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.

I'm saying that a system that allows players to take nothing but the strongest (and, 'conveniently' for GW, usually the most expensive) models renders fluffy armies inferior.

nudibranch wrote:
I'm saying that a system that allows players to take nothing but the strongest (and, 'conveniently' for GW, usually the most expensive) models renders fluffy armies inferior.

Okay, that's fair enough but I still don't see what that has to do with what you quoted.

Binabik15 wrote:
I'll pay 5€ per Khornebeast. What can I say, I love Gorilla-ish things for Khorne.


And complaining about his skulls and ribcages (yes, he has those in the deltoids it seems) but nobody mentioned the RIDICULOUS skulls in the LORD's m. rectus abdominis?!

The skull-skin concept is actually neat, it works well on Creatute Caster's Not-Thirster. With less harsh transitions it probably work on the Khornebeast as well. On the Lord? God damn it, did he EAT them and has a torn Nurgle-belly? Can he even touch his toes with skulls in his gastro-intestinal tract? I doubt it.

I don't think food is an issue for him anymore lol. Seems pretty well imbued with daemonic "gifts"

CragHack wrote:
Could some1 clarify: since there's no point cost, are there any brackets for small, medium, large sized games?
Also, it's stated, that a unit can have unlimited model count. So, it literally goes down to: player 1 takes Bloodthirster for 1 warscroll. Player 2 takes 100 (providing, he has enough cash to buy that many) of these Celestials and fits them all into once scroll (since a 'squad' can have unlimited numbers') and just goes "whatcha gonna do with that Thirster, bro?".

Apart from these unkwon things, I'm pretty excited about this new release. If I ain't grabbing the boxed set at first, I'm at least getting the BL book

Their idea of balancing that is that the Bloodthirster now gets to pick a sudden death saying that if he can survive 4 turns he wins, and now he just flys away from your huge blob.

Norsed wrote:

nudibranch wrote:
I'm saying that a system that allows players to take nothing but the strongest (and, 'conveniently' for GW, usually the most expensive) models renders fluffy armies inferior.

Okay, that's fair enough but I still don't see what that has to do with what you quoted.

You suggested that the changes with AoS will make the game less hyper-competitive, despite the fact you'll most likely have to spam the strongest units in weird, unfluffy combinations in order to survive at all.

migooo wrote:


It's far worse than white wolf and Requiem.

I think in the realm of games, Ultima Online and the shift to Trammel is perhaps the closest analogy. With the exception that they actually made a good product and kept the old anything goes PvP realm for existing players rather than throwing them out. But in terms of completely changing the rules and ethos of the game, its the one that instantly comes to mind.

NoggintheNog wrote:

migooo wrote:


It's far worse than white wolf and Requiem.

I think in the realm of games, Ultima Online and the shift to Trammel is perhaps the closest analogy. With the exception that they actually made a good product and kept the old anything goes PvP realm for existing players rather than throwing them out. But in terms of completely changing the rules and ethos of the game, its the one that instantly comes to mind.

Possibly but the Narative was far stronger in Masquerade than in Requiem I was going for quality of the fluff in the original setting rather than lol vampires just exist

migooo wrote:

Possibly but the Narative was far stronger in Masquerade than in Requiem I was going for quality of the fluff in the original setting rather than lol vampires just exist

I can see that, definitely. Indeed, the thing that stands out for me about the new game, regardless of the design intentions, is that it is all just done very badly. A fewof the sculpts are OK, but none that are really game changing, and plenty that are sub par for GW, and the writing itself, not just fluff but the unintentional ambiguity in the rules, is just of a poor standard.

This coming from a games company that has been making TT wargames for 30 years is pretty inexcusable in itself, no matter what I think of the game itself.

Compared to the skaven/ elf sculpts for 8th yeah they seem uninspired. Chaos =skulls and now belly mouths apparently.

Ill get the WD for the mini but really that's the only reason. I want to reward good ideas i.e. free content occasionally but not reward the stupidity of AOS.

I really regret buying Requiem but it was recommended by fanboy friends and I guess I got caught up in it. The only decent thing was requiem for Rome and I converted it to masquerade pretty quickly.

I read the 4 page rulebook last night, this game looks pretty awesome to me! I never, EVER wanted to play fantasy due to the stupid movement rules and the way combat worked in general. Point values aren't needed because of the scaling nature of the battle shock phase and not knowing what your opponent is going to field. With sudden death victories of one model being alive on turn 6, hold a point on the table by turn 4, kill a powerful single model,or a decent sized unit of your choosing even one sided games are more fair. Especially if you DON'T have to tell your opponent what your objective is. That makes them think about unit placement and board control. That in itself forces tactical decision making. I'm excited, this may get me into fantasy..m

Ohh, that's a thought, might have to snap up a copy of IoB before it sells out...

Alright, here's the thing.

This is what we have to work with. This rules system and the warscrolls. From what we've seen, the warscrolls do not contain any qualifying structural data aside from 'keywords', but they have statlines, which at least provides some distinction between models and units.

GW has, by not providing a structure for us, evinced an intention for us to do so ourselves. This is not idle speculation, it is what I have been told by people who are in a position to know.

There are numerous criticisms we can levy against GW for this choice, most of them valid. But that doesn't help us.

So, that's what we should do. Hammer out some basic structural rules - unit size minimums and maximums, basic 'standard battle' force organisation charts, classifications of different unit types via their keywords etc etc.

This isn't for those people who (quite understandably) don't see the point. After all, why should we spend time putting in all of the vital structural components just because GW didn't? Isn't that their job, not ours? That's a completely valid stance to take, and I'm sorry that this new edition hasn't worked out. Hopefully you can either keep playing 8th or move to one of the numerous other fantasy war games available, and keep using the miniatures you paid for. But, as I said, this isn't for you.

This is for those of you, like me, who for some reason want to stay with Age of Sigmar. For me, it's because I have a group who want to stay with it and I won't get any games in any other system, that's the nature of my local community. I have to stay with AoS, so I want to make it as entertaining as possible. If we all work together, we can create something positive and fun out of this negative situation. I don't think that it's hopeless, or pointless. I think with cooperation we can come up with some really solid rules that we can then take to our local clubs or communities and maybe even have fun with this red-haired stepchild of a rules system.

I'll be creating a thread over in Proposed Rules for this purpose. If you're interested in forging this game into something playable, come and have a look, maybe even make some suggestions, I'll need all the help I can get.

For those of you (validly) don't see the point: please don't respond to this post, or comment in the new thread, with how this endeavor is pointless and/or how GW should've done this work for us. I don't care whether you think it is pointless, and yeah GW should've done it for us. But they didn't, so we've got to make the best of this bad situation.



TL;DR: I'm gonna make a thread in Proposed Rules to make something usable out of this bull-gak of a system. If you want to contribute, come and do so. If you don't see the point, remain silent here and in the new thread.

In the words of Shia Labeouf: DO IT!

 Dr. Delorean wrote:
Alright, here's the thing.

This is what we have to work with. This rules system and the warscrolls. From what we've seen, the warscrolls do not contain any qualifying structural data aside from 'keywords', but they have statlines, which at least provides some distinction between models and units.

GW has, by not providing a structure for us, evinced an intention for us to do so ourselves. This is not idle speculation, it is what I have been told by people who are in a position to know.

There are numerous criticisms we can levy against GW for this choice, most of them valid. But that doesn't help us.

So, that's what we should do. Hammer out some basic structural rules - unit size minimums and maximums, basic 'standard battle' force organisation charts, classifications of different unit types via their keywords etc etc.

This isn't for those people who (quite understandably) don't see the point. After all, why should we spend time putting in all of the vital structural components just because GW didn't? Isn't that their job, not ours? That's a completely valid stance to take, and I'm sorry that this new edition hasn't worked out. Hopefully you can either keep playing 8th or move to one of the numerous other fantasy war games available, and keep using the miniatures you paid for. But, as I said, this isn't for you.

This is for those of you, like me, who for some reason want to stay with Age of Sigmar. For me, it's because I have a group who want to stay with it and I won't get any games in any other system, that's the nature of my local community. I have to stay with AoS, so I want to make it as entertaining as possible. If we all work together, we can create something positive and fun out of this negative situation. I don't think that it's hopeless, or pointless. I think with cooperation we can come up with some really solid rules that we can then take to our local clubs or communities and maybe even have fun with this red-haired stepchild of a rules system.

I'll be creating a thread over in Proposed Rules for this purpose. If you're interested in forging this game into something playable, come and have a look, maybe even make some suggestions, I'll need all the help I can get.

For those of you (validly) don't see the point: please don't respond to this post, or comment in the new thread, with how this endeavor is pointless and/or how GW should've done this work for us. I don't care whether you think it is pointless, and yeah GW should've done it for us. But they didn't, so we've got to make the best of this bad situation.



TL;DR: I'm gonna make a thread in Proposed Rules to make something usable out of this bull-gak of a system. If you want to contribute, come and do so. If you don't see the point, remain silent here and in the new thread.

In the words of Shia Labeouf: DO IT!

Seems like a lot of hassle to go through. May as well go back to earlier versions or try different game systems...

[EDIT] Fair enough, ImAGeek is right...

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
I never, EVER wanted to play fantasy due to the stupid movement rules...

The most tactical part of the old game, that made you think about unit placement and board control.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
snip.... That makes them think about unit placement and board control. That in itself forces tactical decision making. I'm excited, this may get me into fantasy..m

Lolz...

C'mon guys, he did say if you don't want to it's completely valid and hopefully you can keep playing 8th, and that his post was for people who want to sort something out with this game...

 Dr. Delorean wrote:

Spoiler:

Alright, here's the thing.

This is what we have to work with. This rules system and the warscrolls. From what we've seen, the warscrolls do not contain any qualifying structural data aside from 'keywords', but they have statlines, which at least provides some distinction between models and units.

GW has, by not providing a structure for us, evinced an intention for us to do so ourselves. This is not idle speculation, it is what I have been told by people who are in a position to know.

There are numerous criticisms we can levy against GW for this choice, most of them valid. But that doesn't help us.

So, that's what we should do. Hammer out some basic structural rules - unit size minimums and maximums, basic 'standard battle' force organisation charts, classifications of different unit types via their keywords etc etc.

This isn't for those people who (quite understandably) don't see the point. After all, why should we spend time putting in all of the vital structural components just because GW didn't? Isn't that their job, not ours? That's a completely valid stance to take, and I'm sorry that this new edition hasn't worked out. Hopefully you can either keep playing 8th or move to one of the numerous other fantasy war games available, and keep using the miniatures you paid for. But, as I said, this isn't for you.

This is for those of you, like me, who for some reason want to stay with Age of Sigmar. For me, it's because I have a group who want to stay with it and I won't get any games in any other system, that's the nature of my local community. I have to stay with AoS, so I want to make it as entertaining as possible. If we all work together, we can create something positive and fun out of this negative situation. I don't think that it's hopeless, or pointless. I think with cooperation we can come up with some really solid rules that we can then take to our local clubs or communities and maybe even have fun with this red-haired stepchild of a rules system.

I'll be creating a thread over in Proposed Rules for this purpose. If you're interested in forging this game into something playable, come and have a look, maybe even make some suggestions, I'll need all the help I can get.

For those of you (validly) don't see the point: please don't respond to this post, or comment in the new thread, with how this endeavor is pointless and/or how GW should've done this work for us. I don't care whether you think it is pointless, and yeah GW should've done it for us. But they didn't, so we've got to make the best of this bad situation.



TL;DR: I'm gonna make a thread in Proposed Rules to make something usable out of this bull-gak of a system. If you want to contribute, come and do so. If you don't see the point, remain silent here and in the new thread.

In the words of Shia Labeouf: DO IT!

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Thraxas Of Turai wrote:

Magnificent! He's great.

Wait.. are those skulls poking out of his guts, too? This is getting just silly.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Point values aren't needed because of the scaling nature of the battle shock phase and not knowing what your opponent is going to field.

With sudden death victories of one model being alive on turn 6, hold a point on the table by turn 4, kill a powerful single model,or a decent sized unit of your choosing even one sided games are more fair. Especially if you DON'T have to tell your opponent what your objective is. That makes them think about unit placement and board control. That in itself forces tactical decision making. I'm excited, this may get me into fantasy..m

This post makes no sense. Absolute rubbish.

Scaling nature of the battle shock phase? It doesn't scale at all. It's very linear:

Did you lose 1 or more models?

No -> Do nothing
Yes -> (d6 + Dead models) - (Bravery + Models/10). That's not scaling. For every 10 models in your unit you (possibly) save 1 dude. *finger twirl* woohoo

No points needed? With Warscrolls having no limitations beyond "only 1" or "1 to your deployment zone", how do you even begin to make a balanced game? Oh wait, we don't need a balanced game because reasons and Sudden Death!

Except you clearly didn't read Sudden Death. Because your opponent DOES know what your choice was, because in a full half the options HE HAS TO PICK YOUR TARGET!

"You pick assassination? Cool, you have to kill my ubernaught hero back here. I've put him in the back corner, with my deployment zone being nothing but literal shoulder to shoulder dragons and a unit of 100 Warriors of Chaos. Good luck!"

"You pick blunt? Cool, you have to wipe out that unit of 100 Warriors of Chaose. Good luck!"

"You want to get to terrain in my deployment zone? Cool, you will have to kill a model to even take one step. Good luck!"

"Your dude just has to live six turns? Awesome, I'm already outnumbering you 20 to 1 or more, so... Good luck!"

Sudden death is not a balancing factor. Sudden death is a band-aid over a gaping wound of crap tier writing.

There's been one good thing about this whole thing so far, it's made me go take a look at Kings of War...

THEY HAVE CHAOS DWARVES (or Abyssal Dwarves to use their lingo)

I'm actually more and more hype for this by the day.

The lack of point values sets me back a little, but overall between model quality and tweaks to play, I'm totally psyched.

My only problem with it so far is the "bring as many models as you like" army construction. With no model count restrictions and war scroll restrictions, I don't see how you can have a fair game with this even with the sudden death objectives for an outnumbered opponent. With the leaked war scrolls we have already seen, you can have unlimited models with a single scroll.

 D6Damager wrote:
My only problem with it so far is the "bring as many models as you like" army construction. With no model count restrictions and war scroll restrictions, I don't see how you can have a fair game with this even with the sudden death objectives for an outnumbered opponent. With the leaked war scrolls we have already seen, you can have unlimited models with a single scroll.

Well you can agree the number of models in each army with your opponent can't you?

 Dr. Delorean wrote:
This is for those of you, like me, who for some reason want to stay with Age of Sigmar. For me, it's because I have a group who want to stay with it and I won't get any games in any other system, that's the nature of my local community. I have to stay with AoS...

Are you sure about that? Do you really think that they will be more accepting of a new and terrible game and unsanctioned house rules than the game they already play?

 Shadowclaimer wrote:
I'm actually more and more hype for this by the day.

The lack of point values sets me back a little, but overall between model quality and tweaks to play, I'm totally psyched.

Yeah, me too!

 D6Damager wrote:
My only problem with it so far is the "bring as many models as you like" army construction. With no model count restrictions and war scroll restrictions, I don't see how you can have a fair game with this even with the sudden death objectives for an outnumbered opponent. With the leaked war scrolls we have already seen, you can have unlimited models with a single scroll.

This is also my concern. I like the models and prefer a squad based game over ranked troops, but non-existing balancing is just bad.

There is one tournament style that would work for AoS: matched pairs. Not saying it's necessarily practical or ideal for those that like tournaments, but it is an option.

(Matched Pairs: each player brings two forces. In each match only one player's pair of armies will be used, and the other player gets to pick which one they want to use. It's a system I've mostly seen in DBA tournaments - used to encourage historical match ups and to make sure people aren't just bringing either French Ordonnance or armies chosen to deal with French Ordonnance)

Eternal vs Space Marine size comparison
http://i57.tinypic.com/2hn10nb.jpg

 streamdragon wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
Point values aren't needed because of the scaling nature of the battle shock phase and not knowing what your opponent is going to field.

With sudden death victories of one model being alive on turn 6, hold a point on the table by turn 4, kill a powerful single model,or a decent sized unit of your choosing even one sided games are more fair. Especially if you DON'T have to tell your opponent what your objective is. That makes them think about unit placement and board control. That in itself forces tactical decision making. I'm excited, this may get me into fantasy..m

This post makes no sense. Absolute rubbish.

Scaling nature of the battle shock phase? It doesn't scale at all. It's very linear:

Did you lose 1 or more models?

No -> Do nothing
Yes -> (d6 + Dead models) - (Bravery + Models/10). That's not scaling. For every 10 models in your unit you (possibly) save 1 dude. *finger twirl* woohoo

No points needed? With Warscrolls having no limitations beyond "only 1" or "1 to your deployment zone", how do you even begin to make a balanced game? Oh wait, we don't need a balanced game because reasons and Sudden Death!

Except you clearly didn't read Sudden Death. Because your opponent DOES know what your choice was, because in a full half the options HE HAS TO PICK YOUR TARGET!

"You pick assassination? Cool, you have to kill my ubernaught hero back here. I've put him in the back corner, with my deployment zone being nothing but literal shoulder to shoulder dragons and a unit of 100 Warriors of Chaos. Good luck!"

"You pick blunt? Cool, you have to wipe out that unit of 100 Warriors of Chaose. Good luck!"

"You want to get to terrain in my deployment zone? Cool, you will have to kill a model to even take one step. Good luck!"

"Your dude just has to live six turns? Awesome, I'm already outnumbering you 20 to 1 or more, so... Good luck!"

Sudden death is not a balancing factor. Sudden death is a band-aid over a gaping wound of crap tier writing.

You're right, I read the instant death rules wrong. But for scaling of the battle shock, if your unit has a huge pile of models, and I whipe out a significant chunk of them, the unit will drop people like crazy. Bigger units equals better ability to focus, the more damage they take the easier it is to make them run. seems pretty scalable to me.

Let's also not forget that you can always tell your opponent to stop putting models down on the table. Let them outnumber you, sure. But if I'm playing 150 orruks (or whatever they decided to call them) and the guy across the table from me brought 500 sigmarites, I can certainly ask he not put them all on the table because as a decent human being they should see that that would be unnecessary.

We have to look our opponent in the eye at some point folks, they are people too and deserve at least a modicum of respect.

 insaniak wrote:

 angelofvengeance wrote:
I think GW has learned a few hard lessons from their legal issues with Chapterhouse. Without condoning or condemning, they have to protect their IP.

If 'Orruks' and 'Ogors' are the result of those lessons, they weren't really paying attention to what was going on, though.

Remember, their IP guy doesn't have any background in IP law.... (For the amount of money he is taking home, you might think that he would at least have taken some classes on the subject, but nooooo....)

And with each misstep, their IP is worth less and less....

The Auld Grump, I think that this was the banana peel that will kill Fantasy - while GW will live, for a while, Fantasy is done. Not with an epic battle, but slipping on a banana peel and falling into its own grave.