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.
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.
Like I said, because there's already games that don't need fixing and I'd rather play than write rules with a group of strangers. There are a few regulars, but they're more interested in playing than rules writing. As I am.
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions.
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.
I do not anymore, I stopped playing years ago, I just got back into it with AoS... the local GW seems friendly enough and has plenty of regulars... you sound like a pokemon trainer going from town to town challenging people ... either way I guess its just different opinions of what the game should be, I myself loved warhammer for its collective aspects rather than the gaming, gaming was always a bonus for me, I am sure in the long run GW will release plenty of "extra" bonus house rules people can buy and use themselves (like rules specifically for larger games) but that will come in time and I am sure people will moan that it will cost money etc... I am pretty happy to start off with a skirmish style game first and slowly move up into larger one.
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.
Like I said, because there's already games that don't need fixing and I'd rather play than write rules with a group of strangers. There are a few regulars, but they're more interested in playing than rules writing. As I am.
each to his own, in time AoS will get plenty of rules and when it does I do hope you come back into the fold, all the best to you and your gaming experience because in the end all that matters if you enjoy it, I guess we just view things differently... nothing wrong with that (the world would be boring if we all agreed)
peace and love to you
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/07/04 22:18:12
Tabletop gamers (particularly those invested in GW) tend to live-and-die by the rules codified by the game designers. It's a significant part of the ubiquity people enjoy from the big-time games. Competitive games, by the definition of the world, will not work unless we're able to get something on the scale of the old 40k 5th edition INAT, and that came about in an age where the likelihood of the game changing every year or so was much lower.
I see this game working okay in a basement group/club environment, but not being sustainably entertaining due to having a lack of value in winning games (since there is little way to tell if games are even remotely fair), I think it'll begin to feel like an exerise in futility.
With competitive games...well, I think we won't see much FLGS gaming, and I think the cons will stick with 8th to at least maintain some structure.
I am genuinely excited about this. I had watched the death of WHFB locally, and had followed a couple of games at my local club but TBH, as I play Orks in 40k I didn't fancy having to pay out for another huge horde army to get involved.
I also quite liked Skaven, Beastmen and Ogres, and couldn't make up my mind which to play.
Now because of AoS, I can play all 3 simultaneously, and am actually quite likely to get my arse down to GW tomorrow to pick up a few units of my favourite models.
Plus, if I'm honest, whilst I enjoy 40k, the mechanic is quite clunky and I dreaded having to rules lawyer my way through WHFB too.
I'd tried Warmahordes, and although it was quite enjoyable, TBH I wanted something simple and straightforward that I can play with my kids, and this fits the bill. Now they too can get a collection of their favourite models and we can just have a quick game without having to mess about for hours.
"All their ferocity was turned outwards, against enemies of the State, foreigners, traitors, saboteurs, thought-criminals" - Orwell, 1984
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...
GW lost any rigth to be defended after the abomination that the end time was, on top of their abhorrent treatment of their customers and the community at large. And why in the case of GW it would be the best for all parties involved
Whew, this has been quite an interesting change. Allow me to toss in my 2 cents.
Lore wise, I really am intrigued by the direction. They dropped the Fantasy bit because it certainly has come away from it's stable roots, but, at least so far, it feels fresh and new.
As for the rules, well.... I agree with both sides, each to a degree. Not having a solidified, absolute set of rules means that you can't walk into a shop and just play without consulting your opponent or having the store take a time to lay out some extras. NOW, that assumes that Age of Sigmar is really meant to all out replace WHFB as is. Which I am pretty sure it is not, at least in this form. Balance has long been a problem for both Fantasy AND 40k, honestly since the games began. Which means, for me at least, the sweet spot for both games was winging it and making up stories to go with the crazed rules. You want to bring an unbound list of all monsters/titans? Sure, let's fiddle a special scenario to make it work. It's not perfect, but IF YOU HAVE THE TIME, it's great!
So there is the problem. For a "who cares" kind of game, where you just want to fiddle with your nice, painted models, the game as is works just fine. If you have the time and energy and like to create big elaborate campaigns and tweak and add rules ANYWAYS, it also works great, as AoS gives you enough basics to work from.
The problem then is the middle people, those who want a solid, balanced game but don't want to (or more likely just can't) work out the details. Those people, who just want to learn the rules and be done, knowing that everything is already settled and only have to worry about tactics and list building, are going to suffer. Can it be fixed to prevent that? Sure. If a place has the time and effort to lay down house rules, or just uses/adds in aspects of older editions, then it works. But I think a good chunk of these people in this middle ground may be stuck without such answers. For them, I hope GW does release some more solid rules. If not, then who the players are may change drastically, and that may be a death sentence if the numbers don't support the game...
So, long story short, AoS is a game of extreme simplicity, requiring effort (or lack of care) to make it enjoyable. For some, it works (I think it will be fine for me). Either way, I will try it (yay, free rules!) and see where it goes. Worst comes to worse, the hobby is still fun and the lore is still neat, so not a total loss at all.
Oppressor wrote:You're asking the wrong question.
The correct question is, would I be enjoying this hobby if I did this?
I have already tried AoS for a few games and it isn't something I'm interested in trying again. I don't plan on playing Age of Sigmar. I got started playing Warhammer fantasy about a year ago. Before that I was a new player learning Warmachine. I liked playing a full on army game on an epic scale vs playing with smaller skirmishing groups. I didn't mind spending an entire afternoon playing a game with rules that were somewhat complicated. I loved all the lores of magic (well, not the nuke spells though). It wasn't a perfect game, there were some things I didn't like, but it was an epic scale fantasy army game for those of us that liked that sort of thing. For those who liked skirmishing games there was warmachine - which was pretty successful and was gaining a wide following, and there were other games. Anyhow, I can only hope that 9th edition will be more like the warhammer fantasy we all know and most of us love. That'd be great in my opinion, people who wanted a skirmish "beer and pretzels" game that doesn't involve too much of a commitment of time or brain power can have AoS, and the rest of us can have Warhammer Fantasy. Otherwise, I'll be shelving my armies and looking for another fantasy army game.
Weyuhn wrote: I have already tried AoS for a few games and it isn't something I'm interested in trying again. I don't plan on playing Age of Sigmar. I got started playing Warhammer fantasy about a year ago. Before that I was a new player learning Warmachine. I liked playing a full on army game on an epic scale vs playing with smaller skirmishing groups. I didn't mind spending an entire afternoon playing a game with rules that were somewhat complicated. I loved all the lores of magic (well, not the nuke spells though). It wasn't a perfect game, there were some things I didn't like, but it was an epic scale fantasy army game for those of us that liked that sort of thing. For those who liked skirmishing games there was warmachine - which was pretty successful and was gaining a wide following, and there were other games. Anyhow, I can only hope that 9th edition will be more like the warhammer fantasy we all know and most of us love. That'd be great in my opinion, people who wanted a skirmish "beer and pretzels" game that doesn't involve too much of a commitment of time or brain power can have AoS, and the rest of us can have Warhammer Fantasy. Otherwise, I'll be shelving my armies and looking for another fantasy army game.
there will be no 9th edition, this is it... also why not include the lores of magic but get rid of the nuke spells?... also anyone who claims this game does not need "brain" power is surely drunk on his own ego, most wargames are pretty simple in nature... they are literally dice games, chance, luck... you can have the best most balanced army list yet still lose pretty hard if lady luck leaves you.
Its like saying backgammon is a brainless game :/ and I love backgammon :(
2015/07/05 00:09:56
Subject: Re:Will You Be Giving Age Of Sigmar A Try?
AoS barely strikes me as a game. I'm not interested in it. I want somethign where my choices matter, with tactical thought and depth. And the fact that they're replacing WFB with this drivel just pisses me off.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/05 00:32:22
2015/07/05 01:06:04
Subject: Re:Will You Be Giving Age Of Sigmar A Try?
I'll give it a shot. It looks like it should be easy enough to house rule some points values. I like that it looks like a simple dive-in-and-get-it game. I haven't played since 5th edition, and sold the Tomb Kings army that I had years ago.
I've been wanting to collect some Lizardmen for a while. Simple rules make jumping in pretty easy. I like 40k for it's relative complexity. AOS can be a simple beer and pretzels [somebody needs to take a shot!] game that's a different type of fun.
I have no deep interest in the fluff, or the way the game played before. It looks like it could be fun to try out, at the very least.
argonak wrote: AoS barely strikes me as a game. I'm not interested in it. I want somethign where my choices matter, with tactical thought and depth. And the fact that they're replacing WFB with this drivel just pisses me off.
Sorry that you haven't even looked at the rules, then. Have fun with whatever you do!
I'm gonna give them a try! I already own the models, and the rules are free, so I really have nothing to lose. Plus, so far the positive batreps seem to outweigh the negatives. Actually, now that the rules are out, it seems like most of the detractors are people who haven't even played a game yet.
But like I said, I'm going in with an open mind. Who knows, it could actually be great. And it could also suck. But I'll never know if I don't try it!
bitethythumb wrote: 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.
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 40klol.
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.
thank you. you get it. The game is all about freedom now. And every unit is pretty much usable. Yet gamers complain b/c they aren't told how to comp their own list.
Again, if you want to play by W's comp or Warscrolls comp or just the eye test or just keep putting out units until the board is full or whatever, that's fine. But that's also the point - play how YOU want! Cmon gamers, why is this a bad thing??
currently playing: ASoIaF | Warhammer 40k: Kill Team
other favorites:
FO:WW | RUMBLESLAM | WarmaHordes | Carnevale | Infinity | Warcry | Wrath of Kings
Hence the quotation marks. Possibly the main reason that AOS is such a drastic change is that WHFB was a dying system, so GW went ahead and changed it.
I am interested in how many of the old players move onto the new game, how many abandon it and how many completely new players take up AOS.
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.
It's not being duped: i'll give the new rules a whirl and put them through their paces, but if we don't like them, ultimately, we'll revert to 8th.
It's just a better situation if the rules ARE good because a game you play that is supported is better than a game you play that is not supported, assuming rules being roughly of equivalent value.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dr. Cheesesteak wrote: But that's also the point - play how YOU want! Cmon gamers, why is this a bad thing??
I'll sum up dozens of posts that you seem to be unwilling to at least lend ANY credence: arbitrariness does not equate to balance. Freedom doesn't equate to fairness.
3 skaven slaves are not equal to Archaon when we look at sudden death. Archaon says i win that because i choose eradicate.
Or i take 5 Dark Elf assassins, i pick a hero, and GG, i win.
Freedom is great, but freedom requires some moderate framework to avoid being arbitrary.
Or how about Karl Franz and Archaon, who are superb, list composition wise, have the same composition weight as a Vampire Cou- ... scuse me "Deathrattlers" Zombie. Explain to me in what gaming world that makes sense. Each is considered one model for the only composition metric in the rules: sudden death.
Let's look at another: Explain to me how Dwarf Warriors with sword and board attack a Phoenix. (Hint: THEY CAN'T).
Here's another. I buy a new shiny bloodthirster kit. I model his foot / flame / rock base connection point alllllll the way to the back of the base. Enemy models move onto his base, but not within 3" of him. For whatever reason, next turn, mr. bloodthirster decides he wants to move somewhere else and / or to charge the models on his base. How the hell do you accurately keep the position of the models on Mr. Blood thirsters base when he has the gall to decide to move and / or charge?
Seriously, there's at least a dozen ways, 48 hours into rule drop, to face hit this game if you want to. Give it 3 months and people will have come up with combos that are going to make it nigh unplayable without prior gentleman's agreements to avoid asshattery. I was okay with the loose framework of 8th, but AoS is nutty.
This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2015/07/05 14:24:20
... either way I guess its just different opinions of what the game should be, I myself loved warhammer for its collective aspects rather than the gaming, gaming was always a bonus for me, I am sure in the long run 
