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.

If the scrolls come in each box set, wouldn't that box really be all you need to play that scroll.. and extra models are just extra models?

Mr.Church13 wrote:
If it's anything like the 40k formations there's gonna be a ton of model per scroll.

And all the preview scrolls I've seen have been hefty so I expect getting into the game is gonna be far more than just an HQ and 2 troops.

You don't have to play a formation. You can technically play with as little as a single model.

Not sure if posted already.

Mr.Church13 wrote:
If it's anything like the 40k formations there's gonna be a ton of model per scroll.

And all the preview scrolls I've seen have been hefty so I expect getting into the game is gonna be far more than just an HQ and 2 troops.

There are Formation style sheets in AoS. Battalions I believe. But the Scrolls are just essentially unit entries. In fact most of us have a problem with them because they aren't restrictive enough. Many just saying take 1+ models.

 Necros wrote:
If the scrolls come in each box set, wouldn't that box really be all you need to play that scroll.. and extra models are just extra models?

There is literally no unit size limit per scroll, except for characters. You can bring 50-man blocks of chaos warriors (whatever they're called now) for one scroll each. The only limit is on how big of a douche you're playing against and tedious, pre-game negotiations. GW has turned over all of the responsibility of game design to their customers which is craptastic if you ask me.

 agnosto wrote:

 Necros wrote:
If the scrolls come in each box set, wouldn't that box really be all you need to play that scroll.. and extra models are just extra models?

There is literally no unit size limit per scroll, except for characters. You can bring 50-man blocks of chaos warriors (whatever they're called now) for one scroll each. The only limit is on how big of a douche you're playing against and tedious, pre-game negotiations. GW has turned over all of the responsibility of game design to their customers which is craptastic if you ask me.

Once again I can't wait for this to seep over to 40k so I can run my 200 man Tactical Squad. <sarcasm>

Also my bad I thought the group scrolls we've seen are it.

 insaniak wrote:

 Fezza213 wrote:
How many "useless" HQ's are there?

This doesn't make your point. Quite the opposite, in fact... GW's apparent unwillingness to make options equally useful in 40K doesn't make it any more palatable in a new game.


I rather strongly suspect that most players would prefer that SAG to be more fun to put on the table, rather than just writing it off as 'Oh well, that's the way it is...'

But it is fun to play, its just not competitive which I think is the whole point, I always get a giggle out of the SAG whenever it shoots, its either crazy over the top or fizzles so bad i have to laugh. When they write the rules for both 40k and Fantasy they dont write it with balance in mind they write it with fun in mind which is cool by me. My point was that no HQ is created equal and those who must play competitively will focus on the biggest and bestest heroes while other will enjoy other things. Nothing wrong with either approach. I just think the "I am going to use Nagash in an orc/goblin army" is as likely to happen as unbound armies in 40k, for two reasons, one the bonuses from staying as one faction will outweigh nagash or that bloodthirster and two, most people wont allow it (just as they dont often allow unbound). Also Grimgor is an incarnate like Nagash so whats to say his rules are not over the top also? most races have an incarnate of which i think (going off the top of my head here) all of them have models.

I think it's weird that I've gone from never owning enough Warhammer stuff to field a whole unit, let alone an army, to someone who can field a combined Beastman/Chaos Warrior army with no trouble (and no points/FOC limits) thanks to AoS.

Weird.

Hahaha - latest from Natfka is, "Of course there are points, silly!"

http://natfka.blogspot.com.au/2015/07/are-their-points-in-age-of-sigmar.html

 Death By Monkeys wrote:
Hahaha - latest from Natfka is, "Of course there are points, silly!"

http://natfka.blogspot.com.au/2015/07/are-their-points-in-age-of-sigmar.html

The river in Egypt is STRONG in that post.

 Death By Monkeys wrote:
Hahaha - latest from Natfka is, "Of course there are points, silly!"

http://natfka.blogspot.com.au/2015/07/are-their-points-in-age-of-sigmar.html

Just read this as well...

I can't even begin to describe how many different variations of this game I've heard of the past month or so.

Regardless I'll be purchasing to try it out for myself.

Has anyone seen the back of these supposed data sheets? not just the scans of white dwarf, but the real ones? What would the point be of making these warscrolls and not using both sides?

My guess is that their are points on the back. Noone has seen them yet.

If I have to choose between believing mikhaila, or believing natfka... it's a fairly easy choice.

We've been told repeatedly that there are no points in this game.

 streamdragon wrote:

It's not just tournament feasibility. If we're locked into the six scenarios, then we are literally down to two armies in Age of Sigmar. Between my friends, we own every single Warhammer Fantasy army except Warriors of Chaos. Which is funny, given that the box set is Warriors of Chaos and a new army! I mean, they're effectively squatting all the old armies. Yes, yes, I realize that they're releasing free Warscrolls for all the existing units, but if I don't have a frame work to use them in, what good does that do me? How do I create a fun, balanced game with a friend if the only thing we have to go on are two armies and six scenarios?

Even releasing new armies doesn't really help if all they do is release "balance" via scenarios with prescribed army lists too. I mean, it's terrible game design and even more terrible marketing. Why should I buy anything beyond exactly enough models for the scenario?

We won't be locked into six scenarios. My point was exactly that not providing a balancing system (eg points) makes it easier for GW to sell more scenarios. You can still play with old armies – but by using them in scenarios. As I wrote, by specifying the exact models needed in each scenario – and indeed this is what the scenario leak does! – there is no need for points.



I don't agree that it's terrible marketing. It's clever marketing, in that it creates a product with a user base that keeps spending money. As in MTG where you buy new card packs all the time to keep up in the game (I think that's how it works, don't play it myself). Now "clever marketing" doesn't mean I endorse it. I just think that they actually know what they're doing here – again, like it or not.

If this is the way to go in order to make fantasy survive at all – well, better this than nothing. I for one look forward to trying it out, will proxy a game tomorrow with my 40k orksies and Marines (the latter seem appropriate ...) What I don't like is the new fluff, so far. But on the other hand, it's a new take on what "fantasy" means. Bold, at least.And if I can play Skaven I might just be interested ...

 Coyote81 wrote:
Has anyone seen the back of these supposed data sheets? not just the scans of white dwarf, but the real ones? What would the point be of making these warscrolls and not using both sides?

My guess is that their are points on the back. Noone has seen them yet.

Except for retailers who got their demo copies already. Busy tonite putting models together.

NO FETHING POINTS ANYWHERE.

Trust me, if it turns out that lots of people at GW US HQ are lying to me, and there is a big rule book, with in depth rules, and points....Wow, i'll be overjoyed. Might not even rip off their balls for lying to me.
But right now, I've got people I've known 20 years telling me "No points, designed that way".

Come Saturday, we'll all know everything. War scrolls and whatever else will be up.

 pinkmarine wrote:
We won't be locked into six scenarios. My point was exactly that not providing a balancing system (eg points) makes it easier for GW to sell more scenarios. You can still play with old armies – but by using them in scenarios. As I wrote, by specifying the exact models needed in each scenario – and indeed this is what the scenario leak does! – there is no need for points.

If you think that's a good alternative to points then there's no hope for you...

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 pinkmarine wrote:
We won't be locked into six scenarios. My point was exactly that not providing a balancing system (eg points) makes it easier for GW to sell more scenarios. You can still play with old armies – but by using them in scenarios. As I wrote, by specifying the exact models needed in each scenario – and indeed this is what the scenario leak does! – there is no need for points.

If you think that's a good alternative to points then there's no hope for you...

Which part of "'clever marketing' doesn't mean I endorse it" was it you didn't understand?

Do we know when these 'scrolls' are been released?..

I know it's suppose to be Saturday. Although people are saying the morning and some are saying midnight. If it's the latter I find that an odd time to release them..

 pinkmarine wrote:
My point was exactly that not providing a balancing system (eg points) makes it easier for GW to sell more scenarios.

How does not having a points system make it easier to sell scenarios?


For the customer, if the scenario specifies the models you use then whether or not they have points costs makes absolutely no difference.
For the designer, however... not having points costs would seem to just make it harder to put together balanced scenarios.

I looked through my FLGS's box today. The book is as described. No points. No balance. No imagination. Just a lot of really really bright pictures.

BRING ON TO THEEEE FOCES OF DEATHHHH I WANT TO MODEL MY TOMB KINGS!

Im kinda sad. They had a real opprotunity to make a good game that allowed any units, just add points. If it was true, I would have played maybe a small 150$ lizardmen army.
Nope..........

Yeah.. I was eager to dust off my O&G after like 2 years of being in the attic.
Will probably not happen. I might play a game or two with the starter box, but I just cannot see this turning out to be anything less than a huge dissapointment.

 insaniak wrote:

 pinkmarine wrote:
My point was exactly that not providing a balancing system (eg points) makes it easier for GW to sell more scenarios.

How does not having a points system make it easier to sell scenarios?


For the customer, if the scenario specifies the models you use then whether or not they have points costs makes absolutely no difference.
For the designer, however... not having points costs would seem to just make it harder to put together balanced scenarios.

It makes it easier to sell scenarios because the effort of putting together your own scenario is larger. Again, think casual/for fun player with little or no previous wargaming experience. If you can "teach" that player that "scenario and campaign play is the way this is done" and that "scenarios is something you buy", then you may generate a revenue stream.

And to a company, customers are revenue streams. Nothing more, nothing less.

Of course the gaming community will dislike this and even try to do something about it (eg creating points systems). But the existing player base is likely not very interesting to GW. They need to create a new revenue stream. In fact, if the existing WHFB players move to 40k, no loss. Same revenue, different product. (If they go to non-GW, well, still no loss really because the revenue was not big enough anyway.) All of you sitting with huge fantasy armies you want to use – you are not the solution, you are the problem. They need to sell things. Creating a new rule book that sells one copy/player is not enough. Creating a system where you pull in new players with free rules and a reasonably priced starter set, get them hooked and normalize scenario play? It could work. Perhaps. We'll see.

Do I like this? Do I endorse it? No. But I'm not trying to write how I think it should be, I'm trying to figure out what and why.

It is absurd to think only new people would like AoS to be a great game.

I AM QUITE CERTAIN that alot of old veterans want this to work and WOULD invest alot of money.

Rmac1990 wrote:
Do we know when these 'scrolls' are been released?..

I know it's suppose to be Saturday. Although people are saying the morning and some are saying midnight. If it's the latter I find that an odd time to release them..

I think different times for different countries. Heard NZ was first. US at 10am EST.

But this is done by the IT guys in the UK, who don't really keep anyone updated if the change their minds, and things don't go as planned, so could be anytime.

 XT-1984 wrote:

So, this does look amazing. Totally amazing.

But what's the point of it?

Gothic Class battleships look amazing too, and you're not going to field them in 40k.

It's a really cool picture, but I don't think it does the job of telling us a story about the Age of Sigmar. Can these guys actually fight something that big? If so, why are they fighting dudes with two hand axes. It's an awesome pic, but the fact that things that you can't field in the game look really, really cool doesn't get me hugely excited about the game. If anything, it gets me worried that the game is perhaps focused on the wrong elements in the conflict. If beasties that immense are roaming about, who gives a rat's rear end about a River Troll anymore?

 pinkmarine wrote:

 insaniak wrote:

 pinkmarine wrote:
My point was exactly that not providing a balancing system (eg points) makes it easier for GW to sell more scenarios.

How does not having a points system make it easier to sell scenarios?


For the customer, if the scenario specifies the models you use then whether or not they have points costs makes absolutely no difference.
For the designer, however... not having points costs would seem to just make it harder to put together balanced scenarios.

It makes it easier to sell scenarios because the effort of putting together your own scenario is larger. Again, think casual/for fun player with little or no previous wargaming experience. If you can "teach" that player that "scenario and campaign play is the way this is done", then you may generate a revenue stream.

And to a company, customers are revenue streams. Nothing more, nothing less.

Of course the gaming community will dislike this and even try to do something about it (eg creating points systems). But the existing player base is likely not very interesting to GW. They need to create a new revenue stream. In fact, if the existing WHFB players move to 40k, no loss. Same revenue, different product. (If they go to non-GW, well, still no loss really because the revenue was not big enough anyway.) All of you sitting with huge fantasy armies you want to use – you are not the solution, you are the problem. They need to sell things. Creating a new rule book that sells one copy/player is not enough. Creating a system where you pull in new players with free rules and a reasonably priced starter set, get them hooked and normalize scenario play? It could work. Perhaps. We'll see.

Do I like this? Do I endorse it? No. But I'm not trying to write how I think it should be, I'm trying to figure out what and why.

If GW agree with you that this is a clever idea, they're in for a rude awakening. If this mystical group of newbie players who will form this new "revenue stream" aren't going to be existing players or even existing wargamers, they're going to be young, and that means they're going to expect the scenarios to be either free or filthy, back-alley, dirt cheap. That's not a slight on the younger generation, it's just the trend in gaming at the moment, and no matter how much GW wishes it were so they do not exist in a vacuum, so they will be subject to those trends whether they like it or not.

If they are pursuing the strategy you envision, there is no way in hell the scenarios will be free, or cheap, so GW can look forward to running headlong into another youth gaming trend at the moment; rampant piracy(again, not a "gerroff my lawn!" negative commentary, it's just easier to do and more well-known now than it was when I was younger). Every codex & armybook, every BL novel & novella & e-short, every WD and Visions - literally everything GW publish right now pops up on torrent sites within a couple of weeks of release, so why would these potentially monetised scenarios be any different?


EDIT: Butcha - I think that's supposed to be art of Big Sig himself putting the hammer to Whatsitcalledasaurus, the Mighty God of Salamanders Nobody Had Heard of Until Five Minutes Ago.

Well It might've been part of the background. Sigmar found the evil Shadbagorebloodmonsterthing and killed it to make Simgarland possible.

RoninXiC wrote:
It is absurd to think only new people would like AoS to be a great game.

I AM QUITE CERTAIN that alot of old veterans want this to work and WOULD invest alot of money.

Of course everyone wants it to be a great game. But that means nothing to GW. Only the opinion of those potentially giving their money to GW is interesting. If the revenue potential of the current fantasy player base was that good I think fantasy would sell more. The lack of sales is likely the reason for this approach.