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.

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

migooo wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 ImAGeek wrote:

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That Tau pic is great. The inclusion of the "demons" keyword is a nice little nod to the WTF way that Lizardmen are all demons in AoS.

Source? Because that's some fine heresy right there.

Just check the Lizardmen Warscrolls on the website. They have 'Daemon' in the keywords list at the bottom.

Well, gak.
Their models better be amazing.

I half expect them to loose the Aztec theme and be more ethereal looking

They better not.
I liked my Meso-American genetically modified lizard people.
I don't want them to be be some rehash of Malal's minions.

More like the minions of sigmar or the old gods of law or something.

That's even worse :(

 CthuluIsSpy wrote:

They better not.
I liked my Meso-American genetically modified lizard people.
I don't want them to be be some rehash of Malal's minions.

Hmm... I wonder...

While kinda cool, I agree it wouldn't be worth losing their current theme for.

I think they put Daemons in the keywords because they (the Seraphon) don't like Chaos.

I doubt they'll lose the Aztec theme though. If anything I think they'll come back with some better weapons/technology. A good bit of time has passed between the destruction of the Old World and the Age of Sigmar.

 angelofvengeance wrote:
I think they put Daemons in the keywords because they don't like Chaos.

I doubt they'll lose the Aztec theme though. If anything I think they'll come back with some better weapons/technology. A good bit of time has passed between the destruction of the Old World and the Age of Sigmar.

Lizardmen were quite stuck in a using old tech with basic weaponry. I'd like if they had amazons but then I can't see it happening.

I can't see them using guns or crossbow type stuff unless they have a radical 're design

 angelofvengeance wrote:
I think they put Daemons in the keywords because they (the Seraphon) don't like Chaos.

I doubt they'll lose the Aztec theme though. If anything I think they'll come back with some better weapons/technology. A good bit of time has passed between the destruction of the Old World and the Age of Sigmar.

I think they put "Daemon" in the keywords because they can be summoned and abilities that affect Daemons will affect all summoned units.

They are ethereal lizards then. Well that's stupid.

Just got the confirmation that the AOS boxes for my shops have left the warehouse. We're going to have a midnight release for the game. Always nice to know the product for big releases is on time.

Apologies if this has already been posted.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/07/age-of-sigmar-gw-turns-a-new-leaf.html

Balancing and no more "funny" rules sounds good. The best part though is being open to feedback and willing to amend the rules.

everything that comes from BoLS is either old, or complete BS

 Kavish wrote:
Apologies if this has already been posted.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/07/age-of-sigmar-gw-turns-a-new-leaf.html

Balancing and no more "funny" rules sounds good. The best part though is being open to feedback and willing to amend the rules.

I really like this - it gives me some hope for GW and i think they tried showing some sincereness by not putting a premium on the starter set. It'd be nice if they included some rules for rank and file, but i guess those games are dead :-(

 Kavish wrote:
Apologies if this has already been posted.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/07/age-of-sigmar-gw-turns-a-new-leaf.html

Balancing and no more "funny" rules sounds good. The best part though is being open to feedback and willing to amend the rules.

They are quoting a post on Dakka that was quoting a guy on somethingawful.

 Xyxox wrote:

 Kavish wrote:
Apologies if this has already been posted.

http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/07/age-of-sigmar-gw-turns-a-new-leaf.html

Balancing and no more "funny" rules sounds good. The best part though is being open to feedback and willing to amend the rules.

They are quoting a post on Dakka that was quoting a guy on somethingawful.

True (t'was me).

I also saw a similar post on a different site on Sunday. So there's no reason not to believe the post/what the rep said. GW staff are pretty approachable and open at the Nottingham Open Days.

Now, what actually comes to fruition is something entirely separate.

I'd advise no one thinks that campaign rules will be "competitive".

 Xyxox wrote:

 angelofvengeance wrote:
I think they put Daemons in the keywords because they (the Seraphon) don't like Chaos.

I doubt they'll lose the Aztec theme though. If anything I think they'll come back with some better weapons/technology. A good bit of time has passed between the destruction of the Old World and the Age of Sigmar.

I think they put "Daemon" in the keywords because they can be summoned and abilities that affect Daemons will affect all summoned units.

Nuh-uh. It's now Codex: Daemon-monkey-fish-frogs.

 mikhaila wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 Jeff Tracy wrote:
Having played four AoS games now (two from the starter set and two with armies my opponent and I created), I have to say that I think a lot of the rage/quit comments are misguided.

Before, so much of WHFB seemed to boil down to who was better at placing their movement trays. With the AoS rules, tactics come back into the game in interesting ways. Formations no longer matter, so how you move and place models takes on a whole new significance. For game balance, my opponents and I agreed on wounds as our number. We created a 100 wounds apiece battle, and the games lasted about 3 hours each. The random aspect of who goes first each turn keeps things interesting and exciting. And the pile in mechanic allows for more models to get into combat rather than being stuck at the end of rank.

One thing I really liked about the scrolls was that most monsters now have variable stats, depending on their wounds. It makes you think how best to use them rather than just barrelling forward into combat.

My big takeaway - if you like 8th edition, your game is still there, and now your models will be there as they are being supported by AoS. If you are new to fantasy, want to pick it up again, or play 40K, you might want to give AoS a try. So far, the games have been fun (something that was lacking in my last experience with WHFB). Of course, your milage may vary.

So you think a game where units have facing, turning on the spot is not free and flank/ rear charges provide advantage is less tactical than a game with none of the above where you move entire units like they were skirmish models. Interesting tbh.

On the other hand, WFB was very static, and if you looked at the path of each unit in a game, they really didn't go that far. The movent in AoS is a lot greater, part from higher movement stats and the changes to charging. Part do to the increases to movement for some banners, special rules, and not paying for change in facing and the easy of skirmishers to move through tight areas. More movemnt is opening up more tactics.

Add to this that with a skirmish system, you can use a lot more scenery, and the scenery adds challenges and opens up tactics by how it changes the board and LOS.

I've been surprised so far by how good the games in AoS have been. But them I think back to Mordheim, and I remember that game could also have a great deal of tactics.

Things having more vulnerable sides and rear and is a basis for proper tactical play in wargames imo. Increasing movement helps as well, all my attempts at fixing 40k rules involve doubling movement (with reaction fire though as it would be ridiculous otherwise) but nothing was stoping them from both keeping direcional combat and increasing movement ranges. You would determine the rear of the unit by a position of a leader/ designated model or sth. Any dumbing down of a movement phase hurts tactical play and improving one thing only to worsen another, more important, is bad as well.

 mikhaila wrote:


On the other hand, WFB was very static, and if you looked at the path of each unit in a game, they really didn't go that far. The movent in AoS is a lot greater, part from higher movement stats and the changes to charging. Part do to the increases to movement for some banners, special rules, and not paying for change in facing and the easy of skirmishers to move through tight areas. More movemnt is opening up more tactics.

Add to this that with a skirmish system, you can use a lot more scenery, and the scenery adds challenges and opens up tactics by how it changes the board and LOS.

I've been surprised so far by how good the games in AoS have been. But them I think back to Mordheim, and I remember that game could also have a great deal of tactics.

All of this could have been accomplished without "throwing the baby out with the bathwater" the same mechanics that you just listed could have been inserted into the old rules and still retained some tactical depth. In example, free wheels for units with musicians, +d3 charge for units with banners...etc. Alternatively, they could have ported over some of the tactical depth that existed in WHFB into AoS. I think it's fine, it just feels unfinished ruleswise because there is absolutely no depth other than special abilities on warscrolls and then those are just cute gimmicks.

Now there's no need for someone to be concerned about my mournfang cavalry lurking behind my gutwall for the flank charge if they make a bad move and decide to charge in with too weak of a unit or before setting up a counter-charge. Now it's just rugby, run to the middle and pile-in; or at least it feels that way.

I don't know your experiences, I'll assume you have a great depth of knowledge from being in the business so long, but you could actually apply real world tactics in WHFB, based upon ancient generals (at least I did). Sure, 12 year-olds just push models forward and go "boom, boom" and that may be the bulk of your customers but I started out in miniature wargaming with historicals, have a degree in history and approach my games from a different perspective. I liked WHFB because Romans couldn't throw magic around or send a Giant crashing through someone's lines and yet still maintain some semblance of tactics; now I'll have to look elsewhere I suppose. I guess what I need is an alternate history ruleset not based in WW2 but Ancient eras and not 15mm (because I don't paint all that well on large models, I'd hate to see the gack I produce with tiny ones).

Every batrep I've watched so far looks pretty fun. Even the woefully imbalanced ones. More/easier balance would be a good thing, and seems a woeful omission at launch, but I'm still 100% more interested in playing this than I ever was with WHFB.

 Manchu wrote:
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.

What about those of us that want to play mass fantasy battles and find KOW's rules to be lacking?

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
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.

What about those of us that want to play mass fantasy battles and find KOW's rules to be lacking?

Version 2 of KoW is out in three days.

Just to sound a sour note, what if the battle reports so far sound positive because the people playing are easily satisfied?

Like Agnosto I started with historical, and I appreciate a game that lets me create an advantage by clever movement rather than by choosing a better special rule before the game.

Having read the AOS rules in depth I can see lots of stuff that isn't there, though the basics are sound (except for the bad bits). I feel they will be fine for introduction to Fantasy but do not have the depth for long term interest.

Hopefully the rumoured advanced rules will add to the game.

My ongoing major concern is the model scale. The sigmarines are big, really big, and the pictures indicate that the chaos warriors are as big, and the normal bloodreavers are not that much smaller.

If this is just for these armies I guess it is not a major concern, but if this is an indication of the model size going forward, these really will not be compatible with the current range at all. This would be a 35mm game, maybe even bigger, not a 28mm one.

Yes, their are issues with the rules that many are more concerned with, and I agree with the problems that have been highlighted, but for me their are other rule systems I can find to use with the minis if things do not improve, but if they are going to be that much bigger then that presents a problem I can't find a way around.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Having read the AOS rules in depth

 Kilkrazy wrote:
AOS rules

 Kilkrazy wrote:
depth

I see what you did there

To be honest, the fact rules are free and can be downloaded from the webstore without needing to register an account is certainly not a stranger to why AoS bring back some old WFB players. That's a nice move from GW, I must say.

And yes, if it is just to play your old figurines on the table, that's enough. I can understand people saying the game is fun.

However, publicity of AoS isn't particularly great. They waited too long before making the announcement. And of course, old players used to the 8th edition of WFB and having bought the End Times series have all the rights to feel betrayed. They actually bought rules that are completely useless a few months later. And GW didn't say it clearly at that time.

 mikhaila wrote:

Not willing to say GW did something right just yet.....we'll see how the launch of the starter box goes and where we are at in a month. I made 4 army lists for AoS. Like the players coming into my shop I've got an itch to play with my armies and now have people to play with while at work

Got bored last night, started working on algorithms and classifications for a points system......

Thanks for you feedback, Mikhaila. You put a lot of work in those rules, but don't you think you're actually patching rules instead of the Studio? Isn't that the trouble with GW; getting away with "lazy rule writing" and always throwing back the ball to the players, so that their customers can do the work they should have done in the first place?

Here, the rules are indeed "free", but...would it have been the same if it was a rulebook you have to buy?

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
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.

What about those of us that want to play mass fantasy battles and find KOW's rules to be lacking?

You can't satisfy everyone. You currently have 3 options with differing depth / complexity:

a) WHFB 8th: By far the most complex and bulkiest set of rules. Needs a few adjustments to the rules, but then makes up for a very robust set of rules

b) KoW: Streamlined WHFB, heavy focus on tactic, by far the most tactical game of the merry bunch

c) AoS: Extremely simplified skirmish-sized fantasy miniatures game, rules are currently incomplete but additional rules will be added in the future

To me, that looks like a very good pool of options to pick from and everyone should be able to find his personal best among those.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Just to sound a sour note, what if the battle reports so far sound positive because the people playing are easily satisfied?

Like Agnosto I started with historical, and I appreciate a game that lets me create an advantage by clever movement rather than by choosing a better special rule before the game.

Having read the AOS rules in depth I can see lots of stuff that isn't there, though the basics are sound (except for the bad bits). I feel they will be fine for introduction to Fantasy but do not have the depth for long term interest.

Hopefully the rumoured advanced rules will add to the game.

Cause what this thread needed was a sour note

See, I see a lot more potential for clever movement when my units can actually maneuver that I used to feel in WFB. Fantasy used to be won at the higher levels during deployment if the armies created were equally matched. Personally I see a huge amount of more tactical play in the new rules than I did from WFB ever. But maybe I'm easily satisfied.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Just to sound a sour note, what if the battle reports so far sound positive because the people playing are easily satisfied?

As noted above, most of those who have actually tried the game seem positively surprised (judging from comments here and from a few batreps I've seen on YT). Yes, it may be due to EXTREMELY low expectations But those of you complaining about lack of tactics etc, have you played it on the tabletop (and not only in your minds)? There is a difference, even if you have so-and-so years of experience.

And to forego things, no I haven't tried it yet. (I've just got into Hordes and there's plenty to work with there ...) And thus I have no opinion about its entertainment value, other than that less rules to remember is generally something I appreciate.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Just to sound a sour note, what if the battle reports so far sound positive because the people playing are easily satisfied?

Like Agnosto I started with historical, and I appreciate a game that lets me create an advantage by clever movement rather than by choosing a better special rule before the game.

Having read the AOS rules in depth I can see lots of stuff that isn't there, though the basics are sound (except for the bad bits). I feel they will be fine for introduction to Fantasy but do not have the depth for long term interest.

Hopefully the rumoured advanced rules will add to the game.

I personally know people that aren't easily satisfied with games and have been playing tabletop for decades, who tried the system just to give it a fair run and are actually enjoying it quite a bit. So there may be some who are easily satisfied writing battlereports, but that won't be the case entirely. The rules are out, so the best way to find out it will be enjoyable for you would be to simply give it a try. I absolutely agree with you however that I'm hoping for advanced rules.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Just to sound a sour note, what if the battle reports so far sound positive because the people playing are easily satisfied?

Like Agnosto I started with historical, and I appreciate a game that lets me create an advantage by clever movement rather than by choosing a better special rule before the game.

Having read the AOS rules in depth I can see lots of stuff that isn't there, though the basics are sound (except for the bad bits). I feel they will be fine for introduction to Fantasy but do not have the depth for long term interest.

Hopefully the rumoured advanced rules will add to the game.

It's been largely sour notes for the past 100 pages or so lol.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
I feel they will be fine for introduction to Fantasy but do not have the depth for long term interest.

The long-term interest will come from rapid, meta-shattering new releases. Think CCG or CMG business model, just with real minis. Obviously, the target audience for this sort of thing isn't the same as it was for WHFB.

 Sigvatr wrote:

 Platuan4th wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
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.

What about those of us that want to play mass fantasy battles and find KOW's rules to be lacking?

You can't satisfy everyone. You currently have 3 options with differing depth / complexity:

a) WHFB 8th: By far the most complex and bulkiest set of rules. Needs a few adjustments to the rules, but then makes up for a very robust set of rules

b) KoW: Streamlined WHFB, heavy focus on tactic, by far the most tactical game of the merry bunch

c) AoS: Extremely simplified skirmish-sized fantasy miniatures game, rules are currently incomplete but additional rules will be added in the future

To me, that looks like a very good pool of options to pick from and everyone should be able to find his personal best among those.

I can think of 10 more of the top of my head: (Had great fum with some of these)

Armies of Arcana
Fantacide (Written by Rick P)
Mayhem
Bear yourselves valiantly
Sword and spear
Legion of battle
Mighty Armies.
Hordes of the Things
Fantasy Warlord.
Warhammer 1st-8th