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.

 pinkmarine wrote:

This is the target audience I think they're after. As you say (and I said) only the future will tell whether this group of people exists or not, or is large enough, or enough interested in paying.

Considering me and a few of the other folk who're most disappointed with AoS are those guys, I doubt it very much. "Take what you want and tell a story" works with Inquisitor because you're talking max 5 human-scale models per-side, more often 3. Mordheim gets away with quirky and occasionally outright broken rules because it has a great campaign system that is pretty crunchy considering it's a GW game, and has points values and defined factions to enable larger model counts in the 10-20 range.

AoS has too many models involved, and too many types of models, to go with the "take what you want" approach, it obviously lacks a proper points and factions system to support its function with those bigger model counts and wider range of unit types, and it seems to completely lack the deep and detailed "metagame" features that might allow people to overlook the flaws in the core rules. AoS isn't just a bad competitive game, nor is it just a bad pickup game, if it's aimed at "narrative wargamers" it's bad for that too because it's prescriptive when it should be permissive(campaigns & scenarios) and permissive when it should be prescriptive(army selection and the basic rules).

 Talys wrote:
No, the world just blew up and shattered into 7 realms or some such.

Remind us, which one are you from again?

 Talys wrote:
On a totally different topic. Have the people who've picked up WD75 noticed that the Stormcast Eternal has the faintest mold lines GW's ever produced? The ones on the legs are so, so very faint, and some of the ones across the helm I could barely see.

Ah, never mind. The one of sunshine and rainbows it seems, where everything is perfectly fine and nothing is ever broken.

More to the point, Talys, your comment on it not being a better game or worse game just a different game is something I have to disagree with: The rules. Are terrible. For that reason alone, no matter how much you may love the aesthetic of the fluff (and I think those Khorne guys are fething ace!!!), the game itself - as written, in the rules - is a total train wreck.

I don't play fantasy (40k for almost two decades though). I am saddened for those who played fantasy. A reboot is not always a good thing, especially if old models are now moot.

Everyone remember mage knight? It was a fun game that was very popular and made weiseman millions. It had power creep and flaws. They rebooted it as mage knight 2.0 (was a good game too). However, in doing so they killed people's collections as 1.0 stuff was not really compatable, which upset many.

By not supporting 1.0 with models or the tourney scene wizkids killed the game. Sure they made a good (possibly better) game, but change is not always good....... esp when you stomp on ppeople's collections. I see this happening to fantasy, especially with the models I have seen. Fantasy was unique, now it is futuristic and 40k ish imho.

Hopefully this doesn't happen to 40k.

 Yodhrin wrote:
AoS has too many models involved, and too many types of models, to go with the "take what you want" approach, it obviously lacks a proper points and factions system to support its function with those bigger model counts and wider range of unit types, and it seems to completely lack the deep and detailed "metagame" features that might allow people to overlook the flaws in the core rules. AoS isn't just a bad competitive game, nor is it just a bad pickup game, if it's aimed at "narrative wargamers" it's bad for that too because it's prescriptive when it should be permissive(campaigns & scenarios) and permissive when it should be prescriptive(army selection and the basic rules).

I don't interpret the situation in the same way, but you may be totally right in this. As I see it, the prescriptive aspect of the scenarios is exactly the point – imagine an audience that is too "lazy" or lack the commitment to make up their own stories and want it served on a plate. And in the scenarios leaked above, there is absolutely no permissiveness in model selection, it is specified in detail.

I grew up with roleplaying in the 80's, I've designed worlds, rule sets and run campaigns running over several years. But it took time and commitment. Only a few really got that much into it, most people mainly wanted to play their character. (Which was totally ok with me, being a lesser god was quite fun.) I thing that GW imagines that this type of commitment is dwindling. Maybe they want to get people into it this way and eventually influence a fraction to become more hardcore hobbyists?

As I really love the quality of GWs models (not always the sculpts, but the molding is always almost flawless) I really hope they pull this of. Even better if they make a simplified 40k too

 455_PWR wrote:


Hopefully this doesn't happen to 40k.

Partly, it already started.

If AoS doesn't tank (it might), I'd fully expect them to go more and more towards the "free equipment/upgrades, free transports, no-points-unbound-as-option, no-points-unbound-as-default, no-points-anywhere-anylonger"-route with 40K, starting maybe next year (or however long the lead-time on new products after sales-numbers from AoS is).

 455_PWR wrote:
I don't play fantasy (40k for almost two decades though). I am saddened for those who played fantasy. A reboot is not always a good thing, especially if old models are now moot.

I have to agree. My only dalliance with Fantasy comes in the form of Warhammer Quest, but I've seen this kinda of thing before when I was just getting into BattleTech as FASA was wrapping things up, and ClickTech came about. Now it's not the same situation - as GW have said, they will be releasing rules for existing models whereas existing BTech players were discarded like yesterday's newspaper - but it's not cool to see something you've either just started or have been playing loyally for years get cast aside in favour of Sigmarines and the most dumbed down ruleset I've seen outside of kids playing with Army Men.

Sun is shining, I've got a ton of Legion of Everblight models to paint, the Tour de France starts tomorrow, I celebrate my 100th post on this excellent forum, and winter the new WD is coming. I'm over and out on this discussion for the time being.

However this turns out, at least GW has succeeded in stirring up enough emotion to have us rambling on here for 200+ pages

Peace! (Or is that totally inappropriate in this context?)

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Talys wrote:
On a totally different topic. Have the people who've picked up WD75 noticed that the Stormcast Eternal has the faintest mold lines GW's ever produced? The ones on the legs are so, so very faint, and some of the ones across the helm I could barely see.

Ah, never mind. The one of sunshine and rainbows it seems, where everything is perfectly fine and nothing is ever broken.

More to the point, Talys, your comment on it not being a better game or worse game just a different game is something I have to disagree with: The rules. Are terrible. For that reason alone, no matter how much you may love the aesthetic of the fluff (and I think those Khorne guys are fething ace!!!), the game itself - as written, in the rules - is a total train wreck.

I forgot to mention that there were some mold lines around the hammer, too, that were more "traditional" mold lines, but those are easier to clean.

To the point of the rules -- At a glance, they look terrible for a competitive game. Though I could be wrong, they seem the antithesis of a competitive game where two people design an army, buy models, paint them, and do war with them.

But is it FUN?

First, if I treat it like a board game like Space Hulk, take the Sigmarites vs the Chaos, will I and a friend have a good time? If so, it's worth the $120 that the box costs. But it might not have lasting power, because practically speaking, I never play Space Hulk anymore, even though I love the game.

Second, if we then take some other fantasy miniatures, play with the (free) rules, will we enjoy ourselves? If we follow a campaign, as we would an RPG campaign, would the mechanics and storyline be interesting, or would it be more fun to just forget the game entirely and follow the fluff?

Third, if I see occasional cool Fantasy models occasionally, buy them, and toss 'em onto a table and play with a friend that has sort of a comparable force, can we have a good time?

I can't answer any of those questions right now. It's a game seemingly designed for casual, friendly play; possibly narrative or scenario based, and, as I said, the antithesis of all things competitive. Which is why I say it's neither a better or worse game, but a different one.

I'm not even sure that I can think of another miniature game on the market where there appears to be a singular desire to strip away balance, and make the game only playable if both sides WANT to have casual/narrative games, rather than to compete with optimized armies.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 pinkmarine wrote:
I grew up with roleplaying in the 80's, I've designed worlds, rule sets and run campaigns running over several years. But it took time and commitment. Only a few really got that much into it, most people mainly wanted to play their character. (Which was totally ok with me, being a lesser god was quite fun.) I thing that GW imagines that this type of commitment is dwindling. Maybe they want to get people into it this way and eventually influence a fraction to become more hardcore hobbyists?

As I really love the quality of GWs models (not always the sculpts, but the molding is always almost flawless) I really hope they pull this of. Even better if they make a simplified 40k too

You've actually described the gaming aspect of me precisely. Our gaming group is 20+ years old, with most of us original members, and almost all of us have played RPGs since the 80s (some, the 90s). When we used to play GURPS, Fantasy Roleplay, D&D, or other RPGs, they were multiyear commitments of 8+ hours a night once or twice a week. Probably the most fun I ever had in RPG was playing out the Dragonlance modules in 1st ed AD&D.

The wargaming aspect got bolted on in the late 80s and early 90s, mostly due to Warhammer 40k. When we first started playing, it was in at a more public club/venue, and all of us were awfully competitive. But fast forward, and most of us now are probably in the ideal Games Workshop demographic -- we buy models just because we think they're cool, spend quite a bit of time on the hobby, and like to play them in an often competitive but always friendly way. That is, we all would like to win, but except for relatively rare occasions, all of us are happy to field sub-optimal armies that are more cool than powerful.

The vast majority of our 40k games (around 3/4, I'd say) are scenario based, of our own creation, rather than, "You, me, FIGHT!". Some of those scenarios took a very long time to craft, and some of the tables we play take hours to set up -- some of us might even get together just to set up the scenario one day, then play it a couple times another.

I'm 100% sure all of us will buy AoS, if only for the cool models. Will those models do anything other than collect dust 2 months from now? Who knows.

Are there a lot of people like us in the world, or are we a very rare breed? I have no idea. But we do get folks who want to join us quite often -- though almost always, we decline, because we don't want to grow our group.

All of the fighting lacks any meaning without balance; every victory and loss will be easily excused and cheapened. Competitive player or not, there will be little incentive to see games through because the conclusions will not be satisfying if they aren't predicated on a balanced fight. If you disagree at first, try a few games, you'll get there.

 Bull0 wrote:
All of the fighting lacks any meaning without balance; every victory and loss will be easily excused and cheapened. Competitive player or not, there will be little incentive to see games through because the conclusions will not be satisfying if they aren't predicated on a balanced fight. If you disagree at first, try a few games, you'll get there.

Yes, I agree. If I lose and I feel like I couldn't win, that cheapens both the win and the loss.

I'm not convinced that Sigmar will or won't be like this, though, when I play with friends in a relatively casual setting. I mean, we won't start unless we THINK the two sides are close, so by definition, at the onset, we'll at least think the fight is going to be balanced. Also, amongst my friends, there isn't a problem with, "crap, that was horrible... take this out or add this in, and let's go again."

GW is abdicating game balance in favor of, "You guys who are playing know your skill levels and units better, so pick your models and YOU figure it out. Have fun!"

I still say the greatest imbalance in 40k is not faction/codex, but skill level. If I play against an inexperienced or significantly less skilled player, my win ratio will be abnormally high (like, close to 100%). Since there is no computerized matchmaking (nor potentially a good opponent!), the best way to have fun for us is just to handicap where necessary, or make the miniature wargames more scenario based. We don't do it in a way like, "you suck, so take 200 more points" -- it's more like, "Yeah, those Blood Angels are pretty weak.. why don't you take a couple extra squads of assault marines next time, and see how it goes?"

In an ideal world, win ratios would be close to 50%, as this provides the most fun for everyone playing. The problem is, it's almost impossible to do with rules, because, well, some people are just smarter

To take a chess example, I hate playing against people that are significantly better or worse than me, because I either lose every game or win every game.

 Talys wrote:
GW is abdicating game balance in favor of, "You guys who are playing know your skill levels and units better, so pick your models and YOU figure it out. Have fun!"

...and that doesn't feel like a cop out. No siree >_>

 Albertorius wrote:

 Talys wrote:
GW is abdicating game balance in favor of, "You guys who are playing know your skill levels and units better, so pick your models and YOU figure it out. Have fun!"

...and that doesn't feel like a cop out. No siree >_>

Also doesn't help new players who know nothing of the game. And this is supposed to be an introductory product.

So are they aiming for new players? If they want inexperienced players who know nothing of balancing or agreeing what is fair to have a jolly good time figuring it out, then good luck.

Are they aiming for old vets to return? They just pissed them off by literally blowing up the setting.

So who are they aiming for?


Maybe they should have done a bit of market research, eh?

I have played fantasy since the late 90s and I have absolutely no fething clue what is actually going on here. This just seems like a total disaster...

 Talys wrote:


I'm not convinced that Sigmar will or won't be like this, though, when I play with friends in a relatively casual setting. I mean, we won't start unless we THINK the two sides are close, so by definition, at the onset, we'll at least think the fight is going to be balanced.

GW is abdicating game balance in favor of, "You guys who are playing know your skill levels and units better, so pick your models and YOU figure it out. Have fun!"

Yes, but that, IMO, is exactly what might prevent "casual" play.

We put 50 Elves against 50 Orks and initially think it might be balanced. Elves score a solid Victory. What now? Was the initial assessment flawed, or did the Elves-guy play better and/or was favoured by the dice gods? Nobody knows.

Back to start, 40 Elves against 50 Orks. Elves win again. Hmmm. Are we still off? Does it further invalidate the previous game? Or was the game NOW balanced, but Elves played better anyways?

Skaven-Player joins the club and loses against the 50 Orks with his 80 Skaven, but wins against the 40 Elves. So .... huh? Where do we go from here?




Fixed point levels and agreed point-limits for any given game are rarely "balanced". Not just GW. FFG is pretty horrible at it too, in my experience. But the construct of a points limit, and the implicit pre-game/meta-game of creating a good army within a given points limit (ironically list-building only works in the absence of balance, otherwise there'd be no point) creates a framework for a given game precisely so that ... mostly the casual ... gamers can just play the game without thinking about making it work first.

I am sure really, really, really, hard-core competitive types, if they'd wanted to set up AoS tournaments, could hide themselves with calculators and excel-sheets in the basement for a week-end and come up with a system/comp/un-official points system that could make AoS work.

But the guy walking into a store with a bunch of Elves for a pick-up game?

If I play X-Wing and win a 100 points game, I can, in general gaming-terms, be proud of my victory. If I loose, I get that "itch" to be better next time.

Hell, if I win with a "casual list" against a tricked-out double-falcon or something along the lines, I can be doubly proud of myself, because I know I played and won against the odds in an (unfortunately rather) imbalanced game and punch the air for bragging rights.

Hey, if I loose, I might actually buy a Falcon or two .. .because they are probably better than they should be. Ka-Ching! Not ideal, from a gamer-perspective, but a very human impulse GW profited from for a very long time.



With AoS, I am always in the dark of what the outcome of a given game means.

These seem to be from Twitter - via Tabletopwelt.de - some not-so-good quality photos of the terrain kits







That style is generic fantasy in a good way

 pinkmarine wrote:

 Yodhrin wrote:
AoS has too many models involved, and too many types of models, to go with the "take what you want" approach, it obviously lacks a proper points and factions system to support its function with those bigger model counts and wider range of unit types, and it seems to completely lack the deep and detailed "metagame" features that might allow people to overlook the flaws in the core rules. AoS isn't just a bad competitive game, nor is it just a bad pickup game, if it's aimed at "narrative wargamers" it's bad for that too because it's prescriptive when it should be permissive(campaigns & scenarios) and permissive when it should be prescriptive(army selection and the basic rules).

I don't interpret the situation in the same way, but you may be totally right in this. As I see it, the prescriptive aspect of the scenarios is exactly the point – imagine an audience that is too "lazy" or lack the commitment to make up their own stories and want it served on a plate. And in the scenarios leaked above, there is absolutely no permissiveness in model selection, it is specified in detail.

I grew up with roleplaying in the 80's, I've designed worlds, rule sets and run campaigns running over several years. But it took time and commitment. Only a few really got that much into it, most people mainly wanted to play their character. (Which was totally ok with me, being a lesser god was quite fun.) I thing that GW imagines that this type of commitment is dwindling. Maybe they want to get people into it this way and eventually influence a fraction to become more hardcore hobbyists?

As I really love the quality of GWs models (not always the sculpts, but the molding is always almost flawless) I really hope they pull this of. Even better if they make a simplified 40k too

But for me that's what was so genius about Mordheim; the campaign system was very defined in that there were rules for everything, but the vast range of potential combinations of result in each "phase" of the post-game sequence and the way that fed back into the tabletop meant the system essentially wrote a story for you without ever mandating a part of it. You'd get stories like the one about that henchguy who kept ending up in hilariously mismatched fights with opponents that should have crushed him, yet every time he triumphed and he became your most powerful hero, only for him to fail a hilariously easy jump in your second to last game, KO himself, then die when rolling for injuries post-game.

That is the magic of narrative wargaming for me, organising stories and characters out of the events that happen as a result of well-crafted rulesets, and using those stories and characters to inform future gameplay. "You are Commander McGrooblesnork leading the Brave Sigmarite 81st Volunteer Awesome Brigade, fight these four missions in sequence with these exact models, and don't forget to have the mandatory amount of fun!" doesn't appeal in the slightest as the entire basis for the metagame - "historical" scenarios are fun as an occasional thing, but if you want your system to have the kind of replayability necessary to encourage players to stick with it long enough to fork over all the moniez, you really need mechanics that are capable of generating stories without much effort on the part of the players, but which are also flexible enough to allow people to go their own way when they want to.

 pinkmarine wrote:
And in the scenarios leaked above, there is absolutely no permissiveness in model selection, it is specified in detail.

That's because it's a starter set scenario , designed to work with the models in that box.

GW have done similar things in previous starters. The scenario booklet in the 2nd ed starter set was my introduction to Warhammer 40k. It's a neat way of introducing complex rules in a gradual fashion .

 heartserenade wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

 Talys wrote:
GW is abdicating game balance in favor of, "You guys who are playing know your skill levels and units better, so pick your models and YOU figure it out. Have fun!"

...and that doesn't feel like a cop out. No siree >_>

Also doesn't help new players who know nothing of the game. And this is supposed to be an introductory product.

So are they aiming for new players? If they want inexperienced players who know nothing of balancing or agreeing what is fair to have a jolly good time figuring it out, then good luck.

Are they aiming for old vets to return? They just pissed them off by literally blowing up the setting.

So who are they aiming for?


Maybe they should have done a bit of market research, eh?

Except, if you play with just the units in the starter box, it's probably well-balanced. And if you and your friends incrementally add on units, that can all stay pretty balanced, too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wonderwolf wrote:


Yes, but that, IMO, is exactly what might prevent "casual" play.

We put 50 Elves against 50 Orks and initially think it might be balanced. Elves score a solid Victory. What now? Was the initial assessment flawed, or did the Elves-guy play better and/or was favoured by the dice gods? Nobody knows.

Back to start, 40 Elves against 50 Orks. Elves win again. Hmmm. Are we still off? Does it further invalidate the previous game? Or was the game NOW balanced, but Elves played better anyways?

Skaven-Player joins the club and loses against the 50 Orks with his 80 Skaven, but wins against the 40 Elves. So .... huh? Where do we go from here?

What it actually kills is "pick-up" play.

It's possible that you have a rock-scissors-stones scenario, making it so that points gives you Elves beat Orks beat Skaven beat Elves (or at least the specific lists). That's why, in games between friends, this isn't an issue. When the Skaven play the Orks, they take less stuff, when they play against the Elves, they take more stuff. If the guy buys a Verminlord and suddenly stomps the Elves, they need to adjust their list accordingly. Until the Elvish player gets some new toy.

This is totally counter-intuitive to the competitive mindset as well as the pickup mindset, and also counter to the the export of computer game style play onto the tabletop. But without matchmaking, you have great inequities anyhow, and frankly, I find a lot of games to be lopsided just because of skill. I don't really want a 8 games out of 10 win ratio against someone **because I'm a better player**. My preference is greatly to even it up so that the games are closer.

 Talys wrote:


Except, if you play with just the units in the starter box, it's probably well-balanced. And if you and your friends incrementally add on units, that can all stay pretty balanced, too.

Since when did GW released a balanced starter set?

privateer4hire wrote:

 GoonBandito wrote:
Isn't this boxset is just essentially an introduction set? As in designed for complete newbies to the hobby - very streamlined rules, no need to worry about army building (hence why there is no points listed anywhere, you just use the models in the box) and some narrative scenarios to help you structure a game on the tabletop.

While I think GW are doing an absolutely terrible job of selling this new system (their mindset of absolute secrecy until the day it drops is ridiculous in this day and age), I highly doubt this is the be all and end all of the new Warhammer game.

Reasonable possibility.

I agree with you two. There's a chance that all the whining and butthurt is actually result of poor reasoning as the 4 page rules are just starter set streamlined "basic rules". GW is famous for gorgeous limited edition rulebooks. Not to mention that there still has to be a bunch of special rules like ASF/ASL and others, so it's not too likely that they could put them all on one page.

Except special rules will be on the different Warcsrolls, and we've been told by multiple retailers that this is it. So all this 'whining and butthurt' is far more reasoned than all the blind 'there's gonna be more coming!!!'

 Klerych wrote:

privateer4hire wrote:

 GoonBandito wrote:
Isn't this boxset is just essentially an introduction set? As in designed for complete newbies to the hobby - very streamlined rules, no need to worry about army building (hence why there is no points listed anywhere, you just use the models in the box) and some narrative scenarios to help you structure a game on the tabletop.

While I think GW are doing an absolutely terrible job of selling this new system (their mindset of absolute secrecy until the day it drops is ridiculous in this day and age), I highly doubt this is the be all and end all of the new Warhammer game.

Reasonable possibility.

I agree with you two. There's a chance that all the whining and butthurt is actually result of poor reasoning as the 4 page rules are just starter set streamlined "basic rules". GW is famous for gorgeous limited edition rulebooks. Not to mention that there still has to be a bunch of special rules like ASF/ASL and others, so it's not too likely that they could put them all on one page.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. This is it. There's nothing else coming or planned:

 mikhaila wrote:


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.

I've made the most important point very large and bold in case you missed it. And Mikhalila isn't the only one saying the same thing. There's lots and lots of Denial and people going "Nah, I don't believe this. Surely this can't be it. It'll be good".

Question to the denier head in sand types: What would your reaction be when it is inevitably shown that this really is the sum of all the rules and nothing else is coming?

Warhams-77 wrote:
These seem to be from Twitter - via Tabletopwelt.de - some not-so-good quality photos of the terrain kits


That style is generic fantasy in a good way

Thanks for those, and they show what I feared. Those chaos models really are as big as the sigmarines, even the marauders, meaning they are way out of scale with existing chaos models.

Nice scenery though, although the floating on fire is a bit over the top for me.

I guess this si why the vast majority of building type fantasy scenery from GW has gone, its out of scale with the new models.

So are we getting "warhammer: saga"?

 Talys wrote:

 heartserenade wrote:

 Albertorius wrote:

 Talys wrote:
GW is abdicating game balance in favor of, "You guys who are playing know your skill levels and units better, so pick your models and YOU figure it out. Have fun!"

...and that doesn't feel like a cop out. No siree >_>

Also doesn't help new players who know nothing of the game. And this is supposed to be an introductory product.

So are they aiming for new players? If they want inexperienced players who know nothing of balancing or agreeing what is fair to have a jolly good time figuring it out, then good luck.

Are they aiming for old vets to return? They just pissed them off by literally blowing up the setting.

So who are they aiming for?


Maybe they should have done a bit of market research, eh?

Except, if you play with just the units in the starter box, it's probably well-balanced. And if you and your friends incrementally add on units, that can all stay pretty balanced, too.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Wonderwolf wrote:


Yes, but that, IMO, is exactly what might prevent "casual" play.

We put 50 Elves against 50 Orks and initially think it might be balanced. Elves score a solid Victory. What now? Was the initial assessment flawed, or did the Elves-guy play better and/or was favoured by the dice gods? Nobody knows.

Back to start, 40 Elves against 50 Orks. Elves win again. Hmmm. Are we still off? Does it further invalidate the previous game? Or was the game NOW balanced, but Elves played better anyways?

Skaven-Player joins the club and loses against the 50 Orks with his 80 Skaven, but wins against the 40 Elves. So .... huh? Where do we go from here?

What it actually kills is "pick-up" play.

It's possible that you have a rock-scissors-stones scenario, making it so that points gives you Elves beat Orks beat Skaven beat Elves (or at least the specific lists). That's why, in games between friends, this isn't an issue. When the Skaven play the Orks, they take less stuff, when they play against the Elves, they take more stuff. If the guy buys a Verminlord and suddenly stomps the Elves, they need to adjust their list accordingly. Until the Elvish player gets some new toy.

This is totally counter-intuitive to the competitive mindset as well as the pickup mindset, and also counter to the the export of computer game style play onto the tabletop. But without matchmaking, you have great inequities anyhow, and frankly, I find a lot of games to be lopsided just because of skill. I don't really want a 8 games out of 10 win ratio against someone **because I'm a better player**. My preference is greatly to even it up so that the games are closer.

So it's not even designed for casual play, it's designed for the people who play with others enough to work out there own balance ?

Forgive me Talys but it seems the more I read of your posts (and a few others) it seems it's showing more of its flaws and that people are wanting a game that this one itself won't even give.

Mordheim as said above was great fun naritive wise, I had a vampire that when it come time to make the killing blow on my friends merc captan.
She would retreat, this happen every battle we had in a campaign lasting a year.
We become friends talking about why she allways refused to kill him and left allowing him to win the battles.
She had no mercy against anyone other.
This isn't a rule set that I think will give anything like that.
It seems the only thing it gives is being related to that other game it destroyed, I don't even think the minis are good enough to pull the game though on its own like I do think 40k does.

GW has a tough few months ahead to forge this game, and if it fails I think GW will be in a very tough time.

I'll be very sad if this really is GW's best shot at relaunching fantasy.

 Talys wrote:

What it actually kills is "pick-up" play.

It's possible that you have a rock-scissors-stones scenario, making it so that points gives you Elves beat Orks beat Skaven beat Elves (or at least the specific lists). That's why, in games between friends, this isn't an issue. When the Skaven play the Orks, they take less stuff, when they play against the Elves, they take more stuff. If the guy buys a Verminlord and suddenly stomps the Elves, they need to adjust their list accordingly. Until the Elvish player gets some new toy.

This is totally counter-intuitive to the competitive mindset as well as the pickup mindset, and also counter to the the export of computer game style play onto the tabletop. But without matchmaking, you have great inequities anyhow, and frankly, I find a lot of games to be lopsided just because of skill. I don't really want a 8 games out of 10 win ratio against someone **because I'm a better player**. My preference is greatly to even it up so that the games are closer.

You just described, perfectly I may add, a a completely broken rules system.

It doesn't work for anyone, because guess what, you won't, and cannot possibly, know whether your skaven should take less stuff, because those units do not work the same way as they used to. And more to the point, you can take skaven, and or(ruk)cs, and chaos warriors, an empire steam tank if you want to, there are NO factions as such, so how do you possibly house rule that. There are probably somewhere in the region of a billion possible army configurations right now, and you think you will be able to balance all of that at home? Without points and without any sort of army restriction at all it is impossible.

Never mind new players, who wouldnt have any clue at all how to house rule anything. Thats really good for a game designed to bring in new players because the last one didnt have enough people playing it.

 d-usa wrote:
So are we getting "warhammer: saga"?

That... would be FANTASTIC.

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
I'll be very sad if this really is GW's best shot at relaunching fantasy.

No this is the Accountants and Kirbys best shot at GW relaunching fantasy.

But I actually wonder who wrote the rules? Was it Crudace?
It doesn't feel like Ward even if he would ruin fluff his rules were fairly okay.

I'm not sure who else is there now. But I would really like some of the old designers to say what they think of Kirbyhammer.

migooo wrote:

 Fenrir Kitsune wrote:
I'll be very sad if this really is GW's best shot at relaunching fantasy.

No this is the Accountants and Kirbys best shot at GW relaunching fantasy.

Kirby and the accountants ARE GW, like it or not.