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.

 mikhaila wrote:


Honestly if it wasn't for a lack of army building mechanism this game would be very good (not perfect by any means)

Fully agree. If the game had an inherent balance mechanism such as points cost, it had potential for superb fun. Really hoping GW somehow gets their stuff together and patches that. Releasing incomplete rules is even below their level.

Not being able to play a Goblin army, or any huge army, however is...meh. Yeah, technically possible, but I really don't want to move 200+ individual miniatures around.

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:

 Bull0 wrote:
Putting rules about having mustaches and beards in was insensitive, I doubt anyone dosagrees with that, and it can probably be left there for the sake of sanity

My wife just wore a GARISH, giant stage mustache prop to play this rule... and our friends and I had a blast during the game.

People are REALLY over-thinking this game.

It isn't balanced, nor smart... its silly, and can be enjoyed when treated as the novelty it is. I don't suspect that novelty will last long, but there is plenty of fun to be had.

I still think it should be applied to the figures and not to the players but I'm glad you guys had fun.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If the creators of WFB say it i supposed to be silly

... then it is irrelevant. Their wishes don't matter. When writing fiction, the end results matters vastly more than the intent of the author.

Unfortunately the level of house-ruling and pregame discussion required if you don't like the "bring as much as you want" RAW approach (setting wound limits, etc) seems like rather a lot of hassle to go through.

If your aim is to play a quick game rather than a three-hour long battle, which these rules can obviously handle, then this pregame negotiation eats into actual playing time, especially if you're not playing with someone you know well. I wouldn't be surprised if many people find it easier to simply switch to another system that has already done all that work for you.

 Fezman wrote:
Unfortunately the level of house-ruling and pregame discussion required if you don't like the "bring as much as you want" RAW approach (setting wound limits, etc) seems like rather a lot of hassle to go through.

If your aim is to play a quick game rather than a three-hour long battle, which these rules can obviously handle, then this pregame negotiation eats into actual playing time, especially if you're not playing with someone you know well. I wouldn't be surprised if many people find it easier to simply switch to another system that has already done all that work for you.

Played two games yesterday against someone who I have played before but isn't particualry a friend. Pregame discussion took a minute or two

NewTruthNeomaxim wrote:


It isn't balanced, nor smart... its silly, and can be enjoyed when treated as the novelty it is. I don't suspect that novelty will last long, but there is plenty of fun to be had.

Oh, I see. We're all wrong then. Sounds like a great way to invest hundreds, if not thousands of dollars into plastic army men for novelty's sake.

This pretty much confirms what I've been thinking, that it's not longer a war game and is simply a toy game. It has zero regards to any form of strategic depth now with random movement still in, non-standard base sizes, measuring from models, no points or army structure... It's just, as you said, a novelty. And we all know those are great at sustaining a company with this kind of monetary investment.

 pretre wrote:


Ronnie Renton's Facebook:

So, all of a sudden the interest in Kings of War has gone through the roof.

I mean, I know the rules are better than ever. We have cool battle photos, more great art, and the minis look better than ever. But...
...none of that explains the huge increase in interest in the last few days.
Why does everyone suddenly want to play our mass battle fantasy game.

Has something changed?

I find it -very- difficult to believe, from reading just that blurb, that he has 'no idea' what is going on. I take that blurb as a subtle jab at the shake-up going on at his biggest competitor.

Ronnie-worshipers will claim he is genuinely 'out of touch' with what GW is doing, or 'doesn't care', and I call BS on that.

Your primary competitor is -drastically- changing one of their two flagship games, a game that you are in -direct- competition with for market share. The fate of that game will -definitely- have an impact (good or bad) on your own product... yet he doesn't know what's going on?

Everyone in the same market as GW watches what GW is doing. Mantic is already releasing their new version of their own rules, and while the timing of that -could- be coincidental, their release of army lists that cover various WHFB armies surely isn't. I wouldn't be surprised if Mantic did try something else in the next week or two to try to take advantage of the temporary turmoil GW has caused.

 Melissia wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If the creators of WFB say it i supposed to be silly

... then it is irrelevant. Their wishes don't matter. When writing fiction, the end results matters vastly more than the intent of the author.

"Death of the Author is one of the laziest and intellecually dishonest tropes taught in the humanities today."

However, that said what they want is irrelevant in so much as it is losing them what little respect they do have with existing customers...while hoping to appeal to a new market that may or may not be there for them."

 Melissia wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If the creators of WFB say it i supposed to be silly

... then it is irrelevant. Their wishes don't matter. When writing fiction, the end results matters vastly more than the intent of the author.

QFT

I don't care at all what the designer -intended-. How I -receive- the product will determine in my mind if what I paid for the product was worth it or not, and whether or not I will continue giving the company my money. GW has dropped from the tournament scene long ago, or so I am told, and supposedly doesn't support it - yet the tournament scene is still pretty large, despite GW's 'intentions'.

What I do find funny is that, in a setting rife with demons and bipedal ratmen and magic and deities and lizardmen and dragons and elves and all that others stuff... we still see arguments about boobs.

Demandread wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If the creators of WFB say it i supposed to be silly

... then it is irrelevant. Their wishes don't matter. When writing fiction, the end results matters vastly more than the intent of the author.

"Death of the Author is one of the laziest and intellecually dishonest tropes taught in the humanities today."

Alternatively:

“I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author."

Even if someone intended well, if they delivered poorly, their intents don't 'really matter.

 Mort wrote:

Ronnie-worshipers will claim he is genuinely 'out of touch' with what GW is doing, or 'doesn't care', and I call BS on that.

Has anyone genuinely claimed that?

 Melissia wrote:

Demandread wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If the creators of WFB say it i supposed to be silly

... then it is irrelevant. Their wishes don't matter. When writing fiction, the end results matters vastly more than the intent of the author.

"Death of the Author is one of the laziest and intellectually dishonest tropes taught in the humanities today."

Alternatively:

“I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author."

Even if someone intended well, if they delivered poorly, their intents don't 'really matter.

Mostly Correct. Their intent is more important, however as they say Crappy quality is crappy quality, AoS rules are an example of poor quality from a balance and player retention standpoint. However, their authors intent of there being good rules are also met with it as well. As the game itself and how they are handling wounds, units, and power are actually quite good, they are simply being plauged by the spectre of hubris that comes with refusing to use an actual system to balance things.

When even the toy/video game crossovers like amiibo have better internally balancing, then you know your game is in trouble.

 Riquende wrote:

 Mort wrote:

Ronnie-worshipers will claim he is genuinely 'out of touch' with what GW is doing, or 'doesn't care', and I call BS on that.

Has anyone genuinely claimed that?

At least one person earlier suggested it, yes.

No idea if they were 'genuine' or not, though, being a post in a forum it's sometimes hard to tell.

I like the new starter set. Those are some nice models to start off with or even convert for 40k. That of course is just my opinion.

Well I see it for me as either a great starter set for me, Since I haven't played WFB since the early 80's. Cheap rule book and a set of core models to start with. Not to mention some really nice sculpts. Either way If I choose not to play WFB l just convert it for 40k. LOL

I could see sticking wings on that thing.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
On the other hand, you could bring hell brutes in to represent whatever that thing is.

Relapse wrote:
I could see sticking wings on that thing.

Yep.

You know, I honestly kinda like Mister Skully? He actually makes a really good Chaos Spawn. They're supposed to be screwed up and not make any physical sense, and I could see Khorne 'rewarding' a champion by turning all his useless boring bones into nifty, throne-suitable skulls...

Yep, Skully will be making the rounds in 40k.

 Spinner wrote:
You know, I honestly kinda like Mister Skully? He actually makes a really good Chaos Spawn. They're supposed to be screwed up and not make any physical sense, and I could see Khorne 'rewarding' a champion by turning all his useless boring bones into nifty, throne-suitable skulls...

Ok yeah Khorne Chaos Spawn as well. Good one

 Spinner wrote:
You know, I honestly kinda like Mister Skully? He actually makes a really good Chaos Spawn. They're supposed to be screwed up and not make any physical sense, and I could see Khorne 'rewarding' a champion by turning all his useless boring bones into nifty, throne-suitable skulls...

"Rewarding" in the vaguest sense of the word sometimes lol.

On a related note, is the Chaos chief supposed to have skulls inside his exposed innards?

"At the start of the game, nominate one unit to be this model's personal toilet cleaners. That unit gains the Fearless special rule."

 Fezman wrote:
On a related note, is the Chaos chief supposed to have skulls inside his exposed innards?

"At the start of the game, nominate one unit to be this model's personal toilet cleaners. That unit gains the Fearless special rule."

Yeah that just brings images it shouldn't do.

 mikhaila wrote:

 Sammoth wrote:

 Xyxox wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
There are far worse things to talk about than SJW's or Gamergate.
I mean, we have THIS to deal with.

I still can't tell what the head is supposed to be. And that skull acne.....wow.

I do not believe that model has the GW required number of skulls.

Well it is Khorne based so I fear it's still not enough. Good thing I have some skulls to add to it.

This model really needs to be seen to appreciate it's skullishness. Looking down, you see that the shoulders and upper back are muscle stretched over skulls. I've just been referring to it in my games as my "fleshy sack o' skulls".

This of course perfectly reflects it's rule that if it kills a model in combat it eats the skull and heals a wound. (no, not quite making that part up).

And did you know you can have large units of fleshy bags o'skulls? Must collect enough for a large force of them.

The skulls on that thing are certainly lacking ~ its got less than the latest Dark Angels Interrogator Chaplain, Even after they just pushed them into its legs for fun!

Interrogator chappy gets 33 golden skullz
I count 17 on the khorne thing (even with generously including its base and the thing on its arm) ... Are they finally toning down the skulls? or did someone slip up here? (just strikes me as a little odd when good guys are more adorned with skulls than something created by the god with slogan 'skulls for the skull throne' )

I'm not sure if I should ironically or non-ironically like Mr. Sack o' Skulls. And at actually using a Helbrute... or are we on Chaos Dex #83 right now and they've gone from bad to awful to data slate to awful to great? Honestly lost track.

He does perfectly epitomize the current beast of GW. An amalgamation of Khorne knows what all crammed together and pushed out the door to say "Hello, aren't I quaint?"

I'd not be mad if someone game it to me. I'd almost consider buy the AoS starter as a whole to just build the Sigmarines. I'd like to make them into BA Terminators; super sanguine guard or something.

Maybe I'll wait for them to sit around for a year and clearanced out at a local shop.

 Sidstyler wrote:

 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? =\

I plan to not partake in antics and play my first games with wounds as a not-quite-arbitrary points system. Though I think it will appeal to younglings who GW needs to bring in. Nobody can say that cost of entry is too high for AoS now. With regards to the fluff, I'll make a ham-fisted attempt to compare it to my experience watching Terminator Genisys last night. It was one of the worst stories of all time that has been spun out from one of the best, but it does not invalidate the old, just helps me relate to the new.

Picked up from my Twitter feed:

I already call BS on the "no need for points because we have scenarios"
It will not work. Not with a dozend armies and 985439854 units.

Sounds like a wishlist rumour, tho if they do produce such a book it could only be an improvement

There has to be a very strict form of list building and points is the universal truth to do it. I don't see some massive paradigm shift coming from current GW to make that happen.

Also, quantity of scenarios just means there's going to be a large glut of bad ones. Most competitive war games have a hand full of strong, player-tested tournament scenarios that really make for a fair game; Malifaux has player tested, Steamroller has been preened for years, and the ITS is on the same path for Infinity.

None of that assuages any fears. They put out campaign books and scenarios previously and I believe they've been met with either tepid interest to outright disdain for there balance.