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.

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:
[

 Paradigm wrote:

Thanks! Do feel free to chip in if you have any thoughts of your own, on balancing or just general fixing of the rules.

Although I must admit I can certainly sympathise with those who (rightly) say that some semblance of balance is something GW should provide, however rough. If I were a newcomer to the hobby I'd certainly be a little put off by the lack of balancing.

Sudden Death.

But whatever, good riddance if you quit!

If you actually look at the rest of my post, and my more recent one, you'd notice I am actually very positive about this game. I've started playing GW Fantasy again for the first time in years, and am actively working on fixing the aspects that I don't like. I'm not quitting, I'm actually starting.


But Sudden Death isn't really a balancing mechanic on its own, either as it's very easily countered (kill this unit.. The one behind my other 150 models) or actively counterproductive (this conclave of Bloodthirsters are outnumbered 3:1 by those Night Goblins! Better level the playing field!). No matter how much you like AoS as a ruleset, you can't deny that even a very rough system to allow even forces to fight would benefit everyone.

 Spacewolfoddballz wrote:

 darkcloak wrote:
Its amazing how willing we are to be duped again.

I voted no because I have 2 armies for fantasy battle, plus everything I need to play. Even if the rules are free I fully intend to devote my time elsewhere.

GW is trying to emulate PP, and lock down their IP. That's great and I'm sure people will enjoy the new take on it. I didn't get into FB because I wanted a different game. I bought IoB because I wanted to play FB. That being said I will be filling that skirmish niche with Warmachine.

This and the feel of the fluff/mechanics gone that I liked. I wont play warmachine however, not interested in that game.

You know, something drives me away from that game too, I just can't put my finger on it though...

 Paradigm wrote:

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:
[

 Paradigm wrote:

Thanks! Do feel free to chip in if you have any thoughts of your own, on balancing or just general fixing of the rules.

Although I must admit I can certainly sympathise with those who (rightly) say that some semblance of balance is something GW should provide, however rough. If I were a newcomer to the hobby I'd certainly be a little put off by the lack of balancing.

Sudden Death.

But whatever, good riddance if you quit!

If you actually look at the rest of my post, and my more recent one, you'd notice I am actually very positive about this game. I've started playing GW Fantasy again for the first time in years, and am actively working on fixing the aspects that I don't like. I'm not quitting, I'm actually starting.


But Sudden Death isn't really a balancing mechanic on its own, either as it's very easily countered (kill this unit.. The one behind my other 150 models) or actively counterproductive (this conclave of Bloodthirsters are outnumbered 3:1 by those Night Goblins! Better level the playing field!). No matter how much you like AoS as a ruleset, you can't deny that even a very rough system to allow even forces to fight would benefit everyone.

Well, I didn't quote only you. I quoted a handful of people, some suggesting they were leaving. That's why I said if you quit! As I knew not everyone was saying that (and why I edited yours down to only include the comp-rules complaining).

As I've said in other threads, it leaves it up to the players to decide what they think is fair and balanced. We now have that freedom. Rough? Yeah. Potential loads of fun? Yeah.

What little I've played, my friend and I loved. The game isn't meant to be taken serious. It's kind of like an introductory game now for newcomers. It's very basic. It's essentially GW's intro system for once gamers graduate to 40k lol.

And I'm okay w/ that. I can understand if some gamers aren't, but it seems a lot of gamers just can't grasp or understand what AoS is. They're still trying to force balance or comp as if they're gonna be playing in tournaments. That is not what AoS is meant for.

I have been a long time warhammer player and fan (40k, fantasy, inquisitor) since 1996, I stopped a few many years ago due to "stuff" but I have returned to a fresh game with AoS simply because it appeals to me more than the previous games.
A lot of people complain that it is rough and "simple" but they need to realize that it is a "new" game so it will be "rough" at first but the freedom comes from the people you play with, get a group of like minded gamers, figure out the balance you want and enjoy, that is the whole point of the game, ENJOYING yourself, I for one love the fact that now you are no longer limited to armies/unit/creatures, you could literally take any unit from any army and create a dogs of war themed force filled with lizzies, elfs, ogres, skaven etc and it would all be legal and fun... heck I am going to start a Hellpit army (throatina the dirty and her hellpit dancers) and NOTHING CAN STOP ME :O.... the person at my local GW is starting an all giant army (sky titans anyone?) the possibilities are endless.

with time more "campaigns" will come out with more rules and more environments and more ideas but at the core YOU MAKE THE RULES WORK FOR YOU... It surprises me that people are complaining about having MORE power in their gaming I was sure this would appeal to more people... and simplicity is great, now you do not have to lodge around multiple pages of rules and faqs to prove to your opponent what and how things are done... chess is simple, backgammon is simple, go is simple, simple is good.

This game is great.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:
[

 Paradigm wrote:

Thanks! Do feel free to chip in if you have any thoughts of your own, on balancing or just general fixing of the rules.

Although I must admit I can certainly sympathise with those who (rightly) say that some semblance of balance is something GW should provide, however rough. If I were a newcomer to the hobby I'd certainly be a little put off by the lack of balancing.

Sudden Death.

But whatever, good riddance if you quit!

If you actually look at the rest of my post, and my more recent one, you'd notice I am actually very positive about this game. I've started playing GW Fantasy again for the first time in years, and am actively working on fixing the aspects that I don't like. I'm not quitting, I'm actually starting.




But Sudden Death isn't really a balancing mechanic on its own, either as it's very easily countered (kill this unit.. The one behind my other 150 models) or actively counterproductive (this conclave of Bloodthirsters are outnumbered 3:1 by those Night Goblins! Better level the playing field!). No matter how much you like AoS as a ruleset, you can't deny that even a very rough system to allow even forces to fight would benefit everyone.

Well, I didn't quote only you. I quoted a handful of people, some suggesting they were leaving. That's why I said if you quit! As I knew not everyone was saying that (and why I edited yours down to only include the comp-rules complaining).

As I've said in other threads, it leaves it up to the players to decide what they think is fair and balanced. We now have that freedom. Rough? Yeah. Potential loads of fun? Yeah.

What little I've played, my friend and I loved. The game isn't meant to be taken serious. It's kind of like an introductory game now for newcomers. It's very basic. It's essentially GW's intro system for once gamers graduate to 40k lol.

And I'm okay w/ that. I can understand if some gamers aren't, but it seems a lot of gamers just can't grasp or understand what AoS is. They're still trying to force balance or comp as if they're gonna be playing in tournaments. That is not what AoS is meant for.

this is what I do not get, you are given more freedom on how YOU want to play and people complain... did people like being restricted all those years of playing? I actually quit because of how restrictive the games were, now I can go wild and play how I want... and tournies are not an issue if you ask me, every tournement will get its own FAQ rules page that will outline the specific rules for the tournie, there you go, its balanced, its fair and its unique to every tournie and in the long run might make more people play.

Just today I was at the preorder phase and somebody took out his beastmen units, he played with only his minotaurs, now beastmen are a viable strong force thanks to this game, before he would not even touch them (as he said) because of how badly they got destroyed... at least now he can run a full minotaur beastmen army with a chaos lord leading them (why not?) and a couple of hired skaven eshin to support... how frickin great is that.

I just saw a batrep from Ash Barker, who used to be from Miniwargaming.com, trying out AoS. He did a video on his channel on youtube against another (former?) miniwargaming guy named Owen.

It was... Something. It seems overly simplistic to me (which seems to be a common complaint). There seems to be no balance and no strategy. Just charge and roll dice. I'm hoping that either A. GW implements some sort of point system (if not just bringing back the old one) or B. Ash and Owen played incorrectly. If they played it as intended, AoS is something I likely won't play and will probably try to pawn off my Tomb Kings.

I'm willing to try the rules since they're free, but if I end up not liking it, that's fine, I'll still play 8th ed, and have fun with that. Maybe play more Warmachine, maybe get more into bolt action, who knows

Between choosing your units attack order every turn and the synergies between spells and command abilities, there's actually SOME depth. Sure, it might not be a lot of it, but if you're just pushing minis into the middle and rolling dice you're not quite taking advantage of the system.

Even in 8th I could take 3 units of Dwarf Warriors and a Thane and push them into the middle & roll dice until someone won.

 FakeBritishPerson wrote:
I'm willing to try the rules since they're free, but if I end up not liking it, that's fine, I'll still play 8th ed, and have fun with that. Maybe play more Warmachine, maybe get more into bolt action, who knows

Congrats, that's one of the most sensible reactions to AoS I've seen on here so far lol.

Also, I saw this battle rep in the N&R thread for AoS, looks a lot of fun!

https://ttgamingdiary.wordpress.com/2015/07/04/age-of-sigmar-battle-report-vampire-counts-vs-wood-elves/

Rihgu wrote:
Between choosing your units attack order every turn and the synergies between spells and command abilities, there's actually SOME depth. Sure, it might not be a lot of it, but if you're just pushing minis into the middle and rolling dice you're not quite taking advantage of the system.

Even in 8th I could take 3 units of Dwarf Warriors and a Thane and push them into the middle & roll dice until someone won.

the beauty of this game is you make the complexity and strategy... at my local GW I saw a simple game and the 2 players decided on a cool rule, they had a bridge made of wood, the rule was than no more than 1 monstrous creature can cross without damaging the bridge, if they stay on the bridge for more than 2 turns it collapses and they fall into the river, it broke, the 2 giants fell into the river and they also decided that people trying to cross it could be swept away (none monstrous creatures that is)... not going into detail but it was fun watching 2 giants break the only means of crossing the river and then having both armies try to cross the river, luckily there was a portal at the back of each board and some decided it would be best to attack through that

Gotta love giants' stupidity lol.

Its a dead game publishied by a dying company that will soon(hopefully) be dead and gone

 Trondheim wrote:
Its a dead game publishied by a dying company that will soon(hopefully) be dead and gone

the hopefully part makes you sound like a raging child... you should never hope a "company" dies...

bitethythumb wrote:

 Trondheim wrote:
Its a dead game publishied by a dying company that will soon(hopefully) be dead and gone

the hopefully part makes you sound like a raging child... you should never hope a "company" dies...

Definitely agree. I may not be a fan of AoS (so far) but that doesn't mean I don't want it to succeed. If changes can be made or simply playing rather than watching is more enjoyable, I imagine they'll do well.

 PaulTheFirewoodSalesman wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Trondheim wrote:
Its a dead game publishied by a dying company that will soon(hopefully) be dead and gone

the hopefully part makes you sound like a raging child... you should never hope a "company" dies...

Definitely agree. I may not be a fan of AoS (so far) but that doesn't mean I don't want it to fail. If changes can be made or simply playing rather than watching is more enjoyable, I imagine they'll do well.

for me its because the people who made the game but a lot of hard work into it (lore, minis, artwork) all of that going to waste because people do not like "change" is silly... I mean I may not have the permission to state my opinion as I have no been so heavily invested into games workshop since I stopped some time ago but I still believe its a collective hobby first and a competitive game second, I love warhammer because of its minis, its art, its conversion... the gaming is just a bonus, at least now we can really express our army themes... and the gaming aspect is not so free and fluid you are really only restricted by your circle of friends...

I like tactical and strategic depth to my games. So, no. I won't be getting this.

bitethythumb wrote:

 PaulTheFirewoodSalesman wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Trondheim wrote:
Its a dead game publishied by a dying company that will soon(hopefully) be dead and gone

the hopefully part makes you sound like a raging child... you should never hope a "company" dies...

Definitely agree. I may not be a fan of AoS (so far) but that doesn't mean I don't want it to ----------> SUCCEED <-------------. If changes can be made or simply playing rather than watching is more enjoyable, I imagine they'll do well.

for me its because the people who made the game but a lot of hard work into it (lore, minis, artwork) all of that going to waste because people do not like "change" is silly... I mean I may not have the permission to state my opinion as I have no been so heavily invested into games workshop since I stopped some time ago but I still believe its a collective hobby first and a competitive game second, I love warhammer because of its minis, its art, its conversion... the gaming is just a bonus, at least now we can really express our army themes... and the gaming aspect is not so free and fluid you are really only restricted by your circle of friends...

Fixed my little error right there. That was a bad error XD

 MWHistorian wrote:
I like tactical and strategic depth to my games. So, no. I won't be getting this.

what is stopping you from adding tactics and depth into the game with your own rules agreed with your like minded players at your local gaming location that would most likely be more balanced then previous rules released by GW?

bitethythumb wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I like tactical and strategic depth to my games. So, no. I won't be getting this.

what is stopping you from adding tactics and depth into the game with your own rules agreed with your like minded players at your local gaming location that would most likely be more balanced then previous rules released by GW?

Because there's already games that do that very well. They get my money because they at least try.
And making up rules for pick up games doesn't exactly work very well.

bitethythumb wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I like tactical and strategic depth to my games. So, no. I won't be getting this.

what is stopping you from adding tactics and depth into the game with your own rules agreed with your like minded players at your local gaming location that would most likely be more balanced then previous rules released by GW?

I can't help but think that there will be constant disagreements and disputes as to what's considered fair or not. I think that's where guidelines are very important. If our GW overlords told us what is and isn't allowed, there wouldn't be as many disputes between players.

 PaulTheFirewoodSalesman wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I like tactical and strategic depth to my games. So, no. I won't be getting this.

what is stopping you from adding tactics and depth into the game with your own rules agreed with your like minded players at your local gaming location that would most likely be more balanced then previous rules released by GW?

I can't help but think that there will be constant disagreements and disputes as to what's considered fair or not. I think that's where guidelines are very important. If our GW overlords told us what is and isn't allowed, there wouldn't be as many disputes between players.

In its current iteration, AoS cannot be fair. It's objectively impossible to be fair as it purposefully lacks a balancing mechanism. You can house-rule a lot and bend it into a rough shape, but you ain't playing AoS then, you're playing your version of the game. It's the same with WHFB - WHFB and WHFB comped are two different games. AoS is a close-to-minimum effort to have some rules floating around miniatures to pretend it being a game. You're free to enjoy it, after all, if you do...you do. Objectively, however, from a rule writing points of view, it's a pee-poor low effort.

On the bright side, though, this will push even more players towards Kings of War as it's the only large scale fantasy tabletop game (excluding WHFB).

Up until this afternoon I would have said no, I was interested but couldn't have been bothered with learning a new game...... But I called into GW today and got my mits on some of the models. They are truely fine, lovely stuff. Defo gonna give it a go!

 PaulTheFirewoodSalesman wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I like tactical and strategic depth to my games. So, no. I won't be getting this.

what is stopping you from adding tactics and depth into the game with your own rules agreed with your like minded players at your local gaming location that would most likely be more balanced then previous rules released by GW?

I can't help but think that there will be constant disagreements and disputes as to what's considered fair or not. I think that's where guidelines are very important. If our GW overlords told us what is and isn't allowed, there wouldn't be as many disputes between players.

as I recall GW had FAQs released because people still disagreed... I am still not seeing it thought, lets say you wanted to include ranked combat and flanking, add them... they are very hard to disagree with as they are not that complex.

I mean which rules exactly are people missing that could not be added with very a basic agreement.

bitethythumb wrote:

 PaulTheFirewoodSalesman wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I like tactical and strategic depth to my games. So, no. I won't be getting this.

what is stopping you from adding tactics and depth into the game with your own rules agreed with your like minded players at your local gaming location that would most likely be more balanced then previous rules released by GW?

I can't help but think that there will be constant disagreements and disputes as to what's considered fair or not. I think that's where guidelines are very important. If our GW overlords told us what is and isn't allowed, there wouldn't be as many disputes between players.

as I recall GW had FAQs released because people still disagreed... I am still not seeing it thought, lets say you wanted to include ranked combat and flanking, add them... they are very hard to disagree with as they are not that complex.

I mean which rules exactly are people missing that could not be added with very a basic agreement.

Clearly you don't play in a pick up game enviroment.
For home or clubs, I'm sure it's great to toy with. But I need a game that comes with complete rules so strangers can play.

 MWHistorian wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I like tactical and strategic depth to my games. So, no. I won't be getting this.

what is stopping you from adding tactics and depth into the game with your own rules agreed with your like minded players at your local gaming location that would most likely be more balanced then previous rules released by GW?

Because there's already games that do that very well. They get my money because they at least try.
And making up rules for pick up games doesn't exactly work very well.

those games started off rough like any other game, like AoS does... and why does making up rules not work well.. firstly you have 8 whole edition of rules to use and several campaigns... nothing stops you from adding anything from those games into this one to make it more fun... for you and others.

seriously though what rules are you actually missing? ranked combat? flanking? rear charge? none of those rules are so complex that they could not be added without a simple word change... what is actually missing for you that is impossible to add on your own initiative..
I for one do not want to be told by GW how to have fun in my games, I will decide that with the people I play with, maybe you need to find better people to play with.

bitethythumb wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I like tactical and strategic depth to my games. So, no. I won't be getting this.

what is stopping you from adding tactics and depth into the game with your own rules agreed with your like minded players at your local gaming location that would most likely be more balanced then previous rules released by GW?

Because there's already games that do that very well. They get my money because they at least try.
And making up rules for pick up games doesn't exactly work very well.

those games started off rough like any other game, like AoS does... and why does making up rules not work well.. firstly you have 8 whole edition of rules to use and several campaigns... nothing stops you from adding anything from those games into this one to make it more fun... for you and others.

seriously though what rules are you actually missing? ranked combat? flanking? rear charge? none of those rules are so complex that they could not be added without a simple word change... what is actually missing for you that is impossible to add on your own initiative..
I for one do not want to be told by GW how to have fun in my games, I will decide that with the people I play with, maybe you need to find better people to play with.

Nope. The people I play with are awesome. Never had a problem from them playing games that worked out of the box.

 MWHistorian wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 PaulTheFirewoodSalesman wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I like tactical and strategic depth to my games. So, no. I won't be getting this.

what is stopping you from adding tactics and depth into the game with your own rules agreed with your like minded players at your local gaming location that would most likely be more balanced then previous rules released by GW?

I can't help but think that there will be constant disagreements and disputes as to what's considered fair or not. I think that's where guidelines are very important. If our GW overlords told us what is and isn't allowed, there wouldn't be as many disputes between players.

as I recall GW had FAQs released because people still disagreed... I am still not seeing it thought, lets say you wanted to include ranked combat and flanking, add them... they are very hard to disagree with as they are not that complex.

I mean which rules exactly are people missing that could not be added with very a basic agreement.

Clearly you don't play in a pick up game enviroment.
For home or clubs, I'm sure it's great to toy with. But I need a game that comes with complete rules so strangers can play.

I have not played warhammer in years only got back into it because of AoS...

and by complete strangers you mean? people who go to your club once and never come back? because if they usually come to your club they usually will do more than once, give them a Club faq page with the extra rules? or do you invite complete strangers to your house to play :/

bitethythumb wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 PaulTheFirewoodSalesman wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I like tactical and strategic depth to my games. So, no. I won't be getting this.

what is stopping you from adding tactics and depth into the game with your own rules agreed with your like minded players at your local gaming location that would most likely be more balanced then previous rules released by GW?

I can't help but think that there will be constant disagreements and disputes as to what's considered fair or not. I think that's where guidelines are very important. If our GW overlords told us what is and isn't allowed, there wouldn't be as many disputes between players.

as I recall GW had FAQs released because people still disagreed... I am still not seeing it thought, lets say you wanted to include ranked combat and flanking, add them... they are very hard to disagree with as they are not that complex.

I mean which rules exactly are people missing that could not be added with very a basic agreement.

Clearly you don't play in a pick up game enviroment.
For home or clubs, I'm sure it's great to toy with. But I need a game that comes with complete rules so strangers can play.

I have not played warhammer in years only got back into it because of AoS...

and by complete strangers you mean? people who go to your club once and never come back? because if they usually come to your club they usually will do more than once, give them a Club faq page with the extra rules? or do you invite complete strangers to your house to play :/

I've never seen a club here in the US. (though I'm sure there are a few) It's kind of more of a store-based culture. Not nearly as close as a club and far more random on who you get.

whats stopping you playing with them now with just a little tweaking? or was playing with a stranger more fun than playing with regular mates... or was it more common to play with strangers for you than with regulars, from my old time gaming days strangers are rare, the regulars were the fun good times.

bitethythumb wrote:
whats stopping you playing with them now with just a little tweaking? or was playing with a stranger more fun than playing with regular mates... or was it more common to play with strangers for you than with regulars, from my old time gaming days strangers are rare, the regulars were the fun good times.

I also don't like wasting time fixing crappy rules and would rather spend that time playing?
I don't know. Lots of people come and go in my store. I move around a lot and don't stay in one place long enough to get a tight knit group. That's why I like games that don't need fixing. I know what to expect wherever I go.
You got a close group? Awesome. I'm jealous. But not everyone has that luxury.

 MWHistorian wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 PaulTheFirewoodSalesman wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I like tactical and strategic depth to my games. So, no. I won't be getting this.

what is stopping you from adding tactics and depth into the game with your own rules agreed with your like minded players at your local gaming location that would most likely be more balanced then previous rules released by GW?

I can't help but think that there will be constant disagreements and disputes as to what's considered fair or not. I think that's where guidelines are very important. If our GW overlords told us what is and isn't allowed, there wouldn't be as many disputes between players.

as I recall GW had FAQs released because people still disagreed... I am still not seeing it thought, lets say you wanted to include ranked combat and flanking, add them... they are very hard to disagree with as they are not that complex.

I mean which rules exactly are people missing that could not be added with very a basic agreement.

Clearly you don't play in a pick up game enviroment.
For home or clubs, I'm sure it's great to toy with. But I need a game that comes with complete rules so strangers can play.

I have not played warhammer in years only got back into it because of AoS...

and by complete strangers you mean? people who go to your club once and never come back? because if they usually come to your club they usually will do more than once, give them a Club faq page with the extra rules? or do you invite complete strangers to your house to play :/

I've never seen a club here in the US. (though I'm sure there are a few) It's kind of more of a store-based culture. Not nearly as close as a club and far more random on who you get.

store or club, they always have regulars, my local GW is like a club as well, we get regulars and those than come in once in a while, the GW manager at our store is already working with some other players to create alternative faqs for anyone who wants larger games... with more rules, either way the chances of some random bloke coming into to the club and saying "I CHALLENGE YOU" is very rare.

chances are you play mostly with your friends... so I am not seeing how you could not work out a perfect system between yourselves.