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.

Where are the MASSIVE sigmar marine pictures from? You'd have thought this sort of PR stunt would be something a company would advertise and crow about to all and sundry.

Maybe they've spent all the money on their shiny new gold statue that they don't have any money for a press release?

 heartserenade wrote:
Maybe they've spent all the money on their shiny new gold statue that they don't have any money for a press release?

At $20 a can for that gold paint, I wonder how many employees they had to sack... or, how much they're going to raise prices next time?

 heartserenade wrote:
Maybe they've spent all the money on their shiny new gold statue that they don't have any money for a press release?

GW talking to the press?

LOL.

The Pope talks to the press, GW do not. Let that one sink in.

I love the Aquila as much as the next guy but let me be honest, to the eyes of the uninitiated it made GWHQ look like a splinter branch of the Third Reich.

Now, the Stormcast Eternal still don't cut it for me. I kind of like the idea of fantasy Marines, and aesthetically they kind of remind me of the Broken Lords, which are my favorite faction in Endless Legend (after the Vaulters, that is).

I think it has to do with their basic infantry being... well, too samey and basic. Sometimes I look at them and see less Marines and more Necron Warriors, which are one of the less inspiring infantry units in all of 40k in my opinion.

Ok, well, first post, but seeing as everyone else has had a pop, thought I might as well too.

For me personally I am disappointed that all the fluff I liked has gone, but I guess I should have expected that after End Times.

I will be giving this a go as it seems everyone who plays this are using the word fun when describing it including friends who managed to get a game this weekend,

That being said I will be looking closely at the new KoW rules which are out this week for my mass battle needs.

Have to say the new minitures are a bit of a mixed bag for me, I like the Khorhe stuff but less keen on the Sigmarines although the Custodes conversion is making me think of conversions.

I wish I had been a fly on the wall at Mantic Games HQ this morning.

 TrapdoorResident wrote:
Ok, well, first post, but seeing as everyone else has had a pop, thought I might as well too.

For me personally I am disappointed that all the fluff I liked has gone, but I guess I should have expected that after End Times.

I will be giving this a go as it seems everyone who plays this are using the word fun when describing it including friends who managed to get a game this weekend,

That being said I will be looking closely at the new KoW rules which are out this week for my mass battle needs.

Have to say the new minitures are a bit of a mixed bag for me, I like the Khorhe stuff but less keen on the Sigmarines although the Custodes conversion is making me think of conversions.

The fluff is still there lol. Unless there's been a massive Nazi-style book burning session. Besides, everyone's been asking for story progression in WHFB for yonks. GW answered that request with an apocalypse event lol.

ok yeah, its still there but the stuff I was into is not going to progress now, and I know people were calling for story progression it just seems a shame it had to be quite so harsh.

angelofvengeance wrote:

Spoiler:

 TrapdoorResident wrote:
Ok, well, first post, but seeing as everyone else has had a pop, thought I might as well too.

For me personally I am disappointed that all the fluff I liked has gone, but I guess I should have expected that after End Times.

I will be giving this a go as it seems everyone who plays this are using the word fun when describing it including friends who managed to get a game this weekend,

That being said I will be looking closely at the new KoW rules which are out this week for my mass battle needs.

Have to say the new minitures are a bit of a mixed bag for me, I like the Khorhe stuff but less keen on the Sigmarines although the Custodes conversion is making me think of conversions.

The fluff is still there lol. Unless there's been a massive Nazi-style book burning session. Besides, everyone's been asking for story progression in WHFB for yonks. GW answered that request with an apocalypse event lol.

The current fluff is now no longer being supported by GW. I would have been one of those people calling for story progression but the apocalytic stuff from End Times was a ridiculous direction to go in. Having a lot of characters killed off was justifiable up to a point but blowing up the world (based on c. 30 years of background) was absurd.

TrapdoorResident wrote:ok yeah, its still there but the stuff I was into is not going to progress now, and I know people were calling for story progression it just seems a shame it had to be quite so harsh.

Agree entirely. I don't know what confidence can be had in the new fluff comparing well to what was done in the past. Matter of waiting and seeing I guess

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Every solution posted in this thread on how the game can work as a competitive game involves either changing or ignoring existing rules.

I hope everyone sees why that highlights the problems with the AoS rules more than any thing else.

Not really, because thats what every game does. You always need a separate tournament ruleset.

Mymearan wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Every solution posted in this thread on how the game can work as a competitive game involves either changing or ignoring existing rules.

I hope everyone sees why that highlights the problems with the AoS rules more than any thing else.

Not really, because thats what every game does. You always need a separate tournament ruleset.

Are you sure? I've not seen a separate tournament ruleset for any game. I've seen a few tournaments with restrictions/house rules but outside of GW those are usually a single A4 page consisting of "don't be a dick".

Mymearan wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Every solution posted in this thread on how the game can work as a competitive game involves either changing or ignoring existing rules.

I hope everyone sees why that highlights the problems with the AoS rules more than any thing else.

Not really, because thats what every game does. You always need a separate tournament ruleset.

Erm, no? There's rules for the tournament but they very rarely change the actual rules for the game, it's more things like painting guidelines and what to do if people are cheating.

He definately does not know about Warmachine .. yes, there is an FAQ and Errata, but tournamentplay is EXACTLY like the "regular" play.
The way it should be.

Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:I'm usually scornful of GW, especially regarding their prices and poor value for money but I noticed something when I was looking at the new Terminator Genysis wargame starter set.

Any comparisons to unlicensed box sets?

insaniak wrote:

 Shadowclaimer wrote:
Part of the reason for the scale change is simply because its doable now.

None of that is anything to do with increasing the scale. Models being more realistically proportioned doesn't automatically result in bigger miniatures.

Yup. People have been producing more realistically proportioned plastic minis in smaller scales for decades. Some of it's even in HIPS. (Looking at me box of PSC 20mm WWII infantry)

And sigmarines still aren't so well proportioned. Their giant golden trousers are hoiked halfway up to their sternum.

MWHistorian wrote:There's a difference between an un-serious game and one that doesn't take the source material seriously.
I fear that AOS is the latter.

This! First you must fill your head with knowledge. Then you can hit bricks with it.

AllSeeingSkink wrote: Maybe try and be less condescending, eh?

I thought that's what this topic was for...

scarletsquig wrote:
GW - "Almost".

guru wrote:WTF

Blimey! I thought that thing was a spoof someone had photoshopped up!

Death By Monkeys wrote:
And bear with me on this analogy - I'm in no way implying that GW has a fraction of the innovative spark that Apple has - but in a weird way, this reminds me of Apple releasing the iMac.

I don't know if anyone else remembers when Apple first came out with the colored, bulbous iMacs. It was a complete redesign of the Mac from their old off-white boxes. But one of the most curious omissions (at least at the time) with the iMac was the lack of a disk drive. It had a CD drive and you could connect it to the internet. And sure, that's the standard now. But remember back to those dark old days when we still used floppies. It was a radical thought to mass-produce a computer with no floppy drive. But Apple did. And they went with it.

I get what you're saying, but I don't know if this is so much like technology marching on. If an iMac's outer case is analogous to minis, and the tech inside analogous to game rules, AoS feels like an iMac with a tape deck...

TrapdoorResident wrote:Ok, well, first post, but seeing as everyone else has had a pop, thought I might as well too.

I will be giving this a go as it seems everyone who plays this are using the word fun when describing it including friends who managed to get a game this weekend

Hello! How are ya. The thing about the use of the word 'fun' is, something like Snakes 'n' Ladders or Ludo can be fun. Doesn't make them particularly deep, tailored to player agency, or constantly replayable, though!

Xyxox wrote:I wish I had been a fly on the wall at Mantic Games HQ this morning.

I think I can hear Ronnie laughing from here.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
The fluff is still there lol. Unless there's been a massive Nazi-style book burning session.

Might be if you try using it in a GW store before too long, tho.

Besides, everyone's been asking for story progression in WHFB for yonks. GW answered that request with an apocalypse event lol.

Yeah, all those people asking for a drink of water, daring to complain when you hold their head underwater 'til they drown. Ingrates.

ToxicBox wrote:You never know unless you give it a shot It might surprise you.

When I say "it won't work", I don't look forward to moving a couple hundred models individually, even if it's just for pile ins. Not to mention almost certainly giving my opponent Sudden Death conditions. It's just doesn't sound remotely fun.

That's not to say Skaven can't work, just MY skaven. I guess moving to a Moulder list with lots of Rat Ogres or something could work, but then you need plenty of Packmasters to boost them.

I'm also sad that "warlord on a bonebreaker" didn't get a warscroll, or at least the option to BE on a bonebreaker on the Warlord scroll. Now it's just a rat ogre.

TalonZahn wrote:Surely there's a rule stating you can place a block of stinky cheese on the table and if your opponent mentions it, you auto-win?

I was honestly surprised that the only "silly" rule for skaven was the whole "13 on the Screaming Bell" thing.

Mort wrote:Yeah, going -strictly- by wounds just helps to contain the problem a little - it is definitely not a firm 'fix'. Some armies basic 1-wound models do not compare to 1-wound models of other armies.
But it -does- help keep the game from reaching ridiculous levels, and I think that's what Mik is aiming for.

It helps "contain" the problem for certain armies though. I feel like others are going to get left in the cold, but it's Mik's tournament and I do look forward to seeing the results.

insaniak wrote:
The bigger problem is the lack of flights, and the ring on the end that they're using to draw it back is going to hit that index finger and make the 'arrow' tumble.

And, ya know, bow strings.

Wait, it doesn't bother anyone that even the people excited by AoS are saying that the game can probably be fixed? I'm sorry, but that should not be the case. A 4 page rule set that doesn't work?

hmmmmmmm.....

 prowla wrote:

guru wrote:

Awesome. So far, Sigmarines have been a symbol of fail to me, I love that GW is so committed as to adorn their HQ with it.

"This is the new GW success story - let's celebrate in advance!" Please tell me they didn't replace the Space Marine..

One thing that's cool: they probably used the existing CAD files for making this thing. I'm guessing they just split the sprues in two through the centerline, so each bit is split in the middle, and it's simply made out of carved blocks of hard plastic foam (wood-like carving plastic) with a large 3-axis CNC wood mill that's available in pretty much any industrial wood shop. Few hours of machine time, then assemble, paint, done - and the whole thing probably only cost them a few grand.

Really? Anyone able to point me to a company in the UK who can do this? My wife may not agree, but I can foresee an awesome garden statue!

 sarpedons-right-hand wrote:
Wait, it doesn't bother anyone that even the people excited by AoS are saying that the game can probably be fixed? I'm sorry, but that should not be the case. A 4 page rule set that doesn't work?

hmmmmmmm.....

Yeah, it does seem like the majority of people saying it's good are saying 'if you house rule this... And ignore that... Then it's good!' It's not good then, surely...

RoninXiC wrote:
He definately does not know about Warmachine .. yes, there is an FAQ and Errata, but tournamentplay is EXACTLY like the "regular" play.
The way it should be.

Apart from tweaking army selection (dual lists with no repeat characters, etc) and victory conditions, you mean. Which is pretty much what needs tweaking in AoS for tourney play.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

RoninXiC wrote:
He definately does not know about Warmachine .. yes, there is an FAQ and Errata, but tournamentplay is EXACTLY like the "regular" play.
The way it should be.

Apart from tweaking army selection (dual lists with no repeat characters, etc) and victory conditions, you mean. Which is pretty much what needs tweaking in AoS for tourney play.

It tweaks army selection in as much as it tells you what sized game you're playing and how many lists to take, it doesn't have to add in a whole army balancing system like would be needed for AoS.

 lord_blackfang wrote:

RoninXiC wrote:
He definately does not know about Warmachine .. yes, there is an FAQ and Errata, but tournamentplay is EXACTLY like the "regular" play.
The way it should be.

Apart from tweaking army selection (dual lists with no repeat characters, etc) and victory conditions, you mean. Which is pretty much what needs tweaking in AoS for tourney play.

Yeah, everything but the barebones of what makes a game, a game. It's been said but I feel the same way; if I "fix" AoS so that it's acceptable for pick-up and tournament play, I might as well run the design studio at GW because obviously noone there is.

 sarpedons-right-hand wrote:
Wait, it doesn't bother anyone that even the people excited by AoS are saying that the game can probably be fixed? I'm sorry, but that should not be the case. A 4 page rule set that doesn't work?

hmmmmmmm.....

Incorrect. *Some* people excited by AoS are saying that the game can be fixed. To me, it works fine as it is. The daft rules are all voluntary, so if you don't want to hop on one leg whilst rolling the dice upside down to get a minor bonus, you don't have to. And I'm quite happy playing a game without points. Been doing that for years.

I have said that if *you* don't like it, then you can fix it yourself or play something else. That doesn't mean the game is inherently bad, it just means you don't like it. Which is okay, everyone's different.

Also, I'd like to point out that if you really hate the lack of balance, they did say they were releasing a tournament book or something like that with a balancing system in it. We don't know if it'll be any good, but it's apparently coming. Think of it like Forces of Fantasy, Ravening Hordes or Warhammer Armies - which were all supplements for Warhammer editions 1 to 3 that enabled tournament play by using points. They say there will be no points in AOS ever, but they do say they'll have a balancing system.

 ImAGeek wrote:
Yeah, it does seem like the majority of people saying it's good are saying 'if you house rule this... And ignore that... Then it's good!' It's not good then, surely...

My point exactly.

Genuine question for the Mods. Some on here would like a thread to check rumours, see new releases. AoS will see huge amounts of new models.

Can I or someone that isn't just reposting smartass comments, memes and backslapping over the same jokes start a new thread? I'd like to have a thread where I can check, an see new stuff with a little bit of conversation. Bit like the Forgeworld thread. Not have to wade through pages of moaning. Ta!

Mymearan wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Every solution posted in this thread on how the game can work as a competitive game involves either changing or ignoring existing rules.

I hope everyone sees why that highlights the problems with the AoS rules more than any thing else.

Not really, because thats what every game does. You always need a separate tournament ruleset.

X-Wing?

 ImAGeek wrote:

Mymearan wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Every solution posted in this thread on how the game can work as a competitive game involves either changing or ignoring existing rules.

I hope everyone sees why that highlights the problems with the AoS rules more than any thing else.

Not really, because thats what every game does. You always need a separate tournament ruleset.

Erm, no? There's rules for the tournament but they very rarely change the actual rules for the game, it's more things like painting guidelines and what to do if people are cheating.

Erm, no? Most GW tourney stuff I've seen , if not all, changes the rules of army building by limiting this or that option, unbound, Forge World prohibitions/allowances, placing armies in Tiers so frex dwarves don't get rolled by Chaos (7th ed), etc.

Since army building (points) is the thing people are complaining about, having to set limits/handicaps is what's been done for ages with GW and other games.

 Sigvatr wrote:

Mymearan wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Every solution posted in this thread on how the game can work as a competitive game involves either changing or ignoring existing rules.

I hope everyone sees why that highlights the problems with the AoS rules more than any thing else.

Not really, because thats what every game does. You always need a separate tournament ruleset.

X-Wing and literally every other miniature wargame in existence other than 40K and now AoS.

I fixed your quote for you, you're welcome.

The Division Of Joy wrote:
Genuine question for the Mods. Some on here would like a thread to check rumours, see new releases. AoS will see huge amounts of new models.

Can I or someone that isn't just reposting smartass comments, memes and backslapping over the same jokes start a new thread? I'd like to have a thread where I can check, an see new stuff with a little bit of conversation. Bit like the Forgeworld thread. Not have to wade through pages of moaning. Ta!

We are going to reorganise things a bit once AOS actually launches.

A rumours thread is a good idea. Probably will have one.

privateer4hire wrote:


Erm, no? Most GW tourney stuff I've seen , if not all, changes the rules of army building by limiting this or that option, unbound, Forge World prohibitions/allowances, placing armies in Tiers so frex dwarves don't get rolled by Chaos (7th ed), etc.

Since army building (points) is the thing people are complaining about, having to set limits/handicaps is what's been done for ages with GW and other games.

Not "GW and other games", that kind of thing only happens with GW games. Other games have this strange little thing called balance.