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.

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

Did you post something? Because I don't have anything for you.

Motograter wrote:
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

You know its fine if you get content like Pizaro do with books and such, but just an army builder yeah they can shove it

Saying games can be as big or as small as you want but then have scenarios be the only way of playing means games cant really be as big/small as you want.

 pretre wrote:

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

Did you post something? Because I don't have anything for you.

I was told there would be like 4-5 books with rules in. I twas told one was a BRB its not , its just army things.

migooo wrote:

 pretre wrote:

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

Did you post something? Because I don't have anything for you.

I was told there would be like 4-5 books with rules in. I twas told one was a BRB its not , its just army things.

Did you post it?

 pretre wrote:

migooo wrote:

 pretre wrote:

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

Did you post something? Because I don't have anything for you.

I was told there would be like 4-5 books with rules in. I twas told one was a BRB its not , its just army things.

Did you post it?

earlier yeah, but maybe it got lost in this mess however im very willing to take credit for misinformation and im sorry for not checking beforehand.

i genininely feel bad considering what we found out after i was told this.

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

I hear you, gorgon, but wasn't it the case that tournament organisers and people like Yakface had to do a major salvage job to correct 40k's flaws and make it ready for the tournament scene?

I keep using the car analogy, but if I buy a brand new car, I don't expect the salesman to tell me that' I'll have to replace the radiator, or fix the transmission or buy my own steering wheel!

There are tons of companies, with a fraction of GW's budget, who make tight rule sets year after year.

Why can't GW do this?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

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

I hear you, gorgon, but wasn't it the case that tournament organisers and people like Yakface had to do a major salvage job to correct 40k's flaws and make it ready for the tournament scene?

I keep using the car analogy, but if I buy a brand new car, I don't expect the salesman to tell me that' I'll have to replace the radiator, or fix the transmission or buy my own steering wheel!

There are tons of companies, with a fraction of GW's budget, who make tight rule sets year after year.

Why can't GW do this?

and do open beta tests.

migooo wrote:

 pretre wrote:

migooo wrote:

 pretre wrote:

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

Did you post something? Because I don't have anything for you.

I was told there would be like 4-5 books with rules in. I twas told one was a BRB its not , its just army things.

Did you post it?

earlier yeah, but maybe it got lost in this mess however im very willing to take credit for misinformation and im sorry for not checking beforehand.

i genininely feel bad considering what we found out after i was told this.

Just filtered for you in this thread and I don't see it.

The monthly subscription would actually work, and DAMN well too!

Why?

1. Access to all rules, all the time, with all updates to ALL models all the time.
2. The ONLY OFFICIAL way to take part in GW-sanctioned tournaments. For some, this may not be an issue (the OFFICIAL part), but if you want to play in a GW store? Or an Independant Retailer receiving incentives to BE official?
3. You can create a Global Campaign / Tournament Circuit that is universally accepted as ON PAR.
4. GW gets a monthly revenue stream was mentioned before, but this makes it MORE likely from a business perspective. Old Beards like me will actually give them money now instead of just using old models...
5. By going ONLINE, you de-personalize the scoring and judging aspects that each store needs to deal with. No bias.

As a fan, this makes a TON of sense... and I will applaud them if it comes true.

Where is the rumour tracker?

 ImAGeek wrote:

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...

Yeah, except for two things:

1) You can make your own scenarios, as wargamers have been doing since time immemorial.

2) We don't know how the scenarios are constructed - they might be very open.

 Formosa wrote:
Where is the rumour tracker?

Check my sig.

Norsed wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

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...

Yeah, except for two things:

1) You can make your own scenarios, as wargamers have been doing since time immemorial.

2) We don't know how the scenarios are constructed - they might be very open.

Works well for club play but helps not at all for pick-up games. "See, I've made this scenario where you bring 3 models and I bring 300, it's totally going to be fun (for me)."

I'm pretty sure that other companies update their rules on a regular basis, and don't charge for it.

And yet, GW want to do it their way...

Good luck with that.

Did I imagine it, or did I read a post a few pages back about how users had signed up today on BOLS and posted exclusively in the AoS thread defending it? In a "almost too convenient to be much other than an effort at damage control" sort of way?

I bet that would never happen here.

Mikhaila... Think you could sell Monthly Subscriptions to Warhammer if you got a piece of the action AND they helped you maintain a Tournament base?

obvious right?

 pretre wrote:

migooo wrote:

 pretre wrote:

migooo wrote:

 pretre wrote:

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

Did you post something? Because I don't have anything for you.

I was told there would be like 4-5 books with rules in. I twas told one was a BRB its not , its just army things.

Did you post it?

earlier yeah, but maybe it got lost in this mess however im very willing to take credit for misinformation and im sorry for not checking beforehand.

i genininely feel bad considering what we found out after i was told this.

Just filtered for you in this thread and I don't see it.

I thought i did . okay my bad.

but i did genuinely think i posted that, now i look even more stupid * headdesk*

Sorry but unless the subscription gives you ALL rules and only charges you when there's new content its just wrong and bad sorry.

War Room (from Privateer Press) is most definitely not free, and quite pricey if you want all the factions... however there are free alternatives like Forward Kommander.

migooo wrote:

 pretre wrote:

migooo wrote:

 pretre wrote:

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

Did you post something? Because I don't have anything for you.

I was told there would be like 4-5 books with rules in. I twas told one was a BRB its not , its just army things.

Did you post it?

earlier yeah, but maybe it got lost in this mess however im very willing to take credit for misinformation and im sorry for not checking beforehand.

i genininely feel bad considering what we found out after i was told this.

Don't feel bad: I got misinformation as well from one contact who had info that Age of Sigmar was a boardgame. And that information came DIRECTLY from his GW Rep. It happens.

However, my correct info came directly from somebody who works for GW as well. So...some people will provide real info, some provide fake info to get you to buy into whatever they can. I already told my friend who has a store to only buy whatever people preorder, plus one copy for the shelf and/or store, based on what Mikhaila said he's doing.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

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

I hear you, gorgon, but wasn't it the case that tournament organisers and people like Yakface had to do a major salvage job to correct 40k's flaws and make it ready for the tournament scene?

I keep using the car analogy, but if I buy a brand new car, I don't expect the salesman to tell me that' I'll have to replace the radiator, or fix the transmission or buy my own steering wheel!

There are tons of companies, with a fraction of GW's budget, who make tight rule sets year after year.

Why can't GW do this?

I think it comes down to their "hire for attitude" mindset.

It's the same problem they had with the CHS court case- hiring incompetent lawyers who said yes to every bogus claim of ownership GW's overlords wanted to level, and when it came time to go up to litigation, they failed spectacularly. But not not without establishing this mindset of mind-boggling attempts to build copyright through lore change, all of which have done nothing to solidify their claims. It seems that they just choose to ignore reality with some sort of internal narrative.

I think that if management doesn't get the response they want from their designers, then they're out the door. It's the same thing with the game- I'm sure folks at GW have made the case that building the game into something that is well put-together would take a lot of work, but they're instructed to not do those sorts of things, and I'm guessing it's either kowtow to that or leave the company. And after they leave, they're just replaced with bobbleheads as the new design staff. .

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

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

I hear you, gorgon, but wasn't it the case that tournament organisers and people like Yakface had to do a major salvage job to correct 40k's flaws and make it ready for the tournament scene?

I keep using the car analogy, but if I buy a brand new car, I don't expect the salesman to tell me that' I'll have to replace the radiator, or fix the transmission or buy my own steering wheel!

Not to mention for a long time allies DID break the game. Tau-dar was a serious metagame issue for a long time. You either played it, or built a force to counter it.

D/Eldar? The original 2++ rerollable shenanigans?

Some serious rose coloring going on.

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

Under these rules, it's a completely legal movement for a charge.

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.

This is positively, unquestionably, the worst idea I have ever heard.

If true, 100% of my interest is now lost. I absolutely refuse to pay a subscription to play a game; period, no exceptions!

Should this idea ever translate to 40K it's a guarantee I'll quit. I'll quit without even giving it a second thought - this whole concept terrifies me.

 agnosto wrote:

Norsed wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

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...

Yeah, except for two things:

1) You can make your own scenarios, as wargamers have been doing since time immemorial.

2) We don't know how the scenarios are constructed - they might be very open.

Works well for club play but helps not at all for pick-up games. "See, I've made this scenario where you bring 3 models and I bring 300, it's totally going to be fun (for me)."

Of course it won't work for pick up games, unless you trust your opponent. It's not meant to! But as I say, the scenarios could be quite open for all we know. Or there could be guidelines for creating scenarios available. Or a Forces of Fantasy/Ravening Hordes/Warhammer Armies style supplement as it was in the old days (i.e. point free core game with heavy emphasis on narrative games and scenarios, with points systems turning up in a supplement for tournament players). We don't know yet! I think it's fairly certain that AoS will never use a points system - but that doesn't mean there won't be something else in place.

Wow, I haven't checked the veracity of this new monthly subscription charge rumour, but it really looks like GW are determined to repeat every mistake of 4th edition Dungeons and Dragons plus some extra mistakes of their own if it is true.
1. Change the aestethics and the background fairly dramatically
2. Change the rules to an entirely new paradigm
3. Try to charge a subscription per month for rules content

I mean, at least 4th was a reasonably internally balanced rules set, even if it did become wonky at higher levels. AoS does not appear to even have that going for it.

 RiTides wrote:
War Room (from Privateer Press) is most definitely not free, and quite pricey if you want all the factions... however there are free alternatives like Forward Kommander.

It's also completely optional though. I love Warroom, but you don't need to buy it to play. Also it's a one time payment and that's it, no subscription.

 RiTides wrote:
War Room (from Privateer Press) is most definitely not free, and quite pricey if you want all the factions... however there are free alternatives like Forward Kommander.

But generally if you stick to your own army you're paying £5. It's not a major expense unless you really want all the factions. PP at least seem to make their output increasingly concrete while GW decide to get vaguer and vaguer with every release.

 Da Boss wrote:
Wow, I haven't checked the veracity of this new monthly subscription charge rumour, but it really looks like GW are determined to repeat every mistake of 4th edition Dungeons and Dragons plus some extra mistakes of their own if it is true.
1. Change the aestethics and the background fairly dramatically
2. Change the rules to an entirely new paradigm
3. Try to charge a subscription per month for rules content

I mean, at least 4th was a reasonably internally balanced rules set, even if it did become wonky at higher levels. AoS does not appear to even have that going for it.

4th ed D&D was a train wreck from the start. They saw Pizaro and thought we can do that but Failed abysmally.

Im only glad this will last 5 years if that with GWs recent oh lets change everything every year attitude.

Then again im only interested in what i use to make other stuff with now anyway.

Norsed wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

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...

Yeah, except for two things:

1) You can make your own scenarios, as wargamers have been doing since time immemorial.

2) We don't know how the scenarios are constructed - they might be very open.

1. We can make our own scenarios based on what? How do you build two balanced forces? There are pretty much 0 guidelines.

2. We don't even know that there are scenarios. There is pretty much 0 evidence for their existence beyond "if fate intervenes" (which could mean anything) when talking about units not making into deployment.