access if you are paying the fee.

It's not hard to see why people would be less inclined to get on board with that.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
And lo, they didst descend into semantics. War was fought but not a single D6 was thrown.

And therein lieth the failing in great Games Workshoppe's plan.

They didst create war from nothing, with no ruleset, and it doth occupy their player base admirably.

And thus it came to pass that not a single dollar, pound, or Euro was ever spent on the miniatures from thee Citadelle again.

Wordhammer: Age Of Semantics was verily a smash hit.

For the record, the Semantics Phase was pretty bad in 7E, while largely nonexistent in 8E, at least in my experience playing at a pretty high level. The killer for 8E initially was the Competitive Terrain Placement Phase, but once we dropped the Candyland terrain that fell away significantly ...

- Salvage

 Necros wrote:
Honestly, I still think GW is purposely holding back. They probably didn't even give their sales reps the full story because khorne forbid someone leaks something, that wasn't designed purposely to be leaked to spread false info. So we can all be like "Oh, so that's how it works" on saturday.

I wish GW would stop pretending to be Apple, but that's never going to change under the current regime. But I guess it's working, we're all taking about it, so there's a buzz.. I guess bad buzzing is still buzzing, so that makes it good.

I'm still being cautiously optimistic and hoping for the best

Yeah, it's even more silly when the rumors for this release (including the sigmarines) were leaked six months ago!

The paid monthly sub has fail written all over it. I subscribe for a month get all the points for my stuff and just cancel the subscription. Job done no cost to me. GW wont do that. Plus say I didn't cancel all that I then need to do is put the points online and no one else needs to subscribe. Sorry but this pay monthly thing is pure BS

 Necros wrote:
I wish GW would stop pretending to be Apple, but that's never going to change under the current regime. But I guess it's working, we're all taking about it, so there's a buzz.. I guess bad buzzing is still buzzing, so that makes it good.

I don't think it's working. If they'd actually released some damned info I think there'd be much more buzz, at least IMO. A handful of people griping about the game on the internet isn't really meaningful buzz.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Runic wrote:
I guess just waiting for more people than a few to play one match of the game before jumping to conclusions is too much to ask for some users.

I'm literally seeing people who have decided the game is bad based on one user saying so who hasn't even played the game, or has played one match of it and just quickly browsed trough the rules ONCE.

Such an unbelievably idiotic way to go about anything really, but yeah, we can't all be sensible.

I agree with the sentiment of this, but if a car has no engine, I don't need to get behind the wheel to know it won't work.

The same principal is at work here. We have people on dakka who have been running FLGS for years, tournament organisers, and of course, people who have played hundreds of games of Fantasy, in their life time.

The rules have been leaked, and people, using their vast experience, have judged the game to be found wanting.

It's not a knee jerk reaction. A minority of GW haters will always be guilty of this, but many people wanted to give AOS a chance, and based on the evidence, have found it lacking.

Just playing devil's advocate, Dakka (for all its vast experience) also declared allies completely inappropriate for competitive 40K at the advent of 6th edition. Hell, there was also conversation about how Aegis lines would likely have to be houseruled to only be deployed in loops, etc. Ah, those broken, broken Aegis lines.

But with some playtesting, it didn't take long for opinions to shift. 40K may have jumped the shark to some degree in the time and edition since, but in retrospect there were many TAME changes in the transition from 5th to 6th that even experienced gamers kinda freaked out about unnecessarily at the time.

This is obviously a completely different ruleset than 8th, which implies much greater change...but also that we lack a foundation of experience with the new ruleset to truly understand it yet. I don't think anyone can deny that there are some headscratching aspects to AoS. But some patience is needed IMO, especially since we don't and can't know if GW has plans or ideas for AoS going forward.

Of course, any request for patience in modern society will almost certainly be denied.

 streamdragon wrote:

The difference is that I call what you've described a role-playing game. Because that's what it is, not a wargame. I set up miniatures and stuff for my RPGs all the time. I bought sand huts for a game of Star Wars: Edge of the Empire, for a fight (that didn't materialize because my clever players talked their way through/out of it) that would have taken place on Tatooine. There are also most definitely "scenes" that take place in RPGs.

Honestly, it sounds like you've redefined both terms at this point and are wondering why no one agrees with you.

No, what I have described is how many wargames used to be played before fast-play stepped in. It is true that roleplaying games developed from this style of wargaming. However, I mentioned rpg in this particular context to help you understand that having a story doesn't mean you don't roll dice or play a game.

ShaneTB wrote:
From Warseer. Season to taste.

I have an friend that works a at small web development company in the EU. His company was contracted to develop a website which maintained a database of input values to determine a team or in this case armies value. He thought this was for an online football "soccer for us in North America" fantasy league. He didn't know anything about GW or their business. GW apparently supplied the unit values this week with names and he A and B together.

So each month we players will pay a fee to use GW's army builder. Model points will not be available the army value will determined by an algorithm using the GW's weightings.

This allows GW to control their information and stop online sharing of their product illegally. It also allows the company to change the game if they notice balance issues more rapidly.

During tournaments organizers will have to authenticate each person that signs up to verify that they have a valid subscription.

This explains why rules will now be free while creating a monthly revenue stream for GW.

As an aside, this is from sens16 on Warseer, who has no rumor history before this. All the salt.

The single best part of this release has been watching pretre's rumor tracker just massacring rumor posters. Full-on obliteration. It's been quite glorious

I suspect the other book that comes with the box will have some linked scenarios that specify game size and objectives. This is based on the rules mentioning things like reserves, and getting a bonus for winning the previous battle. Those references don't make much sense with only the four page rules, but they make a little more sense if there is a campaign of linked scenarios in the other book that uses reserves in some of them.

Albino Squirrel wrote:
I suspect the other book that comes with the box will have some linked scenarios that specify game size and objectives. This is based on the rules mentioning things like reserves, and getting a bonus for winning the previous battle. Those references don't make much sense with only the four page rules, but they make a little more sense if there is a campaign of linked scenarios in the other book that uses reserves in some of them.

I concur.

ShaneTB wrote:


Need to re-read those rules tonight and check if this is true.

 judgedoug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Really, The weapons are very close together. They said 'model' not 'feet'.

Both models have weapons in their right hand, which means that there's more than a 0.5" diagonal between their weapons.

Oh man, I was thinking the same thing as Johnny and didn't even realize both models have weapons in their right hands. That's hilarious

Albino Squirrel wrote:
I suspect the other book that comes with the box will have some linked scenarios that specify game size and objectives. This is based on the rules mentioning things like reserves, and getting a bonus for winning the previous battle. Those references don't make much sense with only the four page rules, but they make a little more sense if there is a campaign of linked scenarios in the other book that uses reserves in some of them.

Does that mean that we'd have to use those scenarios for any game we played though? And we'd only be able to use the forces in the scenario..? We'd only be able to play campaigns..? That doesn't make it sound any better to me...

 Accolade wrote:
The single best part of this release has been watching pretre's rumor tracker just massacring rumor posters. Full-on obliteration. It's been quite glorious

9th edition has been a popular clickbait for mongers.

 nels1031 wrote:

migooo wrote:

 nels1031 wrote:

overtyrant wrote:
So because the US is bigger and better then everyone you think the US should call the shots.

Yes. Its as God intended.

I'm still cautiously optimistic about this release. Can't wait to get some games in and test it out, and to see the warscrolls on my Beastmen stuff.

Not sure if sarcasm.

Part of it is, I'll leave you in suspense as to which part!

Alls cool.

its not like I'm plotting some devious revenge or anything.






Automatically Appended Next Post:

 pretre wrote:

 Accolade wrote:
The single best part of this release has been watching pretre's rumor tracker just massacring rumor posters. Full-on obliteration. It's been quite glorious

9th edition has been a popular clickbait for mongers.

yeah i bet im on there and thats perfectly fine i shouldnt listen to morons.