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.

I expect that most good store owners that want to create a solid gaming atmosphere for this (and it has tons of potential in regards to sales for stores since the buy-in is so low) will create a "store" comp system similar to what Mikhaila has stated he's doing in the N&R thread. I know one of our local store owners who enjoys Fantasy is already looking at it so that on game nights people can show up and expect a reasonable game.

 The Shadow wrote:
Sure, I can, and will, refuse this person. But, funnily enough, I like playing wargames and I do actually want a game or two, especially when I've traveled 40 minutes to get to my FLGS/GW store. Travelling back in the car after refusing two people such games, I won't feel warm inside, proud of myself that I have risen above these scoundrels, I'll feel annoyed that I've wasted my time and petrol and not got a game in.

I agree that pickup games probably won't work.

But I think in GW's eyes pickup games were an anomaly. You're not supposed to play with strangers. You're supposed to play with friends, people you communicate with outside the game.

In my area the gaming community has shrunk so much that we've had to start a forum for locals to arrange games, because if you just turned up hoping for a pickup game, odds would be good that you'd be the only person in the store. So we'll have no trouble setting up AoS games either. "Looking for someone to play Saturday night, 50 wounds, no summoning." Wait for reply, done.

So from what some people are saying you can't just show up at your LFGS and quickly find and talk to an opponent and quickly make an agreement.

All you got to do is go "Here is my army that I want to play it is X# of models."
What is different than showing up and saying I have X# of points?

I have never had a pick up game where we did not spend 5 min going over what we wanted or going to do in the way of scenario, points or even a time limit.

Yes, I will be giving it a try. My friend/primary opponent has been struggling to find time for 40k, even small points games. We considered trying out the Kill Team rules, but then AoS appeared. After looking over the free PDF's, I gotta say, AoS has a lot of things we're looking for in a game. Simple rule-set (and free to boot!), quick games, bring whatever you want and have fun. Neither of us has played fantasy before, but I figure we can proxy some models just to get a feel for it. So yes, I will try it.

 Anpu42 wrote:

All you got to do is go "Here is my army that I want to play it is X# of models."
What is different than showing up and saying I have X# of points?

There surely is a difference between "Oh, you have 2k points, I will grab my 2k points" and "oh, so you have about 50 models of varying power level that cannot be measured by any means (one wound model doesn't equal another one wound model, nor do 12 zombies equal a steam tank who, in addition, would get sudden death condition for being outnumbered) so I can't make a properly comparable army out of my miniatures, but I will try".

Also the simple difference of time it would take. Agreeing on point limit and amount of scenery is even non-existant issue in my country because almost everyone used the ETC comp that defines terrain pieces, balance and point costs - you just say "WFB ETC game" or "WFB ETC pair format" which means 1200 points armies and everything's clear. There's no debate other than point limit.

In AoS on the other hand you have to discuss every single unit both players are going to field as long as it's not the pre-made formations from warscroll compendia. How are you going to agree how many state troops are equal-ish to, say, Sigmarine Liberators or whatever they're called? What about monsters? And if one side wins, how do you know it's superior skills/favour of dice gods and not just one side being more powerful? What if one player feels that his army was weaker from the beginning, but the other one assured him that it's perfectly okay and would be unhappy to make his army weaker?

See, there's only so much you can achieve by "estimating" the balance. Things like that should never happen in any game.

eh ill give it a try, and if its successful and fun ill be doing gobbos

 ChaosxVoid wrote:
eh ill give it a try, and if its successful and fun ill be doing gobbos

Gobbos are nigh-unplayable in AoS. You'd have to move 150+ individual models around. Ugh.

Klerych wrote:
Is that why Beastmen had to get 300 additional points on ETC to be even remotely playable (and even then were bottom ladder spot takers)?

A fair point but, as I've said before (somewhere), the fact that GW were faffing around with the End Times and AoS meant that Beastmen didn't get updated, something which would have most likely removed the need for that extra 300 points in the ETC.

Klerych wrote:

 The Shadow wrote:
he is well within his rights set down by the rules to say "no I don't want an even game, I want to take nagash, archaon and 300 chaos warriors" and there's nothing I can do about that. Sure, I can, and will, refuse this person. But, funnily enough, I like playing wargames and I do actually want a game or two, especially when I've traveled 40 minutes to get to my FLGS/GW store. Travelling back in the car after refusing two people such games, I won't feel warm inside, proud of myself that I have risen above these scoundrels, I'll feel annoyed that I've wasted my time and petrol and not got a game in.

I believe there is not a point made on all of Dakka that I agree more with than this one. Too bad some people are too ignorant to even imagine that.

I'd buy you a beer for this post if I were there.

Why thank you, and I'll hold you to that beer

Sigvatr wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The problem with the rules is not that someone can insist on using Nagash, Sigmar and the Spase Emporer of Space to have an unbalanced game. The problem is that there is nothing to indicate that this would result in an unbalanced game. We can only guess how much a model with 2 wounds is worth more than a model with 1.

This is the key problem. The problem isn't just the overexaggerated 200 Barbarians vs. 10 Skaven Slaves situations. The problem is the huge grey zone in between. Is 10 Sigmarites vs. 50 Slaves balanced? Or 30 Slaves? Or 70? is one Bretonnian lance balanced to 2 units of NIght Goblins? One? Three? There's no means to get to a viable result and this is why AoS is currently a bloody mess.

Yeah, 100% this. And, similarly, the whole "use your whole collection" mantra is, again, in principle, fine. The problem is, if we wanted to use our whole collections in WHFB, or any other game for that matter, we'd know exactly the differences in power levels between our collections and could then give the player with the least powerful collection some bonuses (i.e. free magic items, reinforcements etc)whereas with AoS, this isn't something you can do.

lord_blackfang wrote:

 The Shadow wrote:
Sure, I can, and will, refuse this person. But, funnily enough, I like playing wargames and I do actually want a game or two, especially when I've traveled 40 minutes to get to my FLGS/GW store. Travelling back in the car after refusing two people such games, I won't feel warm inside, proud of myself that I have risen above these scoundrels, I'll feel annoyed that I've wasted my time and petrol and not got a game in.

I agree that pickup games probably won't work.

But I think in GW's eyes pickup games were an anomaly. You're not supposed to play with strangers. You're supposed to play with friends, people you communicate with outside the game.

In my area the gaming community has shrunk so much that we've had to start a forum for locals to arrange games, because if you just turned up hoping for a pickup game, odds would be good that you'd be the only person in the store. So we'll have no trouble setting up AoS games either. "Looking for someone to play Saturday night, 50 wounds, no summoning." Wait for reply, done.

Again, fair enough that this game will work perfectly fine in situations where you can come to an agreement with your opponent beforehand, but that's not always possible and shouldn't be an issue in the first place. A further problem is that wounds still aren't an accurate measure of power levels. In your above example, you could turn up to your 50 wound game and find that the armies look horribly unbalanced against each other, and then have to try and work something else out.

 Frozocrone wrote:
I tried it, didn't like it much.

Admittedly the staff tried to balance it by having the same amount of wounds on each side but really a points system would be better.

It sounds like being at a car dealership, and the salesmen trying to sell you a beautiful car with no engine.

But have no fear! They put you in the car and push it down the street, and you feel a bit of breeze go by. Surely, this gorgeous car is worth every penny, why would you gripe about something so minor as a missing engine?

 Klerych wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

All you got to do is go "Here is my army that I want to play it is X# of models."
What is different than showing up and saying I have X# of points?

There surely is a difference between "Oh, you have 2k points, I will grab my 2k points" and "oh, so you have about 50 models of varying power level that cannot be measured by any means (one wound model doesn't equal another one wound model, nor do 12 zombies equal a steam tank who, in addition, would get sudden death condition for being outnumbered) so I can't make a properly comparable army out of my miniatures, but I will try".

Also the simple difference of time it would take. Agreeing on point limit and amount of scenery is even non-existant issue in my country because almost everyone used the ETC comp that defines terrain pieces, balance and point costs - you just say "WFB ETC game" or "WFB ETC pair format" which means 1200 points armies and everything's clear. There's no debate other than point limit.

In AoS on the other hand you have to discuss every single unit both players are going to field as long as it's not the pre-made formations from warscroll compendia. How are you going to agree how many state troops are equal-ish to, say, Sigmarine Liberators or whatever they're called? What about monsters? And if one side wins, how do you know it's superior skills/favour of dice gods and not just one side being more powerful? What if one player feels that his army was weaker from the beginning, but the other one assured him that it's perfectly okay and would be unhappy to make his army weaker?

See, there's only so much you can achieve by "estimating" the balance. Things like that should never happen in any game.

It is really as complex as you want to make it.
If you both have a list of what models I want to take and the other has the same I think I can look at his list and see how close they are (once I am more familiar with the system).
But I want to just push plastic around the table and blow up most of the time. That is what AoS is all about as I read it.

There does seem to be a lot of griping about balance for AoS, but TBH points don't equal balance either.
I recently played a pick up game at a local store and my opponent asked if I could make 1850 points, with what I had on me, bearing in mind I had anticipated 1500 points, I could just make it, but it was un-optimised and being Orks as well, not exactly competitive.
Good, he said, the proceeded to produce 2 super heavies, and a couple of squadrons of tanks.
And here's me with a mainly footslogging, infantry heavy Ork army.
So, in conclusion, points doesn't always mean balance, and if you've ever played Orks in 40k, balance isn't exactly something that happens terribly much.
I prefer an unbalanced game, it makes handing my opponent their arse in a sling that bit more satisfying, especially if they were being a smug gakker in the first place.

There's a lot more leeway in balancing points than there is in balancing wounds.

Wounds as balance is a blunt instrument at best.

-It's free, it's easy, and I already have models that will work with those rules.

However, the rule set is disappointing. The balance mechanism is weak. The aesthetic of the models have zero appeal to me (the sigmarines are better than 'moar skullz!' but I'm still not feeling them). In all it almost feels like the rule system was written so that the person who can afford the most expensive models has an advantage in a fight with even numbers and the person who can afford the most models has an advantage in a fight with troops of even capability. It's even better for the person with more money because they can outnumber the other player with superior troops and there is no restriction on it.

An Admittedly Blatantly Extreme example that is legal per the rules as written:
[Spoilered since a lot of folks won't want to read the example]


While the above example is extreme, it is easy to imagine a set up of the same $180 army going up against a $400 army and not initially appearing unbalanced to an inexperienced player. Even though there is still a vast power imbalance.

The balancing mechanism of this game is apparently based on the player's ability to recognize and avoid other players who will take advantage of these rules on purpose or through ignorance.

Conclusion: AoS will probably never be a game of my choice. But, if someone at my FLGS really wants a game of AoS more than anything else, I'll play. These guys play the games I want so it's only fair for me to play the games they want as well. I already have the models and have already read the rules.

Unless something truly unexpected comes out of GW though, they will get no more money from me. I'm definitely not buying the AoS set.

I am wondering if anyone has just pulled out their old list and taken on another who has done the same?

 Frozocrone wrote:
I tried it, didn't like it much.

Admittedly the staff tried to balance it by having the same amount of wounds on each side but really a points system would be better.

Thats usually a bad sign when the staff are really trying to make a game work when they're trying to sell it to you.

I have read the rules, tried a few games, and have 0 interest.

I much prefer block troop fantasy. For what AoS is, I'd rather play WM/HOR, I think the rules are much better.

The rules, while streamlined, are bland. As for the beard rules... We just ignored them. I am of the opinion that a players actions outside the game should have no effect on in game performance.

The models... well more spess mahreens is everything I could ever want! I know you don't have to play sanguinary guard but even the chaos models look like 40k wracks. I don't particularly care for the 40k aesthetic and it seems where it is going.

I'll continue with 8th until the sweedes come out with their version of 9th and maybe try that. Otherwise I'm effectively done as a GW customer for minis. I like their fluff and will continue to buy BL books. I like the FFG RPGs and board games, but 40k lost me at allies and fantasy is dead, by which I mean AoS is NOT warhammer fantasy, AoS is AoS. They are 2 completely different games.

 r_squared wrote:
TBH points don't equal balance either.

Very true. Before AoS, people said the game was so imbalanced it might as well not have points. Now people say AoS is unbalanced because it doesn't have points.

Dorrand wrote:
41 demon princes (~US$1,700)

This kind of argument keeps coming up. Avoiding AoS will not help the kind of person actually willing to entertain such abuses in reality.

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:
For what AoS is, I'd rather play WM/HOR

This statement doesn't make much sense. The only thing AoS really shares with WM/H is round bases. If you want to play fantasy mass battles, try KoW.

I have tried KoW I honestly don't much care for it feels too simple and some of the models look like complete donkey. Yes I can use GW models but as stated I don't like the aesthetic they are taking.

As for what's similar the games I have played of both tend to end with a bit of a mosh in the middle. However I feel WM/HOR requires more skill & has game play I much prefer.

If you feel they only share round bases that is fine. I disagree. While still different, when compared to warhammer fantasy they're not too different in how they play from a broad perspective.

If you want to play WM/H, I'm not sure why you were playing WHFB. WHFB certainly does not segue into WM/H mechanically or even in terms of background. Sounds like your interests have changed quite separately from what GW is up to.

WHFB is dead. AoS is not WHFB. I actually strongly prefer WHFB to WM/HOR however I strongly prefer WM/HOR to AoS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
If you want to play WM/H, I'm not sure why you were playing WHFB.

Because... and this may shock you... I may like both systems for different reasons! I just do not like AoS.

This statement right here

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:
For what AoS is, I'd rather play WM/HOR, I think the rules are much better.

led me to believe that you wanting to play WM/H has something to do with AoS.

If that's not the case, then yes that would make so much more sense and I apologize for the confusion on my part.

 Manchu wrote:
This statement right here

 Shas'O Dorian wrote:
For what AoS is, I'd rather play WM/HOR, I think the rules are much better.

led me to believe that you wanting to play WM/H has something to do with AoS.

It does have something to do with AoS. AoS is, from my experience, much more similar to WM/HOR than WHFB. Given the option I know what I would rather play. I understand that I am no longer GWs target marker but I am still allowed to be frustrated & lament the loss of WHFB and have an opinion on AoS which I feel is a PoS.

So you want to play WM/H because GW makes AoS now instead of WHFB?

Partially yes. I want to play WM/HOR more now because my previous main game WHFB has been discontinued. I no longer have the option to play WHFB. I have a finite amount of time to spend on my hobby. That is divided up amongst the games I play. When you remove one of those, the others expand to fill.

I mean sure I can play it for a bit, the local group can try to keep it going, but let's be realistic, this is not sustainable. You can find small pockets of people who still play 7th but they are few & far between. Eventually they dwindle and die out and I don't have a desire to play life support to a game whose company no longer cares about it.

FWIW WM/H seems like a really good game mastery style design. I hope you enjoy it.

 r_squared wrote:
There does seem to be a lot of griping about balance for AoS, but TBH points don't equal balance either.
I recently played a pick up game at a local store and my opponent asked if I could make 1850 points, with what I had on me, bearing in mind I had anticipated 1500 points, I could just make it, but it was un-optimised and being Orks as well, not exactly competitive.
Good, he said, the proceeded to produce 2 super heavies, and a couple of squadrons of tanks.
And here's me with a mainly footslogging, infantry heavy Ork army.
So, in conclusion, points doesn't always mean balance, and if you've ever played Orks in 40k, balance isn't exactly something that happens terribly much.
I prefer an unbalanced game, it makes handing my opponent their arse in a sling that bit more satisfying, especially if they were being a smug gakker in the first place.

See, the big problem right here is that you're referring to another GW game as an argument. Aside from a couple examples of particular builds I don't really remember running into such issue in any other popular game where a whole faction by default is just weak. Sure, a Trencher-based Cygnaran army for Warmachine is weak compared to tournament power builds, but that's just one neglected build among a dozen available for the faction. There's no Blood or Dark Angels, Orks or Beastmen level of bad army as a whole nor totally broken ones like Tau+Eldar lists for 40k some time ago.

Overall if a company actually bothers to balance their models' point costs properly (that also including synergies with other units), it is the best way to try make things even. Even if it's not perfect, it's still the best option along with organization chart limits.

I am in the wait and see camp. I don't like it so far. I love the models and I am itching to give GW my money but there is no game. The rules are incomplete. No game length, no balance mechanism and loopholes/gaps that need to be addressed. I hate the idea of overlapping bases, and combat looks like a drudge. If this is it, then I'm out. Part of the fun for me is list design and tactics, there's no army construction in this system. If they add depth and balance then I will take another look but as it stands I'm not interested. I worry that part of the reasons some people are jumping in is because it is free to try. But when the old armies are phased out I wonder if people will be so keen to give their money over to play this game. In general I think the launch has been handled in a very amateurish way. Anyway, I am an optimist so I look forward to the game being developed, if not I haven't lost anything.

Not sure if y'all saw this:
http://www.belloflostsouls.net/2015/07/new-age-of-sigmar-rulebook-prices.html


Another book that has the same SKU as the old WHFB BRB.


Hopefully this is a sign of a proper rulebook for the game. I mentioned in another thread, i am starting to really like the warscrolls, the 1% of stupid LARP rules aside. Now all we need is a true core ruleset, and i think we might be in business.

Still a little bummed out that templates don't seem to be a thing any more.

Aye. Will give the game a try once GW releases the complete rules, maybe the book will shed more insight.

/e: Wait what, FOURTY DOLLARS for a DICE SHAKER?

That's 25GBP. Who the feth are they kidding?lol. I'll just get a cup or something.