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.

 wonthegame wrote:
Wow, I haven't posted here in a long time! My posts count was even reset back to 0!

Here are upcoming Stormcast Eternals that where presented in the Age of Sigmar trailer, some more subtly than others.

I love the lantern! A nod to Warhammer Quest perhaps?

Funnily enough Warhammer Quest would be really easy to play with AoS. You could even use your old movement trays to map out the floor. :p

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Kavish wrote:
What I'm saying is play to win, but build your army list to have fun!

Rainbows! Puppies! Unicorns! Ice cream cake! Big fluffy clouds! Hugs! Ducklings!




Spare me.

Have you ever played a scenario? It's not all about winning you know.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:


I never said it was the best game ever.
My point was that no matter how much you may hate it, it's still a game.

That said, even if it's not the best game ever, it doesn't mean people can't like it or have fun with it.

My point has been that unless it is competitive, it's NOT a a game, but rather a form of play, and it cannot be competitive unless the rules are evenly balanced towards all participants.

It's a somewhat philosophical debate, but for example as Roger Caillois puts it, one of the characteristics of a game is that the outcome is uncertain, and I would argue that a game is uncertain only when the win chance is 50/50 - or at least so close that it's very hard to discern who has the advantage.

My point has been that unless it is competitive, it's NOT a a game

Well unless it is a coperative game

About the party game approach I don't think so but I find that AOS with the following changes:

Very small armies, movement done from bases ignoring the silliness of measuring from the tip of the sword ( will avoid pile up), ignoring magical terrain and set mundane one instead... with modifiers to movement, fluffy armies, no silly humour, lots and lots of terrain...
Will prevent a bit of the mosh pits, the terrain will actually influence the strategic movement...

Will be the perfect game for me to play at home and introduce my 9 year old to wargaming.

Short 30 minute games will do fine for him.

 prowla wrote:

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:


I never said it was the best game ever.
My point was that no matter how much you may hate it, it's still a game.

That said, even if it's not the best game ever, it doesn't mean people can't like it or have fun with it.

My point has been that unless it is competitive, it's NOT a a game, but rather a form of play, and it cannot be competitive unless the rules are evenly balanced towards all participants.

It's a somewhat philosophical debate, but for example as Roger Caillois puts it, one of the characteristics of a game is that the outcome is uncertain, and I would argue that a game is uncertain only when the win chance is 50/50 - or at least so close that it's very hard to discern who has the advantage.

If the win chance is 70/30 or 10/90 it's still uncertain. By the very nature of the fact that you're bringing probabilities into it. I don't see how you can claim otherwise. It might, for you, be a *better* game if the win chance is as close to 50/50 as possible. But that's a different issue.

 Mr Morden wrote:

My point has been that unless it is competitive, it's NOT a a game

Well unless it is a coperative game

players vs the game is still competitive.

And I would argue that it doesn't have to be close to 50/50 certainty, though certainly a GOOD game would be as close 50/50 as possible.

And you can have a competition even if the rules aren't evenly balanced towards all participants, it's just an unfair competition and not a GOOD one.

AoS does have some competition, it's still a fight between you and your opponent. It may not be a balanced fight, but it's still a fight, still a competition.

Is the game balanced and structured enough to be played competitively at a tournament level as is? No, but not all games are.

Is Inquisitor not a game then?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Norsed wrote:
Games that get used in tournaments tend to have a highly competitive element leak into them over time until the tournament mindset dominates the game. Don't know why, just seems to happen.

I've played in one tournament in my whole life. Waste of a day. I grew out of competitive gaming years ago. I prefer narrative driven games, and spend more time playing the 40K RPG's than 40K proper.

And I want a balanced game with a tight unambiguous rule set because such a thing benefits everyone.

Benefits fluff bunnies most of all, if anything. Competitive players can just ignore 'bad' units and play with a (competitive) subset of units. The rest benefits greatly from not getting penalized for taking what looks good rather than that which gives the most bang for buck.

 NAVARRO wrote:
About the party game approach I don't think so but I find that AOS with the following changes:

Very small armies, movement done from bases ignoring the silliness of measuring from the tip of the sword ( will avoid pile up), ignoring magical terrain and set mundane one instead... with modifiers to movement, fluffy armies, no silly humour, lots and lots of terrain...
Will prevent a bit of the mosh pits, the terrain will actually influence the strategic movement...

Will be the perfect game for me to play at home and introduce my 9 year old to wargaming.

Short 30 minute games will do fine for him.

Sounds good! Can I ask what sort of modifiers you'll place on movement?

I honestly can't get on board with the negativity for Age of Sigmar. The rules are simple, freely available, don't invalidate old models and expand with each new release. Players can get into 'The Hobby' for a few percentage points of what they would pay to do so a month ago.

I think the lack of points is an oversight, but not enough of an issue to warrant hatred for the game. I genuinely think GW just took a massive leap in the right direction.

Why do we need two games as big and complex as 40K? I don't think a preference for Cartoon Fantasy over Cartoon Science Fiction is enough reason, so well done GW on a brave move well executed.

The rules being free doesn't make them immune to criticism.

 Bolognesus wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Norsed wrote:
Games that get used in tournaments tend to have a highly competitive element leak into them over time until the tournament mindset dominates the game. Don't know why, just seems to happen.

I've played in one tournament in my whole life. Waste of a day. I grew out of competitive gaming years ago. I prefer narrative driven games, and spend more time playing the 40K RPG's than 40K proper.

And I want a balanced game with a tight unambiguous rule set because such a thing benefits everyone.

Benefits fluff bunnies most of all, if anything. Competitive players can just ignore 'bad' units and play with a (competitive) subset of units. The rest benefits greatly from not getting penalized for taking what looks good rather than that which gives the most bang for buck.

Although in the history of GW games that sort of balance has never been achieved. Now if a player wants to choose underpowered units he can just add a couple more models to his army to give a better fighting chance.

 Bottle wrote:
Is Inquisitor not a game then?

Apparently not, and apparently those of us who played Reaper, Warhammer, Laserburn, Heroes or Stargrunt are wrong - apparently we weren't playing a wargame either (okay, Heroes is perhaps not a brilliant example - even more like a roleplaying game)

 mikhaila wrote:

 kendoka wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
A few weeks ago, Yakface and Legoburner were getting stick for trying to make the rules of Maelstrom's edge as balanced and as tactically challenging as possible.
A few weeks later, GW dump this ruleset on people, and for some people, its sunshine and rainbows.
It's a funny old world.

Que?
Personally I cannot find much of "sunshine and rainbows" within this 200+ thread (or the similar one at Warseer) dominated by "tar-and-feathers" posts.

Different games. Different outlooks on games.

Warmachine isn't balanced. Everything is "broken" by warhammer standards. Everything is a special little snowflake with superpowers. And yet the game works, is playable, has tournaments, tiered lists, balanced play. Just different. I think AOS has some of that. Lots of units have new little abilities. I can't keep them straight, keep forgetting them all Everything unbalanced makes balance? Dunno. Doesn't compute for me mathematically, and I'm a math person.

Flames of War isn't balanced. The best scenarios build in unbalance to mimic one side advancing, or moving towards objectives, the other defending. Germans have better tanks, the US has much cheaper but more plentiful infantry. Russians have crap but so cheap it doesn't matter. But the game is balanced.

Play enough games, it's easier to find the balance maybe.

Sorry Mik, but there's a difference between intentional asymmetrical balance of the sort you refer to in FoW, and AoS' take what you like, in as big a quantity as you like, FIGHT! "system". And Warmahordes, even though not to my tastes, at least attempts to impose order on proceedings with the points system, plus it has defined factions.

A lot of folk, myself included, aren't down on AoS because it's a fast-paced skirmish game, we're down on it because it takes GW's usual "gentlemen's agreements > actual rules" attitude to a ridiculous, self-parodying extreme, and because instead of using the release of Warscrolls for existing factions and models as a way to build some goodwill it seems very much like they were meant as an intentional "WHY SOO SHERIUSH?" trolling of fans who've supported this company for years even decades.

If this was "Warmahordes Fantasy Battle" I'd be all over it, but as it stands GW are trying to sell people an incomplete ruleset and it's not on IMO.

 Bottle wrote:
Is Inquisitor not a game then?

Technically, no, and it hasn't been for some time. By all rights it might as well not exist as GW have erased all traces of it.

But yeah, I'm not one of the ones arguing that games need a point system to be balanced, but you damn well better have some other kind of balancing mechanic instead because you literally can't have a playable game with this "take whatever" mentality.

 Davylove21 wrote:
I think the lack of points is an oversight, but not enough of an issue to warrant hatred for the game. I genuinely think GW just took a massive leap in the right direction.

So you like the silly clown antics bullgak and don't see how that could put anyone off? Or understand any of the hatred for the absolute butchering of 30 years of established fluff, which has been replaced by something that just isn't anywhere near as good? =\

As I've said before, I think the warscrolls for old units are pretty much a troll of the old player base and nothing much at all to do with age of sigmar other than giving the impression the £1,000's some have sunk into the models wasn't all just thrown by the wayside. (the new models neither have any silly rules nor are remotely the same scale as the old stuff, the new chaos is much larger than the existing line).

With that in mind, taking age of sigmar as meaning the box set itself now and whatever models and scenarios are released going forward, it just feels to me like the alpha stage rules. There is the foundation of a light, easy to play game there, but its missing a lot of the structure needed to be successfully played outside of an established gaming group with friends. I dont think it will ever be a competitive tournament game in the way something like Warmachine or Dropzone Commander is, but it needs something to be viable for pick up games with strangers, which is, at least in the UK, the way itwill be played an awful lot of the time.

There was a comment about 20+ pages ago about Forgeworld doing these scrolls for their fantasy range. I cannot see anything on their website, but if we are going to play with no points and pick up and play it would be a good time for forgeworld to jump on the wagon.....if game balance is out the window they cannot have the usual critism of unbalanced monsters.

Personally I would be very tempted to buy a few of forge world's fantasy gribbilies if they produced the scrolls.

I'd also like to point out that if you read the warscrolls they obviously expect people to still be playing games set in the World That Was with them. Not that you need some dude in a suit to tell you it's okay to do that, but just so you know it's official - you can still set your games in the world we know and love, in all it's derivative glory.

A quote from the beginning of every war scroll, for clarity:

"The warscrolls in this compendium allow you to use your Citadel Miniatures collection in fantastical battle, whether telling epic stories set during the Age of Sigmar, or recreating the wars of the world-that-was."

 Bottle wrote:
Is Inquisitor not a game then?

It's an action mini rpg that requires a third person to be a DM basically. It's fun but this is billed as warhammer 9th so you know no DM.

The new one isn't derivative? lmao, it's basically just a gakky knock-off of Norse mythology (that's the vibe I'm getting from it at least) with a Fantasy version of Space Marines acting as the poster boys!

 Sidstyler wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
Is Inquisitor not a game then?

Technically, no, and it hasn't been for some time. By all rights it might as well not exist as GW have erased all traces of it.

We were talking about what it means for something to be a "game".

If you are arguing a game must be a product currently being sold, I don't think anyone will be agreeing with you.

 Sidstyler wrote:
The new one isn't derivative? lmao, it's basically just a gakky knock-off of Norse mythology with a Fantasy version of Space Marines acting as the poster boys!

Yeah, the new one's pretty derivative too. Didn't say it wasn't. Doesn't mean people can't enjoy either. I like both, but I'm going to find it easier making scenarios for the world that was.

 Sidstyler wrote:
The new one isn't derivative? lmao, it's basically just a gakky knock-off of Norse mythology (that's the vibe I'm getting from it at least) with a Fantasy version of Space Marines acting as the poster boys!

I only have one due to WD and he's going to be a Crusader Lord for IQ28.

NoggintheNog wrote:
As I've said before, I think the warscrolls for old units are pretty much a troll of the old player base and nothing much at all to do with age of sigmar other than giving the impression the £1,000's some have sunk into the models wasn't all just thrown by the wayside.

The warscrolls for existing units is an issue much like the issue of square vs round bases. It's something GW knew they couldn't actually solve so they just said "frell it" and moved on.

I mean, I can't imagine the reaction to AoS would be this positive if they'd just nuked all their old models, can you? AoS would be close to 100% dead in the water if they DIDN'T release rules for the older models. As it is it was no labor of love, it was a necessity and GW knows it.

 Bottle wrote:

 Sidstyler wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
Is Inquisitor not a game then?

Technically, no, and it hasn't been for some time. By all rights it might as well not exist as GW have erased all traces of it.

We were talking about what it means for something to be a "game".

If you are arguing a game must be a product currently being sold, I don't think anyone will be agreeing with you.

Just having a bit of fun I guess. I don't necessarily believe that, I just felt like pointing out that, as far as GW concerned, Inquisitor isn't a game.

 streamdragon wrote:

NoggintheNog wrote:
As I've said before, I think the warscrolls for old units are pretty much a troll of the old player base and nothing much at all to do with age of sigmar other than giving the impression the £1,000's some have sunk into the models wasn't all just thrown by the wayside.

The warscrolls for existing units is an issue much like the issue of square vs round bases. It's something GW knew they couldn't actually solve so they just said "frell it" and moved on.

I mean, I can't imagine the reaction to AoS would be this positive if they'd just nuked all their old models, can you? AoS would be close to 100% dead in the water if they DIDN'T release rules for the older models. As it is it was no labor of love, it was a necessity and GW knows it.

Like they basically did with DoW, Chaos Dwarfs, Squats? In the past. GW do not care and AoS just proves it.

migooo wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
Is Inquisitor not a game then?

It's an action mini rpg that requires a third person to be a DM basically. It's fun but this is billed as warhammer 9th so you know no DM.

Inquisitor is a Skirmish Game using an older definition than you're used to. Age of Sigmar is not billed as Warhammer 9th, there will not be a Warhammer 9th. And even if AoS was Warhammer 9th, why does that mean it can't have a referee (DM)? Such was expected for editions 1 to 3. And I've run refereed scenarios with 6th too. Editions 4, 5, 7 and 8 are nearly impossible to run a refereed scenario because of having to get individual army books for each army, but if you were rich enough in theory you could do it. People don't tend to do it anymore, no. But that doesn't make it Not A Thing.

Norsed wrote:
I'd also like to point out that if you read the warscrolls they obviously expect people to still be playing games set in the World That Was with them. Not that you need some dude in a suit to tell you it's okay to do that, but just so you know it's official - you can still set your games in the world we know and love, in all it's derivative glory.

A quote from the beginning of every war scroll, for clarity:

"The warscrolls in this compendium allow you to use your Citadel Miniatures collection in fantastical battle, whether telling epic stories set during the Age of Sigmar, or recreating the wars of the world-that-was."

Well, technically, GW does not mention 'playing a game' anywhere. It's apparently all about 'playing out stories' now. The word 'game' doesn't seem to exist in any of the materials - not even in the newsletter: