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.

 Wilson wrote:
1. Tis only a game calm down.
2. I think it sounds fun!
3. It looks AMAZING!

The only thing i dislike is the lack of instruction for bases and pts costs.

Aye but its a game a lot of people care deeply about and a universe that has become a part of our lives.

 Azreal13 wrote:
Literally everything about this is awesome except the rules.

My thoughts exactly (Minus the Sigmarines. feth those guys). Up until the no points/infinite unit sizes and unbound all the time (I could live with the rest) I was ready to cautiously step back into the GW 'verse.

Right now? Nope.

I hate this release with every ounce of my core, but whatever that monster is in that picture....I want that as a model...in that scale...now

here is what the Chaos figure reminds me off .. the hell-brutish one..

http://www.hcl.hr/images/recenzije/super-mario-bros-film/super-mario-bros-5.jpg

 XT-1984 wrote:

 Xyxox wrote:


Verified time and again to contain only fluff, gaming examples, and the war scrolls.

From White Dwarf:

'96 page book detailing the opening battles of the Age of Sigmar' (perhaps Scenarios are included?)

'its unlike any book we have ever published'

Hardly verified. And certainly not time and again.


EDIT: Or perhaps you are right and Warhammer IS doomed, lets just throw our models in the bin now and save us the trouble of doing it after the rules are officially released.

Six linked battleplans in the description from WD

What even is that thing, a bloodthirster? Cas he looks green and got some wierd beard thing going on that looks like 4 skulls pointing out its chin.

Another God perhaps? I wish to know more.

 quickfuze wrote:
I hate this release with every ounce of my core, but whatever that monster is in that picture....I want that as a model...in that scale...now

Get pet Komodo Dragon
Put next to Sigmarine model
????
Profit!

 Azreal13 wrote:
Literally everything about this is awesome except the rules.

And the aesthetic , idiotic names and the tiny little fact that they have killed WHFB. I can't see anything good about AoS with the possible exception of 'free' rules.

 insaniak wrote:

 Azreal13 wrote:
Literally everything about this is awesome except the rules.

That's a big part of what makes this whole thing so frustrating. They've put so much work into getting everything else right... but are still overlooking the fact that the rules are what makes the game playable.


But that just brings me back to the idea that having a playable game isn't their focus right now... The 'game' is just to give people an excuse to buy pretty toys. Because buying the miniatures is what GW think our hobby is.

That's what gets me. My first purchase of Citadel miniatures was in 1977. I bought some adventurers to play D&D. The ONLY reason I bought miniatures WAS TO PLAY A GAME. I got into wargaming shortly thereafter. I collected miniatures TO PLAY GAMES!

Now, Warhammer comes out and I was still buying Citadel miniatures, mostly in support of my AD&D habit. But eventually I get into their game and buy even more minis to support playing that game but even moreso to play Battlesystem. Without highly playable games, I would have never purchased their minis.

I still use my citadel minis for RPGs and war games. I always will, but I have all sorts of choices and many are much cheaper. To support RPGs, I don't need to spend as much on minis as GW minis cost. There are cheaper options and the minis will be fine for my purposes, and now there's another option for mini wargaming where I can still mult-purpose the minis, but the minis are cheaper than Citadel and are fine for both applications.

So with no real rules for this game, there's no real reason for me to collect these minis other than aesthetics. It now becomes an assessment of value vs. cost. The value I get purchasing another company's minis outweighs the value of purchasing these solely due to aesthetics.

I have a collection of thousands of minis spanning nearly four decades. Since they want to sell to collectors, I should be a part of their target demographic, and yet I've sown how they have lost me as a customer by ignoring the playability of the rules for the game that supports the sale of the minis.

guru wrote:

 XT-1984 wrote:

 Xyxox wrote:


Verified time and again to contain only fluff, gaming examples, and the war scrolls.

From White Dwarf:

'96 page book detailing the opening battles of the Age of Sigmar' (perhaps Scenarios are included?)

'its unlike any book we have ever published'

Hardly verified. And certainly not time and again.


EDIT: Or perhaps you are right and Warhammer IS doomed, lets just throw our models in the bin now and save us the trouble of doing it after the rules are officially released.

Six linked battleplans in the description from WD

Spoiler:

guru wrote:

 XT-1984 wrote:

 Xyxox wrote:


Verified time and again to contain only fluff, gaming examples, and the war scrolls.

From White Dwarf:

'96 page book detailing the opening battles of the Age of Sigmar' (perhaps Scenarios are included?)

'its unlike any book we have ever published'

Hardly verified. And certainly not time and again.


EDIT: Or perhaps you are right and Warhammer IS doomed, lets just throw our models in the bin now and save us the trouble of doing it after the rules are officially released.

Six linked battleplans in the description from WD

[/img]

Get your facts directly out of here, we'll have none of that!

6 scenarios to rule them all. So, after you've played those six scenarios, you're back to crap rules with zero balance. Some people might like to only ever play scenarios but I'm not sure GW should have bet the whole game on that.

 unmercifulconker wrote:
What even is that thing, a bloodthirster? Cas he looks green and got some wierd beard thing going on that looks like 4 skulls pointing out its chin.

Another God perhaps? I wish to know more.

My guess is thats sigmar and her's about to smack Khorne himself in the noodle.

Albino Squirrel wrote:


How many times was that verified, Xyxox?

Still doesn't contain points costs nor army restrictions though does it?

 Grimtuff wrote:

Albino Squirrel wrote:

guru wrote:

 XT-1984 wrote:

 Xyxox wrote:


Verified time and again to contain only fluff, gaming examples, and the war scrolls.

From White Dwarf:

'96 page book detailing the opening battles of the Age of Sigmar' (perhaps Scenarios are included?)

'its unlike any book we have ever published'

Hardly verified. And certainly not time and again.


EDIT: Or perhaps you are right and Warhammer IS doomed, lets just throw our models in the bin now and save us the trouble of doing it after the rules are officially released.

Six linked battleplans in the description from WD

Spoiler:

 agnosto wrote:

6 scenarios to rule them all. So, after you've played those six scenarios, you're back to crap rules with zero balance.

Six intro scenarios that teach you how to move models, how to fight, how to shoot, etc.

There you go.

Sure, the rules could all be included exclusively in the Warscrolls, but they could also have their own game wide rules. None of which have been explained in the four pages we've seen.

Yeah its not indisputable proof but since we're just throwing hyperbole around why not have it both ways.

 Red Corsair wrote:

 unmercifulconker wrote:
What even is that thing, a bloodthirster? Cas he looks green and got some wierd beard thing going on that looks like 4 skulls pointing out its chin.

Another God perhaps? I wish to know more.

My guess is thats sigmar and her's about to smack Khorne himself in the noodle.

It's wierd cas it probably is khorne but I always pictured him as a man as when I was a kid and first saw the god cover pages in the csm codex I thought they were the gods so the dude clad in spikey armour with a skull face was khorne to me and imagined him sitting on his throne Conan/riddick style.

 XT-1984 wrote:
Actually we don't know if that is the case yet Yodhrin.

Oh goody, another Egyptian river sailor.

When a trustworthy store owner spends hours on the phone to a rep, then goes over the head of the rep and spends hours talking to their boss, and still gets the same answer; the four pages are it, there are no points, we designed it that way, there's nothing else coming to change that - yeah, for me that's enough confirmation.

guru wrote:

Spoiler:

 XT-1984 wrote:

 Xyxox wrote:


Verified time and again to contain only fluff, gaming examples, and the war scrolls.

From White Dwarf:

'96 page book detailing the opening battles of the Age of Sigmar' (perhaps Scenarios are included?)

'its unlike any book we have ever published'

Hardly verified. And certainly not time and again.


EDIT: Or perhaps you are right and Warhammer IS doomed, lets just throw our models in the bin now and save us the trouble of doing it after the rules are officially released.

Six linked battleplans in the description from WD

That's the first I've seen of that. Will those be balanced? Probably. How do you extend balance to any games where you use anything outside the box? The only way I see is to play battle scenarios published by GW. There are still no rules for balancing or forming armies.

 Xyxox wrote:

guru wrote:

Spoiler:

 XT-1984 wrote:

 Xyxox wrote:


Verified time and again to contain only fluff, gaming examples, and the war scrolls.

From White Dwarf:

'96 page book detailing the opening battles of the Age of Sigmar' (perhaps Scenarios are included?)

'its unlike any book we have ever published'

Hardly verified. And certainly not time and again.


EDIT: Or perhaps you are right and Warhammer IS doomed, lets just throw our models in the bin now and save us the trouble of doing it after the rules are officially released.

Six linked battleplans in the description from WD

That's the first I've seen of that. Will those be balanced? Probably. How do you extend balance to any games where you use anything outside the box? The only way I see is to play battle scenarios published by GW. There are still no rules for balancing or forming armies.

Well obviously those rules will be on the invisible 4 additional pages that don't exist but some people are sure GW has lied to us about and actually do exist....since GW has stated themselves that the rules are 4 pages in length and we have literally seen them and read them already....but don't let that stop you from assuming it's all a farce and there's actually an additional rulebook in the box that includes all the missing game mechanics that would make this mess playable.

 agnosto wrote:

 Xyxox wrote:

guru wrote:

Spoiler:

 XT-1984 wrote:

 Xyxox wrote:


Verified time and again to contain only fluff, gaming examples, and the war scrolls.

From White Dwarf:

'96 page book detailing the opening battles of the Age of Sigmar' (perhaps Scenarios are included?)

'its unlike any book we have ever published'

Hardly verified. And certainly not time and again.


EDIT: Or perhaps you are right and Warhammer IS doomed, lets just throw our models in the bin now and save us the trouble of doing it after the rules are officially released.

Six linked battleplans in the description from WD

That's the first I've seen of that. Will those be balanced? Probably. How do you extend balance to any games where you use anything outside the box? The only way I see is to play battle scenarios published by GW. There are still no rules for balancing or forming armies.

Well obviously those rules will be on the invisible 4 additional pages that don't exist but some people are sure GW has lied to us about and actually do exist....since GW has stated themselves that the rules are 4 pages in length and we have literally seen them and read them already....but don't let that stop you from assuming it's all a farce and there's actually an additional rulebook in the box that includes all the missing game mechanics that would make this mess playable.

I think the scenarios culd actually be quite fun to play through. The mechanic is simple and if all else fails you have a roll off of a d6 to determine who interpreted the rules correctly. Highest roll is correct!

 Xyxox wrote:

I think the scenarios culd actually be quite fun to play through. The mechanic is simple and if all else fails you have a roll off of a d6 to determine who interpreted the rules correctly. Highest roll is correct!

Now you're just a WAAC gamer and this is obviously not a competitive game....and those models are obviously not marines....and there are more rules out there because, reasons.

 XT-1984 wrote:


There you go.

Sure, the rules could all be included exclusively in the Warscrolls, but they could also have their own game wide rules. None of which have been explained in the four pages we've seen.

Yeah its not indisputable proof but since we're just throwing hyperbole around why not have it both ways.

+ there is the ambiguous line in the Deployment section about having reserves and "fate" playing a hand that isn't explained.

Is it wrong to think the faq for this game will be longer that 4 pages?

Reading the rules am I mistaken that as they currently stand your models cant move their full distance and remain the same facing?

For example moving a chariot base and rotating it sideways at the end of its move makes the rear of the model move more than its move distance, which is against the rules. To move your full allowance in one direction and not break the rules a figure cannot be rotated.

am I reading this wrong?

While I would love for the scenarios to be for any two armies to fight in the interest of being fairly objective I would guess that they are actually campaign type missions that play through one after the other much like the missions that came with Dark Vengeance.

I don't doubt there will be scenarios at some point. Just not in this particular publication.

Watching people row furiously backwards up the Nile over the past few months was so entertaining it almost made up for the pessimists being right.

Fate is the d6

What are all these references to Egypt and the Nile?

Sorry if I'm being a bit slow, I don't get it!

 edlowe wrote:
Is it wrong to think the faq for this game will be longer that 4 pages?

Reading the rules am I mistaken that as they currently stand your models cant move their full distance and remain the same facing?

For example moving a chariot base and rotating it sideways at the end of its move makes the rear of the model move more than its move distance, which is against the rules. To move your full allowance in one direction and not break the rules a figure cannot be rotated.

am I reading this wrong?

Here, let me translate GW-speak for you:

"It's a living rulebook." ------> "It's a public Alpha version."

Besides, GW's no longer in the business of FAQs or Errata.

 Pacific wrote:
What are all these references to Egypt and the Nile?

Sorry if I'm being a bit slow, I don't get it!

They're in De Nile.