Age of Sigmar - Slaanesh Replaced? plus big book, stormcast archers, dismounted celestan

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.

**streamdragon**

Xyxox wrote:
Talys wrote:
buddha wrote:
This isn't a game without points, formations, or some way to level opponents. That's like saying you can play monopoly but you can just take as many properties as you want. Also money. And pieces. So buy multiple monopoly boxes. o.0

A much better comparison is Chainmail by Garry Gygax, the predecessor to D&D, which used(and had rules for) miniatures.

The campaign nature of sigmar means GW wants its players to follow a story and pay for that content, OR to build their own stories to play.

As somebody who payed both Chainmail and its successor, Swords and Spells (a D&D suppliment) I can tell you have no clue what you are talking about. Chainmail included a very complex points based system and was incredibly balanced.

To compare AoS to Chainmail is to mock a highly advanced and well developed war game system. Chainmail would run circles around AoS. I'm disgusted that the two would be uttered in the same breath.

Nah man, you don't get it. Back then, man, like, we were telling stories!

**Fezza213**

Genoside07 wrote:
So help me wrap my head around this...

No point cost... like inquisitor years ago... just do a thumb waggle and call it good...

Number crunching is part of the fun trying to make the perfect army to play.. and having to cut a unit because you ran out of points..

Also.. no wound chart.. so if I wound on a 2+ don't matter if its a goblin or a blood thirster.. I roll a wound I am good.

So the next battle it is 8 goblins vs a Blood Thirster ...guess who will win??

The bloodthirster most likely. at full health the bloodthirster (depending on what type) has 4 attacks that do 3 unsaveable wounds each.

Goblins have 1 wound each and 1 attack and do 1 damage that the bloodthirster can role their 4+ save against. Bloodthirster also has 14 wounds.

Yes anything can wound anything and if the bloodthirster wasnt attacking back eventually the goblins would kill it.

**Yodhrin**

Azazelx wrote:
Yodhrin wrote:

I typed out several snarky responses to this bait, but I've decided I'm going to actually try and make an effort to convey my view on this, even though I fully expect to be rewarded with a series of "get over it, lulz" and "lighten up broskie!" posts.

....

For you this kind of "mandated fun" isn't a problem, because if you enjoyed that kind of humour as part of your gaming experience anyway nothing has really changed for you, or if it has changed it's not in a way that causes you any trouble. For folk like myself, or for just generally socially awkward or shy people(who, you might have noticed, are fairly prevalent in geekdom), it's a genuine impediment. Just as, for you, lack of a ramp into a building causes no problems, but is a fairly big deal for a wheelchair user.

This is a serious reply, not snark. You're right. They don't care about you or people with ASD. But don't take it personally - they don't care about the tournament players either (more of them) or people who want a more "adult" pick up game (as in people who bring 1500-or-2k-point armies to the FLGS or Local GW or Club for a pick up game. They care about one thing - sales and dollars. This game is designed very much for the atmosphere of being sold in the (over-)excited atmosphere of a GW store, with "Unbound Everywhere, all the time" for the rules and ease of pick up and play with whichever models you like, etc.

Ultimately though, you, ASD, Tournament Players, people like me - we're not important. It's designed to sell Sigmarines and starter sets and the odd box off the shelf to the new players who walk in.

It's not the end, though - or it doesn't have to be. You can still play 3rd-8th edition, or KoW, or the ShieldWolf game. You'll just have to deal with the fact that you're welcome to play this new game, but they don't care about your individual foibles. Like being a leftie in a right-handed world.

Me? I'm planning to buy two sets because I like the look of the models, and will use them in KoW - and might occasionally play Age of Silliness with close friends in my own home. Other than that, my main concern is that they don't discontinue too much of the WHFB range before I can get hold of the last models I want to buy. Now I'm off to a local gaming forum to see if people are flogging off thir WHFB armies in despair.

I get that, it just doesn't make any sense to me. They can do the whole "unbound erry day", "enthusiasm" kick in their stores with games that have points and rules that don't make groups of people uncomfortable, I know that for a fact because I used to attend exactly those kinds of events when I was a wee kid. They could have included points, or even just some basic balancing mechanism like having a Warscroll specify the size of the unit, and they could push all the shouty-shouty nonsense as suggested ways to play in their usual gushing WD editorials or the 96-page fluff & extras booklet.

It's hard not to take it personally when it very much appears that their intent was to write the rules in such a way as to say "you're not welcome here" to anyone who doesn't fit their idea of the perfect walking wallet...sorry, "hobbyist", with total and utter disregard for people who're not neurotypical(or even just folk who're a bit shy).

Why not put in that minimal extra effort and sell your game to more people?

**Xyxox**

streamdragon wrote:
Xyxox wrote:
Talys wrote:
buddha wrote:
This isn't a game without points, formations, or some way to level opponents. That's like saying you can play monopoly but you can just take as many properties as you want. Also money. And pieces. So buy multiple monopoly boxes. o.0

A much better comparison is Chainmail by Garry Gygax, the predecessor to D&D, which used(and had rules for) miniatures.

The campaign nature of sigmar means GW wants its players to follow a story and pay for that content, OR to build their own stories to play.

As somebody who payed both Chainmail and its successor, Swords and Spells (a D&D suppliment) I can tell you have no clue what you are talking about. Chainmail included a very complex points based system and was incredibly balanced.

To compare AoS to Chainmail is to mock a highly advanced and well developed war game system. Chainmail would run circles around AoS. I'm disgusted that the two would be uttered in the same breath.

Nah man, you don't get it. Back then, man, like, we were telling stories!

Yeah, when we combined the chainmail fantasy rules for large battles in the world where we ran our D&D campaigns (until Swords and Spells came along and we upgraded to a better rules set).

Man, these kids today don't have a clue what has gone before. I dug out a copy of 2E Batlesystem today because somebody mentioned it here and gleefully swooned at the elegance of those rules. There's a lot of old stuff that can work well for a thing still. Battlesystem was designed to convert anything with a 2E statblock to a Battlesystem statblock with ease, and I can convert any monster or humanoid to 2E statblocks because I did it for more than a decade.

Edited to add, I need to make me some lawn terrain boards so I can tell these kids to get off it!

**Coyote81**

For those arguing about the fate weaver screaming bell combo. It doesn't work because fate weaver choose the dice roll result. Not the table result. So choose whatever dice roll result you want (options 1-12) the compare you results to the table.

**warboss**

Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Red Viper wrote:
Anyone find chaos dwarfs? I thought they'd be in chaos warriors, but only saw the hellcannon.

Nope.

No pigmies, Dogs of War or Nippon either.

Lying bisterds.

I saw a reference to the halfling hot pot catapult but I didn't see anything for lumpin croop's band, regular halfling archers, or spearmen either. Did I miss those or are they gone as well?

**H.B.M.C.**

Yodhrin wrote:
Seriously, this game is written pretty transparently for GW staff to run on the Sunday kids-only game, where whichever team yells "WAAAGH!" the loudest gets first turn, and the rules/balance don't actually matter because they let kids put down whatever models they have and make up rules as they go along to try and make every single Little Timmy feel like a special snowflake.

My thoughts exactly.

These rules are for children.

**Orock**

Oh I see. So wounds are the new points. Hey johnny, let's play a 100 wound game. OK, I'll bring my bloodthirster worth 14 wounds, a chaos sorceror worth x, some marauders at one a piece, and some knights. Great and I will bring an orc warboss on a boar worth six, two goblin shaman worth 3 each, and 10 black orcs worth two each, and twenty orcs, and twenty goblins with arrows.

Now all we have to do is weed out the unbalanced units that inevitably make it into GW games and we can have some sembiance of balance.

**H.B.M.C.**

stahly wrote:

Feth me... talk about scale creep.

**insaniak**

Barzam wrote:
Well, this can't be right. They almost look... *gasp* TRUE SCALE! What's next? Properly proportioned Space Marines?

These guys are proportioned the same as the existing range. They're just bigger.

**Albino Squirrel**

This notion some people have (that something without point values can't be considered a game) is absurd. There are plenty of very good miniature games that don't have point values. If you think a game has to have points, you have a very limited view of what a miniature game is, probably from thinking that GW is the entire world of miniature gaming.

If you know the game rules, you should be able to tell pretty easily if two forces are balanced. If you know all the rules for the stuff in both armies, and you aren't sure which army is going to win the game, then they are balanced enough. Play the game.

It does make pickup games a little more difficult, and tournaments even more so. But for pickup games, you can always do what people do with other games that don't have points (or a likelyhood of finding a player for a pickup game). You bring two armies with you to the store, and ask if anyone wants to get a game in with one of those armies. Let them pick which one to use, then play. Problem solved.

**wana10**

This new statblock format, plus point values, plus movement/resolution/army comp rules like from warhammer fantasy editions past and I think this could have been a great 9th edition.

**H.B.M.C.**

mikhaila wrote:
From our playtesting:

Skip sudden death.
We measure from the base.
Dont worry about the distance parts of the model moves if you are just rotating the model on it's center. Especially on round bases this makes sense.

This was much, much easier and better

So things got better if you actively and intentionally ignored the rules.

Yeah. Sounds like a winner there!

SJM wrote:
So obviously it is better to be mounted on a War boar, but as I understand it, there are no points.... so if your warboss is on a war boar he is better but is the same value as the Warboss on foot?

Yup.

Balance is for losers. Just play for fun!!!

This message brought to you by the Dakka Casual Gaming Mafia - 'Age of Sigmar is proof that we were right all along!'

**Swastakowey**

Albino Squirrel wrote:
This notion some people have (that something without point values can't be considered a game) is absurd. There are plenty of very good miniature games that don't have point values. If you thing a game has to have points, you have a very limited view of what a miniature game is, probably from thinking that GW is the entire world of miniature gaming.

If you know the game rules, you should be able to tell pretty easily if two forces are balanced. If you know all the rules for the stuff in both armies, and you aren't sure which army is going to win the game, then they are balance enough. Play the game.

It does make pickup games difficult, and tournaments even more so. But you can always do what people do with other games that don't have points (or a likelyhood of finding a player for a pickup game). You bring two armies with you to the store, and ask anyone if they want to get a game in with one of those armies. Let them pick which one to use, then play. Problem solved.

A game where every model is different stat wise, ruleswise and model count wise needs points. This game has shallow history behind it so using scenarios is impossible.

History games and more realistic games can indeed be without points because variations among troops is usually minimal.

In fantasy it is kind of important to know how many goblins a stegadon is roughly worth. Because without detailed back story information or rules telling us we have no real idea. The only way you can get a balanced game is by playing games to find out how units compare and then getting an idea this way. But have fun doing that with hundreds if unit types.

Name a wargame that has more than 50 unit types with drastically different rules and does not have a balancing system? You will not find one easily that is for sure and there is a reason for that.

GW was just being lazy and thought they would make anybody willing to play this play test it themselves.

**deleted20250424**

Swastakowey wrote:
Albino Squirrel wrote:
This notion some people have (that something without point values can't be considered a game) is absurd. There are plenty of very good miniature games that don't have point values. If you thing a game has to have points, you have a very limited view of what a miniature game is, probably from thinking that GW is the entire world of miniature gaming.

If you know the game rules, you should be able to tell pretty easily if two forces are balanced. If you know all the rules for the stuff in both armies, and you aren't sure which army is going to win the game, then they are balance enough. Play the game.

It does make pickup games difficult, and tournaments even more so. But you can always do what people do with other games that don't have points (or a likelyhood of finding a player for a pickup game). You bring two armies with you to the store, and ask anyone if they want to get a game in with one of those armies. Let them pick which one to use, then play. Problem solved.

A game where every model is different stat wise, ruleswise and model count wise needs points. This game has shallow history behind it so using scenarios is impossible.

History games and more realistic games can indeed be without points because variations among troops is usually minimal.

In fantasy it is kind of important to know how many goblins a stegadon is roughly worth. Because without detailed back story information or rules telling us we have no real idea. The only way you can get a balanced game is by playing games to find out how units compare and then getting an idea this way. But have fun doing that with hundreds if unit types.

Name a wargame that has more than 50 unit types with drastically different rules and does not have a balancing system? You will not find one easily that is for sure and there is a reason for that.

GW was just being lazy and thought they would make anybody willing to play this play test it themselves.

Yea, I'm curious as to what "plenty of very good miniature games that don't have point values" are.

I have more miniatures and games than most hobby stores and I'm drawing a blank.

40K, WHFB, BFG, Epic, Battletech, RRT, FoW, KoW, DZC, WarmaHordes, AQotMF, Infinity, FFG stuff.....

I might have a problem come to think of it....

**warboss**

Albino Squirrel wrote:
This notion some people have (that something without point values can't be considered a game) is absurd. There are plenty of very good miniature games that don't have point values. If you think a game has to have points, you have a very limited view of what a miniature game is, probably from thinking that GW is the entire world of miniature gaming.

Could you recommend a few? I've played regularly more than just GW games over the years (spear and shield, star trek combat sim, heavy gear, shockforce, b5 fleet action, vor the maelstrom, D&D minis, Star Wars minis, and x-wing to name a few non-GW ones) and I can't think of any. Are you confusing miniatures games with board or card games that happen to use minis like descent?

**Crazyterran**

Marius Leitdorf's rules is both going to have me buy his model and one of these:

**TheWaspinator**

Games Workshop reminds you that Konrad von Carstein will never threaten to stab you and, in fact, cannot speak. In the event that Konrad von Carstein does speak, Games Workshop urges you to disregard his advice.

**jaceimba**

Coyote81 wrote:
For those arguing about the fate weaver screaming bell combo. It doesn't work because fate weaver choose the dice roll result. Not the table result. So choose whatever dice roll result you want (options 1-12) the compare you results to the table.

I don't understand the people who argue for the combo, it makes no sense to work that way. If the combo works then you can just set d3 mortal wounds to a infinite number too. I think it's pretty easy to see that you only choose from dice result.

**mikhaila**

streamdragon wrote:
mikhaila wrote:

Funny that people are even discussing the fateweaver/skaven combo allready. Unfortunately, if you try to roll 2d6, you can't get a 13. Changing the result of one of the dice won't do it either.

Doesn't matter. The dice are immaterial. He can change the result of a roll to the result of his choice. "I rolled a 7, but the table has a 13. I choose that result instead. I win. GG"

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Some_Call_Me_Tim? wrote:
What I don't is how nowhere in the rules does it give any kind of limitations on heroes. I can legally field an army of 15 Grimgors . How on earth did GW overlook this? Like, not including points was bad enough, but simply stating that you can't have more than one named hero in an army surely isn't that hard?!

_Tim?

The mistake here is thinking GW cared, at all, about the rules. They didn't.

Rofl, whatever. But if you can change the result of a dice to a 7, why not change it to "You owe me Pizza!" or "all your models are mine now!"? Either is as valid as "7" since none of the 3 are a result you can actually get on a D6. Are we really to the point that people are serious about arguing "RAW" about a joke about skaven trying to get a 13 on 2d6? Naw, don't answer, of course there are people who would do that

**Juicifer**

Sounds like magic: Unglued to me lol

**Eumerin**

TalonZahn wrote:
Yea, I'm curious as to what "plenty of very good miniature games that don't have point values" are.

I have more miniatures and games than most hobby stores and I'm drawing a blank.

They exist...

But they tend to be historicals. Force on Force, for instance, doesn't use points. Warlord Games was originally angling toward that with their games until player outcry convinced them to switch (note the difference between Black Powder and Bolt Action). The people who play such games tend to encourage players to come up with interesting scenarios.

That works great in some instances. And you can have great games when doing so if a given scenario isn't poorly-designed. But pick-up games don't work so well.

**H.B.M.C.**

mikhaila wrote:
Rofl, whatever. But if you can change the result of a dice to a 7, why not change it to "You owe me Pizza!" or "all your models are mine now!"? Either is as valid as "7" since none of the 3 are a result you can actually get on a D6. Are we really to the point that people are serious about arguing "RAW" about a joke about skaven trying to get a 13 on 2d6? Naw, don't answer, of course there are people who would do that

He has to scream "YOU OWE ME A PIZZA" first though, before you owe him a pizza. Says so right in the rules.

These rules are for children.

**Swastakowey**

Eumerin wrote:
TalonZahn wrote:
Yea, I'm curious as to what "plenty of very good miniature games that don't have point values" are.

I have more miniatures and games than most hobby stores and I'm drawing a blank.

They exist...

But they tend to be historicals. Force on Force, for instance, doesn't use points. Warlord Games was originally angling toward that with their games until player outcry convinced them to switch (note the difference between Black Powder and Bolt Action). The people who play such games tend to encourage players to come up with interesting scenarios.

That works great in some instances. And you can have great games when doing so if a given scenario isn't poorly-designed. But pick-up games don't work so well.

Fubar as well.

But yes historical games aren't all mean;t to be a fight to the death win like gamey games. You fight to the scenario usually or for a particular mission in an uneven environment. In AoS you simply plonk your crap in front of theirs and kill. In a brawl you NEED points.

Historical and games modeled after historical are the games that do well without points.

AoS will not do well without points.

**Peregrine**

warboss wrote:
Could you recommend a few? I've played regularly more than just GW games over the years (spear and shield, star trek combat sim, heavy gear, shockforce, b5 fleet action, vor the maelstrom, D&D minis, Star Wars minis, and x-wing to name a few non-GW ones) and I can't think of any. Are you confusing miniatures games with board or card games that happen to use minis like descent?

Historical games don't need to have points, as long as the unit rules accurately reflect their real effectiveness and you only play historical scenarios. If you know what forces fought in a real battle you don't need point costs, you just put those units on the table and see if you can do better than the real outcome of that battle. And even if you're making your own scenarios you still have real-world army composition as a guide to what forces are appropriate and many units are roughly equivalent across various armies so you can just say "everyone gets X of this, Y of that, etc".

Of course in a scifi or fantasy game, where you don't have real history as a guide, not including points is just hilarious incompetence.

**mikhaila**

number9dream wrote:
Yodhrin wrote:
Wow. I'm actually a bit surprised so many people find the idea of a game system that requires you to behave like a five year old appealing.

Yeah... makes me wonder what their actual target demographic is. At 14, i would have hated this stuff even more than i do now, simply because of being more concerned with not being embarrassingly immature etc.

Depends on the players. We had 6 people laughing about all the silly rules and signing up for our first tournament tonite. The stuff was funny to us because we've played so long and know the fluff behind a lot of it. We aren't taking the game serious, so its funny. But we'll still pull out armies and play. Ages ranged 20 to 54 in the group, 3 of them have played in multiple GT's every year for a decade.

At the same time, we discussed how to do a points system for AoS, and are planning to run tournaments for KOW2. So I think it's more of a mindset, or history with the game, than an age for who will enjoy it.

Now as to who GW is aiming this at? No Fething clue. That would mean figuring out how they think. I'd have to guess 10 to 16 range to attract new players, but it's only a guess. Even 10 year olds like a fair game.

**deleted20250424**

Eumerin wrote:
TalonZahn wrote:
Yea, I'm curious as to what "plenty of very good miniature games that don't have point values" are.

I have more miniatures and games than most hobby stores and I'm drawing a blank.

They exist...

But they tend to be historicals. Force on Force, for instance, doesn't use points. Warlord Games was originally angling toward that with their games until player outcry convinced them to switch (note the difference between Black Powder and Bolt Action). The people who play such games tend to encourage players to come up with interesting scenarios.

That works great in some instances. And you can have great games when doing so if a given scenario isn't poorly-designed. But pick-up games don't work so well.

Like others said, before and after me though, historicals aren't a good comparison. They are mostly built around set forces of a battle or time period. So I will agree there.

WHFB, is not historical. The AoS box, and any other starter from GW, might work with scenarios out of the box. From there on, it just falls apart all over the place.

Couple that with his suggestion that players should know what every army has, uses, or is capable of is asinine at best. I have a wall of books for dozens of systems containing hundreds, to thousands, of units/models/etc. and I'm still amazed at some of the crap people come up with in games.

**mikhaila**

warboss wrote:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Red Viper wrote:
Anyone find chaos dwarfs? I thought they'd be in chaos warriors, but only saw the hellcannon.

Nope.

No pigmies, Dogs of War or Nippon either.

Lying bisterds.

I saw a reference to the halfling hot pot catapult but I didn't see anything for lumpin croop's band, regular halfling archers, or spearmen either. Did I miss those or are they gone as well?

Listening very carefully, i noticed that the words "current" and "sold by the website" were used quite a bit. Even then, this was a pretty big project. I've got all 439 pages printed out at the shop.

Maybe we can petition for a 10th realm where all the models with no rules live now?Unobtania?

Oh, wait, i used too many real vowels.......Unybtynya.....

**number9dream**

Yodhrin wrote:
wana10 wrote:
Between the grail vow and greasus and probably more to come i'm liking some of what i'm seeing in a "that's ridiculous i love it' kind of way.

Not in a game sort of way but it does make for good comedy.

edit* Arrowstorm! once per game peasant bowman can quadruple their shots if they number more than 20!

Seriously, this game is written pretty transparently for GW staff to run on the Sunday kids-only game, where whichever team yells "WAAAGH!" the loudest gets first turn, and the rules/balance don't actually matter because they let kids put down whatever models they have and make up rules as they go along to try and make every single Little Timmy feel like a special snowflake.

The problem is that "style" of game is only appealing to children, or bored adults looking to have a bit of a laugh very occasionally. You can't build an actual sodding game system around it; you're supposed to dumb-down the actual game system for those kinds of events, to give kids a chance to pick up the rules at their own pace and enjoy themselves while they build up a proper army over time. Without that trajectory, that sense that you're actually doing something with your hobby time rather than just playing a slightly more formal version of you and your mates running about the wooded part of the school playground yelling "pchew, pchew" and pretending to be Aliens vs Predator, on what basis do they expect people to keep buying after the first couple of weeks? They cannot seriously believe this crap is going to net them a big enough increase in volume to make up for the fact that lots of folk who would previously have bought a couple of hundred models will now be getting bored & walking away after only buying a couple of boxes, can they?

Also: dear sweet merciful Christ the fluff, the terrible, terrible fluff

I opened the first PDF for the first faction I'm a fan of in the Old World, the Empire, and I'm greeted by; "In fair Sigmaron the free people of humanity gather, preserving heraldry and cultural traditions from civilisations ground beneath the weight of unceasing strife." ...

Going by the comments; are there really that many people who enjoy making a tit out of themselves in public? Because that's what is happening when one grown-a** man reaches menacingly across a game table and exclaims "WAAAAAARRR!" in a silly voice. That kind of thing might be funny when it's a guy you know doing it spontaneously for a bit of a laugh, but the idea of doing that kind of thing in every game I play against any random person at a local club actually sounds like a profoundly socially uncomfortable experience to me.

Since you got a bit of flack for this and some other comments I just felt inclined to chime in and say I agree very much with your points in this post.

The fluff is just, yeah, I can't even start to read it. I have a fairly high tolerance for cheesy sci-fi, fantasy or horror tropes, but some of the "Sigmarines of Sigmar clad in Sigmarite from Mt.Sigmarion" gak just makes even the most uncomfortable Primarch-adulation passages in HH books seem mild.

I think the worst part of all this is that even though they've been clear with "This is not 9th edition, this is an entirely new game", it's IMPOSSIBLE to feel that way with how things went. Silly games with silly rules can be fun, it's just that it feels like they took WHFB and just dropped all this gak into it, rather than manage a clear disconnect between the two games. I'm not sure how they could have done that, but maybe, just maybe, a bit of open-ness about what was going to happen would have prepared everyone for what was coming and let us judge it on its own merits.

Anyway, this is all irrelevant to me since I don't play WHFB. It just makes me a bit sad for some reason, not sure why.

**Xyxox**

GOOD GOD! $250 in the US!

GW has shot themselves in the foot on this one. They are toast.