Los pollos hermanos wrote:

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:

I'll just say simply as this, OP: the game of list-building for tournaments or pick-up games/testing on Friday nights at your FLGS is gone. AoS is about calling up a friend or 2, coming up w/ different, creative ways to field/pick your army, and playing a casual game of killies.

But what happens to the large player base that liked fantasy for those very reasons and doesn't want to play this new totally different game just with fantasies face stretched over it? I mean I know what im going to do, switch systems but I wasn't invested in fantasy yet (was only just getting back into it) but I can imagine its a bigger loss for those who have invested heavily in the system they like with army lists and such buying that expensive model to work in a system no longer supported sure there's Local gaming clubs but they'll never be getting a new update, new army books or models that work with their system anymore. They played fantasy for fantasy, for the way it plays but now they're expected to pick up and play this new game that plays like a totally different system just because it has the fantasy name. It doesn't make sense. It would be like cancelling 40k but turning it into a card game and expecting all the 40k players to be ok with it as if it were the same game. They wanted to play 40k not a card game, same situation here. Best to go elsewhere for a system that resembles the game they liked to play over a different system with just the same name.

I think it would have been better to just do the hard drop, kill fantasy and make this AoS a totally new system, not fantasy in name only.

Rihgu wrote:
I genuinely hope that that spike in popularity causes a huge spike in model design/quality.

Although, judging by their multiple successful kickstarters and the end products they came up with from that... maybe Mantic should stick to a wargame about undead and necromancy?

 Cruentus wrote:
Played a game of AoS today, Brets versus Orcs. Was a very fun, full of decisions game, that felt like fantasy armies fighting, ebbing and flowing around the field. The loss of the square units wasn't really missed, and the alternating combats and roll off for initiative didn't allow one to make firm plans from turn to turn.

Aside from the lack of force building rules, we managed to get what we felt was a pretty balanced game, even though it went one way after 5 or 6 turns.

My opponent had been out of WHFB for years, but said he was going to go dig out all of his models that he never played before.

 Purifyingflame_7 wrote:

Spoiler:

I managed to read through the whole rules download in under an hour, and folks I almost fething came. YEARS I've waited for these ignorant witches to take this game from one lead by snobs and the "intellectually superior" to a game many can understand and play. Those of you who claim to be veterans, I want to challenge you by saying this: Do you prefer winning, or playing? Because if you call yourself a vet, but have all these complaints about it being "too simple", I have news.......8th Ed was a bastard, and you're just there to win. I watched dozens, maybe hundreds, take one look at the BIG Red Book and say, " Nah, I'm not interested....". Hell, they'd rather play Warmahordes. Why? Because it doesn't take two weeks of learning and another month of model prep to play a game. I sold my Dwarfs, because I had no time to play a game that lasts longer than a mishap with Viagra. I sold my Skaven, because I don't have the time to paint 90 thousand little gaks that will die turn 1 or 2. These rules aren't just streamlined, they are radical. You can now retreat. People playing Warhammer seem to forget that even a slow in command can issue a fallback order. Now my Bretonnians can rush up, feth your eyes out, and pull back before you can chop us apart: surprisingly, this is how Cavalry is supposed to function. Why would a unit of 20 Grave Guard feth around with a puddle of 90 Grots? They wouldn't. They would pull back and March for a more appropriate target. Now there are penalties for people who want to bring an army the size of Jupiter. Serves them right, I can get over a flu before they finish a turn. Im sick of people claiming to be veterans, who support the most broken ass rules just because they hate change. The lack of points cost is a real pain, but I'm SURE they will be soon to fix that. The codexes are free. The rules are free. People, start applauding GW before they take it all back, this is progress!

timetowaste85 wrote:I'm looking forward to trying the game using wounds to represent points: put 65 wounds worth of models on the table, etc. Some people are saying it won't work, but I feel like they're saying it won't work based on how 8th edition units/models worked.

 streamdragon wrote:

timetowaste85 wrote:I'm looking forward to trying the game using wounds to represent points: put 65 wounds worth of models on the table, etc. Some people are saying it won't work, but I feel like they're saying it won't work based on how 8th edition units/models worked.

The problem is that there is no good metric to compare the two editions, at all. It also ignores balance within a book.

Look at Stormvermin vs Clan Rats. Why would I ever take Clan Rats?

Stormvermin have better Save and Bravery. Their Rusty Halberd profile has the better stats of BOTH of the clan rat weapons, and gets 2 attacks AND -1 rend to boot. Both units are 10+ models; the Leader, Standard, Musician and Clanshields bonuses are identical. The only difference comes down to one special rule:

Murderous Ferocity (Stormvermin) - You can add 1 to the hit rolls for a Stormvermin if it targets a unit that has fewer models than its own unit.
Strength in Numbers (Clan Rats): You can add 1 to the wound rolls for Clanrats if their unit has 20 or more models. If the unit has 30 or more models, you can add 1 to their hit and wound rolls.

The first bonus to "To Wound" rolls for Clanrats makes them equivalent to base Stormvermin. So you need 20 Clan Rats to be as good as 20 Stormvermin. The bonus to hit for Clan Rats comes in at 30 models; Stormvermin get the bonus if they outnumber their opponent instead. I'd personally give the edge to Stormvermin (because there are plenty of units that are limited to 1 model, like heros and monsters), whereas Clan Rats can be reduced below 30. "But you can take a HUGE unit of clan rats and never drop below 30!" If I'm taking a unit that big, I could make them Stormvermin and be almost guaranteed to outnumber my opponent and STILL get the bonus.

So if both models cost me 1 "wound", why would I ever field Clan Rats? It used to be I'd field clan rats because they were 4ppm instead of 7ppm. So I could get more Clan Rats than I could Stormvermin for equal points. Now they're both effectively 1ppm, but are not anywhere close to equivalent.

 Eldarain wrote:

Spoiler:

 streamdragon wrote:

timetowaste85 wrote:I'm looking forward to trying the game using wounds to represent points: put 65 wounds worth of models on the table, etc. Some people are saying it won't work, but I feel like they're saying it won't work based on how 8th edition units/models worked.

The problem is that there is no good metric to compare the two editions, at all. It also ignores balance within a book.

Look at Stormvermin vs Clan Rats. Why would I ever take Clan Rats?

Stormvermin have better Save and Bravery. Their Rusty Halberd profile has the better stats of BOTH of the clan rat weapons, and gets 2 attacks AND -1 rend to boot. Both units are 10+ models; the Leader, Standard, Musician and Clanshields bonuses are identical. The only difference comes down to one special rule:

Murderous Ferocity (Stormvermin) - You can add 1 to the hit rolls for a Stormvermin if it targets a unit that has fewer models than its own unit.
Strength in Numbers (Clan Rats): You can add 1 to the wound rolls for Clanrats if their unit has 20 or more models. If the unit has 30 or more models, you can add 1 to their hit and wound rolls.

The first bonus to "To Wound" rolls for Clanrats makes them equivalent to base Stormvermin. So you need 20 Clan Rats to be as good as 20 Stormvermin. The bonus to hit for Clan Rats comes in at 30 models; Stormvermin get the bonus if they outnumber their opponent instead. I'd personally give the edge to Stormvermin (because there are plenty of units that are limited to 1 model, like heros and monsters), whereas Clan Rats can be reduced below 30. "But you can take a HUGE unit of clan rats and never drop below 30!" If I'm taking a unit that big, I could make them Stormvermin and be almost guaranteed to outnumber my opponent and STILL get the bonus.

So if both models cost me 1 "wound", why would I ever field Clan Rats? It used to be I'd field clan rats because they were 4ppm instead of 7ppm. So I could get more Clan Rats than I could Stormvermin for equal points. Now they're both effectively 1ppm, but are not anywhere close to equivalent.

I agree with that. I do think wound tracking is the best road to take though. Perhaps units with a minimum unit size of 10 (mostly the fodder units IIRC) count as 1/2 a wound each against the total? That way the "quantity has a quality all it's own" effect can come into play.

bitethythumb wrote:

 Dr. Cheesesteak wrote:

 Kommissar Waaaghrick wrote:

Spoiler:

Thanks for starting this thread. I'm coming back, just settling down from my 1st ever game of AoS. There's a lot going through my mind right now, so much to process, but I think this is the crux of most threads:

 Druchii wrote:
So my hiatus on this forums has been ended by a HUGE change to my favourite game and Im worried that I probably wont enjoy it anymore!

Just IMHO, a lot of the comments are because there IS a genuine concern, a rationale worry.

And IMHO, my feedback at this particular moment is: don't worry about this...YET.

Let me explain why, but ultimately the reason is a little bit indirect, so see if you agree with me.


--- The Game Itself, In Its Current State ---


Let me preface by saying I'm not a WHFB veteran. I'm a 40k player, but I always respected WHFB.

My impression of WHFB in the past is that it was more about tactical formations, maneuvering, traditional battlefield stuff. 40k in comparison, even in this age of Formations and Lords of War, has a little more focus on army composition, guerrilla warfare. I know I'm oversimplifying, but I'm trying to talk about AoS asap, which is the focus of this thread.

1st, AoS is an extremely streamlined version of WHFB in terms of learning the rules. I think we've completely done away with looking up tables; everything you need is in your units' profiles. It is simplified, and your units will not feel the same as with the old rules, there is a little bit of relearning and tbh, UNlearning to be done. That said, it's actually kind of clever, to the point of I wouldn't mind if 40k got a similar treatment. The basic rules are very simple; the complexity comes from each unit's own special rules, each army's own special rules, that give them a distinct flavour.

Comparison - IMHO, if WHFB is like a sophisticated yet complicated piece of Microsoft software, AoS is like an Apple/Android App.

2nd, the focus is shifting away from tactical formations and maneuvering to interactions between your units. There's a lot of "buffing" bonuses between characters and regular units. A character designated the General is giving commands, another character is buffing units around him in a certain way, another character is doing a different buff, while another is debuffing the enemy they're all attacking, etc. It's a network of effects, beyond what was simply one unit protecting another's flank. You'll hear people talk about Herohammer. It's true! But it's not that regular units are useless, except they're so further enhanced with Hero figures around them.

Comparison - IMHO, it's a lot like the Imperial Guard/Astra Militarum in 40k, with their Command system, but much more sophisticated.

Is it unconditionally better? At the moment, I'm not certain. The impression I got was it'll be as jarring to you as 40k's big leap forward from 2nd to 3rd ed. In fact, I think there's some flaws in the game right now, even beyond the balance issues, like how units can fire even when engaged in melee (as there's no rules prohibiting that right now, and even my FLGS managers said they noticed that, assume shooting is possible for now). However, again, don't worry about that...YET.


--- Why Did the Game Change ---


It's impossible to accurately say right now what the future holds. However, by asking why, we can better analyse the general direction of Fantasy.

1st, the obvious one...GW is trying to introduce The Hobby to new players with an entry-level product. Revenue, greed, invisible hand...fine, but ultimately this is right and proper for a publicly listed company to increase shareholder value and, to their great credit, IMHO THIS is the right way to do it. More players, more armies, different armies, more variety, more fun...this is the scenario that benefits the maximum group of people the most amount. I don't dare say AoS is the right path forward, but I absolutely believe GW is at least looking at the right direction.

Comparison - I know you're veterans, but I don't know if you're familiar with this reference: AoS is like the new Heroquest.

2nd, I think GW realises computer games changed how people see tabletop games. They're adapting. It's a complex issue. If you remember Magic: the Gathering, it's like how they adapted by making a Pokemon card game, that was based on a Gameboy game...and in their case, it was even a bigger success than anything at the time. It was NOT just making the game simpler; it WAS about making the game more DYNAMIC. The traditional approach of tactical formations and maneuvering does seem more static. The AoS system of interaction between your own units is much more like the Punch-Counterpunch style that Warmachine previously advertised itself with. AoS really kept me on my toes more than 40k.

Comparison - WHFB is like Warcraft, which a lot of people played, but not anymore...because people play MOBAs. AoS feels a little like that (with an increased emphasis on characters and terrain, like you use terrain not just as cover, but for spells and buffs and summons).

That's the direction, IMHO. Is it the right one? Hard to say at the moment. It worked great with the Pokemon card game, it utterly failed with D&D 4th edition which tried to be World of Warcraft. However, it's this same challenge GW is facing...and what AoS shows is at least they're taking it on.


--- Finally, IMHO, Here's Why I Suggest You Shouldn't Worry Yet ---


What was just released online are the FREE rules, NOT the FINAL ones.

There's a lot of debate going on about balance, or the lack thereof. They would cite the Sudden Death rule that allows unequally matched armies a sort of handicap system. I understand their points, I respect our fellow Dakkamites, but all of that misses the point. This is NOT the final, final product yet. I only came to the realisation after both playing and talking to other players in my FLGS. Having been a frequent beta tester for games even before the idea of Early Access, the conversations we had was very much like the feedback we used to send to game developers for the next iteration of their product.

The AoS rules were always described as a "living document". We are at a stage of Early Access.

Notice the method of distribution for AoS: everything is basically online, which means everything can be changed and updated. One of the managers at my FLGS, a real smart kid, very astute, used the word "hotfix". Soon, there will be these new and improved e-books that should fix the current issues. The final point of confusion is, they released all the "army books". I don't think that's what they are, they're just interim rules for you to use so you can simply play with your existing army. It's a temporary measure...and we had the same thing in 40k 2nd ed. The boxed set came with a small booklet with all the army units at the time, that you could use until the actual army book Codices came out.

All the current complaints ARE valid. But don't worry about them yet. IMHO, it's honestly going to change. If it doesn't, I'll join you in the panic.

 obithius wrote:
We need to realise the target market for this new game. I remember playing with green army men when I was a kid (probably aged 8-10). Next time you see kids taking turns flicking marbles with a ruler at each other's green army men, ask them how many points they are playing. Ask them how the internal balance works with different units. Ask them what mission they are playing, or what tactics they are using, and all you will get is blank stares. AoS has no points because the concept is totally unnecessary to most children.

GW used to grudgingly sell a game called Warhammer Fantasy Battles in order to sell models. It no longer makes this game, it now gives away a game called Age of Sigmar in order (they hope) to sell even more models. That's the way it is. WHFB won't be coming back, it never sold enough models.

well said for both.

I'll just say simply as this, OP: the game of list-building for tournaments or pick-up games/testing on Friday nights at your FLGS is gone. AoS is about calling up a friend or 2, coming up w/ different, creative ways to field/pick your army, and playing a casual game of killies.

I play backgammon religiously, that is my game of wits and tactics, when as a kid I first saw a GW store it was not the nerds rolling dice that made me stop and go "WOOOOW" (because none of their "tactics" are superior to a game of backgammon) it was the amazing models and painting, the gaming and lore was just an added bonus that I loved over time, nothing is changed, they are advancing the story and allowing for MORE growth (new races from the new realms that we have never heard of etc)... the new models look tasty even if they are "marine" like... which if you ask me is not a bad thing, space marines are pretty bad ass... sigmarines are cool... I am sure in the long run we shall get more and more tastier miniatures to drool over and the simplicity of the game as you said lets even the strangers come in, read the rules and play within 30 min... even if they are drunk ...

heck I am even starting to love the funny rules like beards and kneeling (use it when you are clearly going to lose)I used to play D&D and WoD back in the day so I am used to roleplaying a bit (or adding some flair to the games) this just makes it better...

sure a lot of the hardcore gamers are getting really mad about this but you know what, grow up.. its a game... what did they think was going to happen? the game continues on for years till they drop dead, imagine their reaction if GW closed its doors 3 years ago or something? would they blame GW for that as well

peace and love to everyone by the way

 Los pollos hermanos wrote:

 Purifyingflame_7 wrote:

Spoiler:

I managed to read through the whole rules download in under an hour, and folks I almost fething came. YEARS I've waited for these ignorant witches to take this game from one lead by snobs and the "intellectually superior" to a game many can understand and play. Those of you who claim to be veterans, I want to challenge you by saying this: Do you prefer winning, or playing? Because if you call yourself a vet, but have all these complaints about it being "too simple", I have news.......8th Ed was a bastard, and you're just there to win. I watched dozens, maybe hundreds, take one look at the BIG Red Book and say, " Nah, I'm not interested....". Hell, they'd rather play Warmahordes. Why? Because it doesn't take two weeks of learning and another month of model prep to play a game. I sold my Dwarfs, because I had no time to play a game that lasts longer than a mishap with Viagra. I sold my Skaven, because I don't have the time to paint 90 thousand little gaks that will die turn 1 or 2. These rules aren't just streamlined, they are radical. You can now retreat. People playing Warhammer seem to forget that even a slow in command can issue a fallback order. Now my Bretonnians can rush up, feth your eyes out, and pull back before you can chop us apart: surprisingly, this is how Cavalry is supposed to function. Why would a unit of 20 Grave Guard feth around with a puddle of 90 Grots? They wouldn't. They would pull back and March for a more appropriate target. Now there are penalties for people who want to bring an army the size of Jupiter. Serves them right, I can get over a flu before they finish a turn. Im sick of people claiming to be veterans, who support the most broken ass rules just because they hate change. The lack of points cost is a real pain, but I'm SURE they will be soon to fix that. The codexes are free. The rules are free. People, start applauding GW before they take it all back, this is progress!

Now I get people who complain about the game and I get the people who support it and even when the two argue I understand why, its because they're passionate about their stance on the subject but they all love to table top one way or the other. If they didn't they would be so invested in arguing about it but reading this leaves a bitter taste in my mouth. Mainly because it doesn't read like someone who just happens to come down one side or the other but basically reads as a bunch of odd and personal insults that sound more like pot shots at previous gamers you've faced. If you like the new game sure thats great but going at length to insult the old fantasy player base for playing the rules they had at the time, because you clearly didn't like playing them back when it was 8th and now you feel you can have some kind of revenge shows a rather competitive individual.

Lines like:
ignorant c*n*s to take this game from one lead by snobs and the "intellectually superior"
you're just there to win.
Now there are penalties for people who want to bring an army the size of Jupiter. Serves them right

It serves people right for what? having a legitimate horde army? serves them right for wanting to play the game a way you didn't like?

This type of thing doesn't serve anybody and just comes off as a bitter strike back at an old grudge for players in the past.
Its giving off the image of a guy jumping around the room going "serves them right! now lets see them laugh at me now!"
Just because you didn't like 8th and didn't have the time to play or model doesn't give you the pass to start calling everyone that did ****s
the 8th rulebook wasn't there to personally look down on you, theres no sweet revenge to be had here.



Now im not saying its how it is, im saying how it appears.

Its time to put down that hate sun. Its time to move on from it .

 Cruentus wrote:
Was a very fun, full of decisions game, that felt like fantasy armies fighting, ebbing and flowing around the field

blaktoof wrote:
I can see some appeal in AoS, but its on the level of fantasy APOC.

To make this game interesting to competitive players it needs some balance in the form of what can be taken.

IE 30 wounds worth of Heroes, 90 wounds worth of non heroes, 30 wounds worth of war machines/monsters.

You end up with some things being slightly better than others, for their wounds, but not by much. And you can relatively have an even force versus an even force.

SouthKlaw wrote:

blaktoof wrote:
I can see some appeal in AoS, but its on the level of fantasy APOC.

To make this game interesting to competitive players it needs some balance in the form of what can be taken.

IE 30 wounds worth of Heroes, 90 wounds worth of non heroes, 30 wounds worth of war machines/monsters.

You end up with some things being slightly better than others, for their wounds, but not by much. And you can relatively have an even force versus an even force.

I'm still struggling to understand why people keep trying to find ways to make AoS appeal to competitive players. Even before AoS GW have stated that they have little interest in the tournement scene and the design of AoS just fortifies that position.

AoS is not designed for competative play, if that is what you are looking for then you should look at another game. Or just carry on playing 8th edition it's not like your existing rules books are going to suddenly vanish as soon as AoS is in the shops.

What AoS does do well is allow "unbalanced" armies to fight each other with the smaller force still having a chance if the player puts some thought into what they are do. (e.g. don't just dive for the centre of the table, get your fast units around the back to deal with that power wizard.) Which IMO is very cool and should lead to some very fun campaigns.

 CalgarsPimpHand wrote:
Because, first off, "competitive" play is a total misnomer here. You and others keep using the word in a condescending tone as though the only people who could possibly care about game balance are WAAC players who break their toys if they don't win. What most people who are complaining really want is fair play, where both sides go into a game knowing they have a somewhat even chance of victory.

Comparing model count is absolutely, with 100% certainty, not a realistic way to judge the strength of two armies. Giving an instant-win condition to the guy who brought a dozen huge monsters to fight against their opponent's 60 clanrats does not balance the game (in this case it makes it worse). And that's just an obvious scenario, what about when you have two armies of equal model count, or even equal wound count, where the unit strengths still aren't equal? How are you going to judge whether you've balanced sides without considerable experience (i.e. the kind of playtesting that should have gone into this to establish point values)?

What you're claiming (that the new rules give a good way for intentionally unbalanced armies to fight each other in a fair way) is in no way, shape, or form true. In fact the rules as they're set up make it impossible to tell whether your game is actually imbalanced at all, and in which direction, because there isn't even a passing attempt by GW at valuing the different units. Going strictly off model count and applying their Sudden Death rules as written, you are as likely to make a match even more lopsided as you are to improve it.

I cannot say it strongly enough, playing a fair game instead of a balanced game isn't about being competitive, it's about having fun. Games are not fun when they are lopsided; game rules are not good when it's impossible to tell whether the match you're setting up with a friend is totally lopsided or not.

 obithius wrote:
We need to realise the target market for this new game. I remember playing with green army men when I was a kid (probably aged 8-10). Next time you see kids taking turns flicking marbles with a ruler at each other's green army men, ask them how many points they are playing. Ask them how the internal balance works with different units. Ask them what mission they are playing, or what tactics they are using, and all you will get is blank stares. AoS has no points because the concept is totally unnecessary to most children.

GW used to grudgingly sell a game called Warhammer Fantasy Battles in order to sell models. It no longer makes this game, it now gives away a game called Age of Sigmar in order (they hope) to sell even more models. That's the way it is. WHFB won't be coming back, it never sold enough models.