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:

Spoiler:

 Xyxox wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Elemental wrote:
Now the first set of gamers has been told they were having the wrong sort of fun

TBF this was hardly sprung on anyone. "You want to play a tournament? Figure it out for yourself." This has been the official line, shaping game design, for a while now.

And that's an excuse for GW to abdicate all responsibility when it comes to writing a decent set of rules?

As long as it sells models, and it looks like AoS will sell models, who cares if anybody can play the rules?

If it actually sells models...it will mean I was wrong and they still hold the old commandments to be sacred:

1. Sell more lead
2. Space Marines always win
3. See rule one.

There is a core of fanboys who will literally buy ANYTHING branded "Games Workshop".

guru wrote:

 Jaceevoke wrote:

So. . . now it's offical you can automatically win turn 1 with the screaming bell Lord of change combo. Besides that it sounds like AoS might actually be a great game if they can follow through on that guys promises

Peal of Doom
In your hero phase, the Screaming Bell tolls. Roll two dice, add the scores together and consult the table below to see what happens (no modifiers can be applied to this roll).

13 - Improbable Victory!: Against all probability and reason, you immediately win the battle (and are hereafter branded a cheat – not that that should bother a true skaven general).

Not exactly sure what the point of this post was? Did you happen to read the link in the quote?

Here it is "I forgot probably the best/worst bit. I asked him if he knew that it was possible to win the game first turn with the screaming bell/fateweaver thing. 'Thats deliberate' he said. 'You can do whatever you want in this game, but if you do stuff like that you probably wont have many people to play against."

This all sounds sort of believable. Isn't it how a lot of companies handle their rules now (corvus belli, mantic etc)?

It would no doubt involve some swallowing of pride.

Edit: aaand just read the screaming bell response (thought the quoted part was the full thing). Yeah, they have no idea what they are doing, if that is true.

 Jaceevoke wrote:

guru wrote:

 Jaceevoke wrote:

So. . . now it's offical you can automatically win turn 1 with the screaming bell Lord of change combo. Besides that it sounds like AoS might actually be a great game if they can follow through on that guys promises

Peal of Doom
In your hero phase, the Screaming Bell tolls. Roll two dice, add the scores together and consult the table below to see what happens (no modifiers can be applied to this roll).

13 - Improbable Victory!: Against all probability and reason, you immediately win the battle (and are hereafter branded a cheat – not that that should bother a true skaven general).

Not exactly sure what the point of this post was? Did you happen to read the link in the quote?

Here it is "I forgot probably the best/worst bit. I asked him if he knew that it was possible to win the game first turn with the screaming bell/fateweaver thing. 'Thats deliberate' he said. 'You can do whatever you want in this game, but if you do stuff like that you probably wont have many people to play against."

Unless someone else can verify that, I won't believe it.
Natfka will post anything for the clicks, and this information was 'apparently' sent in by a reader, not even by someone we know can be trusted.

 Matt.Kingsley wrote:

 Jaceevoke wrote:

guru wrote:

 Jaceevoke wrote:

So. . . now it's offical you can automatically win turn 1 with the screaming bell Lord of change combo. Besides that it sounds like AoS might actually be a great game if they can follow through on that guys promises

Peal of Doom
In your hero phase, the Screaming Bell tolls. Roll two dice, add the scores together and consult the table below to see what happens (no modifiers can be applied to this roll).

13 - Improbable Victory!: Against all probability and reason, you immediately win the battle (and are hereafter branded a cheat – not that that should bother a true skaven general).

Not exactly sure what the point of this post was? Did you happen to read the link in the quote?

Here it is "I forgot probably the best/worst bit. I asked him if he knew that it was possible to win the game first turn with the screaming bell/fateweaver thing. 'Thats deliberate' he said. 'You can do whatever you want in this game, but if you do stuff like that you probably wont have many people to play against."

Unless someone else can verify that, I won't believe it.
Natfka will post anything for the clicks, and this information was 'apparently' sent in by a reader, not even by someone we know can be trusted.

This Is dakkadakka, where the worst of rumors is truth and the best is just lies.

number9dream wrote:

Spoiler:

 Fezza213 wrote:

 mikhaila wrote:

Chopxsticks wrote:
So if the large expensive book contains Warscrolls and campaigns will we expect to see those warscrolls online for free at somepoint? Or will any new introduces Warscrolls only be obtainable through a purchase?

The book coming out is not needed for AOS. It's stories, fluff, some warscrolls that I expect will be from upcoming model releases and units in the starter set.

"They are going to fully support all modes of play, and will be releasing rules to balance armies against each other. There will be narrative campaigns where your forces are picked for you for specific missions, and there will be a system for tournament players to balance lists that isn't based on model count. He did not know the specifics of this, but said it is definitely coming.
The rules will always be free. He said that they are very very aware that fantasy had a massive buy in for someone to get started, as such the game was designed with the ability to play it with one box of models. There will be army books, but every rule in them will be available, for free, online. The books will just have extra background info and scenarios."

From the guy at forgeworld open day.

http://natfka.blogspot.com.au/2015/07/gw-answers-age-of-sigmar-questions.html

This all sounds sort of believable. Isn't it how a lot of companies handle their rules now (corvus belli, mantic etc)?

It would no doubt involve some swallowing of pride.

Edit: aaand just read the screaming bell response (thought the quoted part was the full thing). Yeah, they have no idea what they are doing.

Is that a "beard rule?" Because if you read that blog post they explicitely say that those are only in the WFB warscolls. What is the rule combo in question?

Edit: oh, the beard rule where you roll 2d6 and get a 13 somehow to win?

Last Saturday I looked at the new models and other gear and so I pre-ordered my AoS box set, I got extremely excited about AoS and the way that Fantasy is heading.

The models are hot as and looking to painting them.

GW has a winner here, about time.

At a GW store today the guy said he was told by his boss that fantesy was a dieing game, and that at his story it only made up 16% of their sales. they made more off selling paints then they did off the fantesy range.

was a odd claim so thought i'd throw it out their.

I'm sorry, but there is no conceivable way a Lord of Change can affect the Screaming Bell.

Peal of Doom is not a spell. There is no roll to attempt to cast it. It just happens. It is NOT listed under the Magic header. It is listed under the Abilities header. Therefore, the LoC doesn't get to play around with it.

 Jaceevoke wrote:

guru wrote:

 Jaceevoke wrote:

So. . . now it's offical you can automatically win turn 1 with the screaming bell Lord of change combo. Besides that it sounds like AoS might actually be a great game if they can follow through on that guys promises

Peal of Doom
In your hero phase, the Screaming Bell tolls. Roll two dice, add the scores together and consult the table below to see what happens (no modifiers can be applied to this roll).

13 - Improbable Victory!: Against all probability and reason, you immediately win the battle (and are hereafter branded a cheat – not that that should bother a true skaven general).

Not exactly sure what the point of this post was? Did you happen to read the link in the quote?

Here it is "I forgot probably the best/worst bit. I asked him if he knew that it was possible to win the game first turn with the screaming bell/fateweaver thing. 'Thats deliberate' he said. 'You can do whatever you want in this game, but if you do stuff like that you probably wont have many people to play against."

Yeah, and the quote I got from GW today when i mentioned FW open day was "Omg, yeah, who the hell let that idiot talk!"

That guys was a redshirt, you do remember the high esteem we hold redshirts, especially when judging rules?

 mikhaila wrote:

 Jaceevoke wrote:

guru wrote:

 Jaceevoke wrote:

So. . . now it's offical you can automatically win turn 1 with the screaming bell Lord of change combo. Besides that it sounds like AoS might actually be a great game if they can follow through on that guys promises

Peal of Doom
In your hero phase, the Screaming Bell tolls. Roll two dice, add the scores together and consult the table below to see what happens (no modifiers can be applied to this roll).

13 - Improbable Victory!: Against all probability and reason, you immediately win the battle (and are hereafter branded a cheat – not that that should bother a true skaven general).

Not exactly sure what the point of this post was? Did you happen to read the link in the quote?

Here it is "I forgot probably the best/worst bit. I asked him if he knew that it was possible to win the game first turn with the screaming bell/fateweaver thing. 'Thats deliberate' he said. 'You can do whatever you want in this game, but if you do stuff like that you probably wont have many people to play against."

Yeah, and the quote I got from GW today when i mentioned FW open day was "Omg, yeah, who the hell let that idiot talk!"

That guys was a redshirt, you do remember the high esteem we hold redshirts, especially when judging rules?

You got a screen cap of that?

 Lockark wrote:
At a GW store today the guy said he was told by his boss that fantesy was a dieing game, and that at his story it only made up 16% of their sales. they made more off selling paints then they did off the fantesy range.

was a odd claim so thought i'd throw it out their.

From what I have heard, this is actually a decent number for % of sales in GW stores. Hope to get some solid numbers soon, just out of curiosity.

In my stores they have been running more like 1-2% some months when there is no big release like endtimes or a new army with kits.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Las wrote:

 mikhaila wrote:

 Jaceevoke wrote:

guru wrote:

 Jaceevoke wrote:

So. . . now it's offical you can automatically win turn 1 with the screaming bell Lord of change combo. Besides that it sounds like AoS might actually be a great game if they can follow through on that guys promises

Peal of Doom
In your hero phase, the Screaming Bell tolls. Roll two dice, add the scores together and consult the table below to see what happens (no modifiers can be applied to this roll).

13 - Improbable Victory!: Against all probability and reason, you immediately win the battle (and are hereafter branded a cheat – not that that should bother a true skaven general).

Not exactly sure what the point of this post was? Did you happen to read the link in the quote?

Here it is "I forgot probably the best/worst bit. I asked him if he knew that it was possible to win the game first turn with the screaming bell/fateweaver thing. 'Thats deliberate' he said. 'You can do whatever you want in this game, but if you do stuff like that you probably wont have many people to play against."

Yeah, and the quote I got from GW today when i mentioned FW open day was "Omg, yeah, who the hell let that idiot talk!"

That guys was a redshirt, you do remember the high esteem we hold redshirts, especially when judging rules?

You got a screen cap of that?

Conversation while talking with GW US, not really possible to get a screencap of it.

Kind of related: Mantic has smelled blood. Rick Priestly, original WHFB creator, wrote the foreword of their new KoW rulebook.

http://manticblog.com/2015/07/06/kings-of-war-foreword-by-rick-priestly/

Excerpts for those who are work-blocked:

“When asked to write these few introductory words I hardly expected to find myself writing the foreword to what is undoubtedly now the most popular mass-battle fantasy game on the market!”

“Many converts have found themselves won over by a mixture of solid game play, straight-forward but elegant mechanics, and an approach to development that plainly puts the player first.”

“Well done especially to its creator and designer Alessio Cavatore. I have worked together with Alessio on many gaming projects over the years, both historical and fantasy, and have always appreciated his clear and focussed approach to game design, instinct for uncluttered rules, and – most of all – boundless and unquenchable enthusiasm for games and gaming.”

I believe that is correct.
A while ago I cobbled together enough info from the Games Workshop financial statements, FFG's report/open day, and the ICV2 data to work out that:
GW makes $X of sales in the US.
FFG makes $Y on miniatures games in the US, 95% of which is X-Wing, and 95% through independent retailers
ICV2 says X-Wing sells more than Fantasy but less than 40k at independent retailers
Independent retailers make up Z% of GW's US sales
If we assume that Fantasy sells equal proportions in independents as it does in other channels, and sells equal proportions in other regions as the US, and it makes as much as X-Wing... Fantasy accounts for something less than 1/6 of GW's sales. And thats if GW's only sales are Fantasy and 40k - factor in hobby tools and it goes lower.

I can't remember what the exact numbers were or where from. But its legit.

 mikhaila wrote:
In my stores they have been running more like 1-2% some months when there is no big release like endtimes or a new army with kits.

Is that 1-2% of all sales or of all GW product sold?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Delicate Swarm wrote:
So why is it so hard for GW to just acknowledge this?

Perhaps they do acknowledge it and have found that some kinds of gamers are responsible for significantly less income than others.

 heartserenade wrote:
Kind of related: Mantic has smelled blood. Rick Priestly, original WHFB creator, wrote the foreword of their new KoW rulebook.

http://manticblog.com/2015/07/06/kings-of-war-foreword-by-rick-priestly/

Excerpts for those who are work-blocked:

“When asked to write these few introductory words I hardly expected to find myself writing the foreword to what is undoubtedly now the most popular mass-battle fantasy game on the market!”

“Many converts have found themselves won over by a mixture of solid game play, straight-forward but elegant mechanics, and an approach to development that plainly puts the player first.”

“Well done especially to its creator and designer Alessio Cavatore. I have worked together with Alessio on many gaming projects over the years, both historical and fantasy, and have always appreciated his clear and focussed approach to game design, instinct for uncluttered rules, and – most of all – boundless and unquenchable enthusiasm for games and gaming.”

interesting indeed. I know Ronnie is a friend of Rick's.

I can understand the idea of counter trolling people who ask about Kairos Fateweaver combos. Just go, "Yup! Anyone who plays a Skaven wagon thing and Kairos Fateweaver automatically wins every game, see ya later!" I mean if you were playing a regular WFB-like game with Kairos Fateweaver and one of your models had "dragonstomping" which gave you D3 extra attacks every turn, and you went, "I'm using his special ability on this D3 roll and I choose a billion!" it's not like people wouldn't look at you like you had horns growing out of your head. And then hand you a ball and note that you could bounce it.

I personally think if you really want Age of Sigmar to look dumb the best way is to actually review the game and find legitimate things that suck about it. Like, it doesn't scale up very well. Or, battles sometimes devolve into big, messy scrimmages which become boring. When you complain that female gamers can't grow moustaches to suit these unfair rules, or find game hacks that only work if you can't understand basic dice mechanics that anyone over 5 is expected to understand, 99.9% of human beings who hear your argument go, "That's nice," and then never listen to you again.

That's nice

Rule Number Three is No Spam. Thanks!

 Lockark wrote:
At a GW store today the guy said he was told by his boss that fantesy was a dieing game, and that at his story it only made up 16% of their sales. they made more off selling paints then they did off the fantesy range.

was a odd claim so thought i'd throw it out their.

Could that be because they push the hell out of 40K and let Fantasy to the way side?

 Xyxox wrote:
This:

I almost spit out my drink! That's flipping AWESOME!

I hoped for some more influence from the beachvolleyball clothing ruleset. :/

GROUND MARIIIIIIINES

I would be embarrassed to have that on my youtube channel, or be the one who made it. Only thing more pathetic then a man trying to be clever is a man using someone else's idea to try and be clever.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 insaniak wrote:
Age of Sigmar isn't about advancing the story... That's just a secondary effect. The prime objective of AoS, as far as I can see, was to shift the setting into something that GW could Trademark every single part of.

It's sad that the overall effect of the CHS case was a company more paranoid, insular, secretive and petty than ever before.

Irony being the fact that Mantic gained a lot of recognition and goodwill thanks to new GW rules and if able to capitalise on it, might grow into a much more significant competition than ever before.

I hope everyone who wants to play mass fantasy battles with their WHFB models finds KoW. That will probably be a nice chunk of sales for a company like Mantic. I don't think that demographic does much for a company like GW, however.

 Manchu wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
And that's an excuse for GW to abdicate all responsibility when it comes to writing a decent set of rules?

Responsibility?

You could make a point or too about quality products and such. Even now when the rules are free, they are still part of the game product that involves a top noch quality miniatures and abysmal quality rules.

Plumbumbarum wrote:
You could make a point or too about quality products and such.

Quality is in the eye of the beholder. Claiming GW has a responsibility to write a certain style of rules reveals quite an entitled attitude.

 Mort wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
We will all be newcomers to AoS. The starter box seems pretty well balanced. Once people new to AoS and wargaming generally get the feel for it, they will be okay making up their own scenarios.

If the people are fine with their games being tacticaly meaningless then sure but without a good balancing mechanism you dont even have a way of saying whether it's your tactics or not that decided the game. You can guess and that's it.

@MLaw you mixed people who are serious with the rules, straight cheaters, douches, guys with a temper, guys just jumping the GWs "gentleman agreement" idiocy and normal guys playing by the rules. You only proved to me that the term is a meaningless mess.

Not to mention half of the problems you mention wouldnt exist if the rules weren't crap. What kind of ridiculous game this has to be that you as a player have to rely on massive exodus of other kind of players, elaborate pre game negotiations, trusted friendships or fixing the rules to have a chance to have some fun. Really I'd make anything work with all that.

That's what good ruleset is for, to avoid all the bs.

You'll likely get a different answer asking different people what 'WAAC' means to them.

For me, WAAC are those guys who put 'winning' above everything else - including putting it above having fun.

Those guys -know- who they are, generally, and yeah, they hate the label - because it -fits-. Most of them will deny it, but - watching them play a game, and it becomes quite obvious.

Those same guys will say, 'Well, WAAC is my way of having fun!' which just proves the point, really.

Why would your opponent playing to win stop you from having fun? Does loosing ruin your fun? Sounds like waac heh.

I'd say my opponent being a "waac" is a requirement for a fun game where fun is a test of one's mind performed in a game set in cool universe with beautiful game pieces. Win itself is secondary but playing hard to win is crucial.

It sonds like a set of some vague arbitrary rules with a purpose of bringing the better player down instead of improving your tactics or your list where in fact you should be happy if your game is deep enough to let you do the former and very unhappy (about the rules not the players) if your game makes the latter impossible without taking a handful of visibly op units or combinations.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:
You could make a point or too about quality products and such.

Quality is in the eye of the beholder. Claiming GW has a responsibility to write a certain style of rules reveals quite an entitled attitude.

Products have universaly agreed inherent quality requirements. You can say that you like your car breaking every week because you like the adventure but you can find it hard to impose as a quality requirement.

Bad wording, not enough errata, vague rules, roll off conflicts, lack of balance are all traits of a low quality game, nothing wrong with you loving it for your own reason but the point stands. Not to mention that ignoring a feedback from large portion of your active consumers (competitive gamers) is one of the worst quality management crimes you can commit. Change your game accordingly or provide two games, do something or you're product is crap from qm standpoint.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 Mort wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
We will all be newcomers to AoS. The starter box seems pretty well balanced. Once people new to AoS and wargaming generally get the feel for it, they will be okay making up their own scenarios.

If the people are fine with their games being tacticaly meaningless then sure but without a good balancing mechanism you dont even have a way of saying whether it's your tactics or not that decided the game. You can guess and that's it.

@MLaw you mixed people who are serious with the rules, straight cheaters, douches, guys with a temper, guys just jumping the GWs "gentleman agreement" idiocy and normal guys playing by the rules. You only proved to me that the term is a meaningless mess.

Not to mention half of the problems you mention wouldnt exist if the rules weren't crap. What kind of ridiculous game this has to be that you as a player have to rely on massive exodus of other kind of players, elaborate pre game negotiations, trusted friendships or fixing the rules to have a chance to have some fun. Really I'd make anything work with all that.

That's what good ruleset is for, to avoid all the bs.

You'll likely get a different answer asking different people what 'WAAC' means to them.

For me, WAAC are those guys who put 'winning' above everything else - including putting it above having fun.

Those guys -know- who they are, generally, and yeah, they hate the label - because it -fits-. Most of them will deny it, but - watching them play a game, and it becomes quite obvious.

Those same guys will say, 'Well, WAAC is my way of having fun!' which just proves the point, really.

Why would your opponent playing to win stop you from having fun? Does loosing ruin your fun? Sounds like waac heh.

I'd say my opponent being a "waac" is a requirement for a fun game where fun is a test of one's mind performed in a game set in cool universe with beautiful game pieces. Win itself is secondary but playing hard to win is crucial.

It sonds like a set of some vague arbitrary rules with a purpose of bringing the better player down instead of improving your tactics or your list where in fact you should be happy if your game is deep enough to let you do the former and very unhappy (about the rules not the players) if your game makes the latter impossible without taking a handful of visibly op units or combinations.

Like I said - those guys know who they are. They're the dbags that piss and moan about every bad roll, take the cheesiest units/formations and load up on them as much as possible. They often bend/twist rules, argue anything not cast in stone, and are generally terrible players to play against. TFG is usually a WAAC player.

Losing most certainly does not ruin my fun - at least I hope not, since I probably lose about 55-60% of the games I play. But losing sure does ruin WAAC guy's fun, as you can tell by the quiet awkwardness as he makes up his excuses while he's packing his cheddar back into his minis case.

The definition of WAAC guy -is- arbitrary - I said pretty much that very thing in my description. It varies from person to person. For some, a WAAC guy is just someone who cheats. If you're willing to break the rules just to win, well, you're a WAAC punk. For others, it means something a bit different.

For me, WAAC guy puts winning above having fun. Cheating doesn't make the game fun for your opponent. Whining, pouting, and crying during the game (especially when things aren't going your way) doesn't make it fun for your opponent. Doing your best to table your opponent on turn two -probably- doesn't make the game fun for your opponent. WAAC guy sees the game as an event solely for -his- enjoyment and entertainment, and if his opponent has fun or not is pretty much irrelevant to him.