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 like how having to field citadel miniatures only becomes an issue when a new GW game lets you field more variety than ever. Because logic.

ChazLikesCake wrote:
I like how having to field citadel miniatures only becomes an issue when a new GW game lets you field more variety than ever. Because logic.

AOS having no form of balance or limits so players can do what they always have been allowed (because you always have had permission to change the rules for whatever reason in a GW game, not that you need permission) to do is not an issue and or an improvement for some because... logic?

The fact that you can only use citadel miniatures is just icing on the cake really.

ChazLikesCake wrote:
I like how having to field citadel miniatures only becomes an issue when a new GW game lets you field more variety than ever. Because logic.

Its always been an issue although given that this particular 'rule' has been completely ignored by more enlightened gamers years its not exactly vital.

 Bottle wrote:



What? I don't understand your point.

In a nutshell:

Wargaming naturally implies complexity and thus simplifying it (like lifting former restrictions) too much can be bad. If you want to go hog wild and simplify the IP/rules, there's nothing from stopping you - to house rule it.


Now I digress/expand on this again:

Again, if people like you want unrestricted access to lords, heroes etc, then that's fine but it needs to be understood, that is an exceptional thing to the modern/classical sense of a wargame. Making the exceptional a generally accepted rule is counter intuitive and adds a stumbling block - if I want to play a game of warhammer in a communally balanced understanding.

 Swastakowey wrote:

ChazLikesCake wrote:
I like how having to field citadel miniatures only becomes an issue when a new GW game lets you field more variety than ever. Because logic.

AOS having no form of balance or limits so players can do what they always have been allowed (because you always have had permission to change the rules for whatever reason in a GW game, not that you need permission) to do is not an issue and or an improvement for some because... logic?

The fact that you can only use citadel miniatures is just icing on the cake really.

Again. You're missing the point.

I could add random models into my 8th armies with a house rule, yes.

But it required buying another £30 armybook. Not worth it for one model.

With regards to house rules as well. Fine for playing with close friends. I play in a local GW, and now I can create an army for those pick up games without having to convince my opponent to my house rules.

Lastly the change in mechanics mean I can buy a single box and see good use out of it rather than feeling I need 40+ of a single model.

These are all great changes to Warhammer imo.

Lastly, only you are talking about the GW minis-only rule.

Simplified rules aren't especially bad. The old times of "complex rules thus better rules" are now gone since there are so many games to try and so few time left to play.

The thing is, rules must work in a clear view of the game. And here in AoS...the view is "play all the models you want". This is a game that allows you to have fun with your favorite models. And that's all.

The rules translate that quite well; no need to have a lot of rules or a way to balance everything. No need to have alternations in phases (or - gasp!- for each unit) rather than the old "IGOUGO" system in full turns. And of course plenty of random dice roll for any reason, even if it isn't really needed.

A good example is the "initiative roll" at the beginning of the turn to decide which player goes first. That wasn't thought too much, IMHO - because if it works quite well in a game when players play one of their units before giving the hand to the other and so on, it's not the same in a "IGOUGO" system.

Because that means the other player can wait a longer time before actually playing - not saying he will not really have so much fun when his opponent gets to play two turns in a row because he got lucky by rolling just one dice - thus having to watch his army get ganbanged twice before being allowed to move just one of his units. If he still have any unit left after this, of course.

That kind of rule makes me think they didn't playtest that much - but that's not a surprise for GW, anyway.

But hey, in a good spirit, when you just put your models on the table and don't care too much about rules, yeah, game can be fun.

So it's a game for collectors. Not for gamers - don't even talk about wargamers.

Once you understand that, everything makes so much sense - and AoS can be fun, really. You just have to take the game for what it is.

But then, I agree it's not for everyone. In my town, players aren't very fond of AoS - because most of them are WFB old vets and feel really like being betrayed when they saw it wasn't 9th edition at all. It will take time before the game will launch, and it will mainly come from new players or people who only play 40k until now.

But the WFB community? It's completely torn apart.

 kveldulf wrote:

 Bottle wrote:



What? I don't understand your point.

In a nutshell:

Wargaming naturally implies complexity and thus simplifying it (like lifting former restrictions) too much can be bad. If you want to go hog wild and simplify the IP/rules, there's nothing from stopping you - to house rule it.


Now I digress/expand on this again:

As for what I want - a wargame with rank & file fighting - I want it to to be consistent between gaming groups. If people, like you, want unrestricted access to lords, heroes etc, then that's fine but it needs to be understood, that is an exceptional thing to the modern/classical sense of a wargame. Now, we've made the exceptional a generally accepted rule - which is counter intuitive and adds a stumbling block if I want to play a game of warhammer in a communally balanced understanding.

Time will tell on what the majority prefer.

Didn't older versions of Warhammer have no restrictions on Heroes/monsters too? If that's the case AoS could be seen as a return to that.

 Bottle wrote:

Didn't older versions of Warhammer have no restrictions on Heroes/monsters too? If that's the case AoS could be seen as a return to that.

Very old versions were rather "scenarized". Just "old versions" had a pourcentage system for each category.

I still think it's a return at the beginning of GW.

 Bottle wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:

 Bottle wrote:



What? I don't understand your point.

In a nutshell:

Wargaming naturally implies complexity and thus simplifying it (like lifting former restrictions) too much can be bad. If you want to go hog wild and simplify the IP/rules, there's nothing from stopping you - to house rule it.


Now I digress/expand on this again:

As for what I want - a wargame with rank & file fighting - I want it to to be consistent between gaming groups. If people, like you, want unrestricted access to lords, heroes etc, then that's fine but it needs to be understood, that is an exceptional thing to the modern/classical sense of a wargame. Now, we've made the exceptional a generally accepted rule - which is counter intuitive and adds a stumbling block if I want to play a game of warhammer in a communally balanced understanding.

Time will tell on what the majority prefer.

Didn't older versions of Warhammer have no restrictions on Heroes/monsters too? If that's the case AoS could be seen as a return to that.

I'm actually headed toward 3rd edition; I just ordered a copy via ebay a few days ago. The difference there is that there was a lot of complexity and a lot of choice. You could get away with a lot too. However, the split warhammer went during 4ths advent was making tournament play = "warhammer", which is not what I want either. I do want balance but mainly in an approximate, and appropriate point cost. I don't mind streamlined army lists either, so long as there is a way to fit it in the peculiar - even going as far as the whole 'unbound' concept you have in 40k

Also, the majority preference is not necessarily the wisest preference.

Simplifed rules are good for introducing new players but they don't necessarily lead to long term play value.

The sad thing for me about AOS is how limited ambition the designers showed in tearing up the old rulebooks to make something radical, new and awesome.

Compare AOS with De Bellis Antiquitatis, which had a similar ambition, to present a smaller, simpler, quicker player game that you could use with existing armies or enable you to try out small, interesting armies at lower cost than a full size army.

DBA completely changed every single aspect of the previous WRG 7th Edition rules, except for base sizes and measurement. And it resulted in a dynamic, very playable game that is still popular 25 years later.

In AOS we still have the tired old clunky combat resolution, IGOUGO made worse by potentially alternating initiative, and special rules spewing out of the Design Studio's fundament to sell new models, which are already starting to unbalance and over-complicate the game.

 Sarouan wrote:
Simplified rules aren't especially bad. The old times of "complex rules thus better rules" are now gone since there are so many games to try and so few time left to play.

The thing is, rules must work in a clear view of the game. And here in AoS...the view is "play all the models you want". This is a game that allows you to have fun with your favorite models. And that's all.

The rules translate that quite well; no need to have a lot of rules or a way to balance everything. No need to have alternations in phases (or - gasp!- for each unit) rather than the old "IGOUGO" system in full turns. And of course plenty of random dice roll for any reason, even if it isn't really needed.

A good example is the "initiative roll" at the beginning of the turn to decide which player goes first. That wasn't thought too much, IMHO - because if it works quite well in a game when players play one of their units before giving the hand to the other and so on, it's not the same in a "IGOUGO" system.

Because that means the other player can wait a longer time before actually playing - not saying he will not really have so much fun when his opponent gets to play two turns in a row because he got lucky by rolling just one dice - thus having to watch his army get ganbanged twice before being allowed to move just one of his units. If he still have any unit left after this, of course.

That kind of rule makes me think they didn't playtest that much - but that's not a surprise for GW, anyway.

But hey, in a good spirit, when you just put your models on the table and don't care too much about rules, yeah, game can be fun.

So it's a game for collectors. Not for gamers - don't even talk about wargamers.

Once you understand that, everything makes so much sense - and AoS can be fun, really. You just have to take the game for what it is.

But then, I agree it's not for everyone. In my town, players aren't very fond of AoS - because most of them are WFB old vets and feel really like being betrayed when they saw it wasn't 9th edition at all. It will take time before the game will launch, and it will mainly come from new players or people who only play 40k until now.

But the WFB community? It's completely torn apart.

I personally anymore prescribe to the concept of playing to win (since that's the point of a game) and having fun.... at the same time I pursue victory in a game - in the confines of civility and a good heart.

As far as refining the D6 turn system - Bolt Action has an excelent approach - that I would like to see in warhammer.

Winning is always nice, no matter the age.

On the other hand, I should play that game of AoS when a Stormcast Eternal small party encounter the dreaded giants Shimakaze and Nagato in their full battle armors.

Should be fun now that bases aren't important.

By the way, here is Shimakaze;



And here is Nagato;



What? They're not citadel miniatures? Who cares? I will just write a few rules for the game. It's really easy, now, after all.

After reading this thread I have become much more hesitant to buy into this game. I would hate to spend, say $110, on starting an army only to have my opponet throw down a few models that can, in the course of the game, summon his $2000 dollar army and curb stomp me all over. There seems to be nothing in the rules to prevent this, and if I don't know enough about his army/models I may not know it is coming untill after we start. In the same vein I could put down a unit from the starter set, then have him counter with a bloodthirster, or Nagash, or some other super strong character and I would have nothing to do but conceide. This game seems very much pay-to-win, and very little play-to-win.

The AoS rules work if you don't play to win or to train your tactical prowess, but to have fun playing a simple tabletop wargame with miniatures.

Not the ruleset for me, because i do want a tactical game (Epic is still my favourite game), so in this form i will not play it.
But the models is another thing. I like them and might buy them anyway. And in the future i will see how i will use them, except to paint something.

I am in this hobby for beautifull miniatures and i have many from companies that never had any games or from games that i never played (a lot from Rackham).

ORicK wrote:
The AoS rules work if you don't play to win or to train your tactical prowess, but to have fun playing a simple tabletop wargame with miniatures.

I'm not sure how this statement works given I have fun playing a simple table top wargame by playing to win and train my tactical prowess

In all honesty, AoS isn't playing a game, it's more of having a fun time.

 Lord Blackscale wrote:
After reading this thread I have become much more hesitant to buy into this game. I would hate to spend, say $110, on starting an army only to have my opponet throw down a few models that can, in the course of the game, summon his $2000 dollar army and curb stomp me all over. There seems to be nothing in the rules to prevent this, and if I don't know enough about his army/models I may not know it is coming untill after we start. In the same vein I could put down a unit from the starter set, then have him counter with a bloodthirster, or Nagash, or some other super strong character and I would have nothing to do but conceide. This game seems very much pay-to-win, and very little play-to-win.

If you're playing competitively whoever's organising would have probably laid out some ground rules beforehand. If you're playing casually then you and your opponent probably have some kind of understanding that neither will tolerate bs.

I tried going in with an open mind but after playing half a dozen games or so I have to say that it was one of the most depressing experiences of my life.
The game is an absolute disaster. Any element of strategy has been completely removed and winning is all about the luck of the dice.
GW has gone the same route they did with 40k and dumbed down every element of the game.
Sadly, after 15 years in the hobby, AOS is the last nail in the coffin and I now move permanently to other gaming systems.

 Sigvatr wrote:
In all honesty, AoS isn't playing a game, it's more of having a fun time.

That entirely depends on your definition of fun I guess.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
In all honesty, AoS isn't playing a game, it's more of having a fun time.

That entirely depends on your definition of fun I guess.

Yeah. The entire success of AoS depends on enough people finding AoS fun enough to make an initial purchase and continue to buy into. It doesn't really matter how many people don't like it, as long as enough people like it to keep it going as a product.

I *like* the game, but not enough to keep playing it, because in the very limited amount of game time I have, I like 40k much more than AoS. But ironically, GW will never know this, because I will buy their Sigmarite models, and if I enjoy their 264 page book, I may even buy more of the books. I have like, 100+ games that I've read the books for but never played, so this is hardly anything new... I enjoy reading rulebooks and game world setting books If they have super deals on box sets, or super premium models like Nagash, I'll buy them just to model anyways.

So, my point... GW might end up thinking, "gee, this guy likes the game!" even though I'll play it like, twice a year. Or, every army I finish modelling... once

There's plenty of collectors out there who will buy things in spite of the game instead of because of it. Even though I say "plenty" I don't think it's enough to really sustain a game in GW's current business model, but we'll see I guess.

I have finescale WW2 aircraft and tank kits on my shelf that I paid a decent amount of money to buy and decent amount of time to paint even though all they do is sit there and look pretty. I'm sure there's people who treat GW stuff the same way, I just tend to think there's not enough of them to keep their stores open.

I do still think GW made the wrong move dropping the regimental combat completely, they held the dominant place in that market and even though sales had slipped in the last 2 editions, IMO they were fixable problems. I'm sure many people who love loose formation games don't understand the appeal of a regimental games, but personally I've never really understood the appeal of loose formation games

I also doubt I'll play AoS really much at all, really just due to time though. I want to play it, I just know that I won't really get around to it. I also bought the collectors/special versions of the previous 2 WFB rulebooks and some army books too, but since 7th edition came out I played 2 whole games. I'm planning to get the big AoS book (not the special edition though), and will likely buy others.. cuz they do make em nice with lots of pretty pictures for me to look at.

In the end, if they keep making awesome models I want to buy, I'll keep buying them.

I'm also buying the hardback Kings of War book in August too, which I also doubt I'll ever play, but would like to. I don't really plan to get any KoW models though, I just want those rules in case I want to play a ranked battle game again with my lizards or goblinses (who I've had for 4 years and never played 1 game with).

I understand most gamers aren't like me and can definitely see the reasons for all the frustration and nerdrage going on though. Last I heard no one in my old gaming group (except me) was planning to get into AoS at all, they all started as a WFB club.

 Gandohar wrote:
I tried going in with an open mind but after playing half a dozen games or so I have to say that it was one of the most depressing experiences of my life.
The game is an absolute disaster. Any element of strategy has been completely removed and winning is all about the luck of the dice.
GW has gone the same route they did with 40k and dumbed down every element of the game.
Sadly, after 15 years in the hobby, AOS is the last nail in the coffin and I now move permanently to other gaming systems.

What exactly was missing in terms of strategy? Also did you take advantage of the terrain rules and such, I find that including lots of terrain boosts the "strategy" ( if you call it that, most dice games are probability in nature and not strategy), in my opinion AoS is a skirmish d&d game... Its better to play with a theme or story... If you want strategy play a none diced game..

bitethythumb wrote:

 Gandohar wrote:
I tried going in with an open mind but after playing half a dozen games or so I have to say that it was one of the most depressing experiences of my life.
The game is an absolute disaster. Any element of strategy has been completely removed and winning is all about the luck of the dice.
GW has gone the same route they did with 40k and dumbed down every element of the game.
Sadly, after 15 years in the hobby, AOS is the last nail in the coffin and I now move permanently to other gaming systems.

What exactly was missing in terms of strategy? Also did you take advantage of the terrain rules and such, I find that including lots of terrain boosts the "strategy" ( if you call it that, most dice games are probability in nature and not strategy), in my opinion AoS is a skirmish d&d game... Its better to play with a theme or story... If you want strategy play a none diced game..

?

Dice means an element of random, of course AOS is almost entirely random but most wargames only use random where it makes sense.

AOS is pretty much ALL based on dice from running, to charging and even how many attacks things have etc. I have never seen a game use so many dice to decide so much, of course it has no strategy. DnD has a lot of strategy. How the classes work together, how you spend your gold and skills etc all greatly matter and every little thing in that game can be calculated. Even the casual players aren't walking into randomly placed forests with random rules moving random distances and getting random attacks. DnD, an RPG game, is far more tactical than AOS.

If you want a brain dead game AOS is definitely the way to go though.

 Swastakowey wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:

 Gandohar wrote:
I tried going in with an open mind but after playing half a dozen games or so I have to say that it was one of the most depressing experiences of my life.
The game is an absolute disaster. Any element of strategy has been completely removed and winning is all about the luck of the dice.
GW has gone the same route they did with 40k and dumbed down every element of the game.
Sadly, after 15 years in the hobby, AOS is the last nail in the coffin and I now move permanently to other gaming systems.

What exactly was missing in terms of strategy? Also did you take advantage of the terrain rules and such, I find that including lots of terrain boosts the "strategy" ( if you call it that, most dice games are probability in nature and not strategy), in my opinion AoS is a skirmish d&d game... Its better to play with a theme or story... If you want strategy play a none diced game..

?

Dice means an element of random, of course AOS is almost entirely random but most wargames only use random where it makes sense.

AOS is pretty much ALL based on dice from running, to charging and even how many attacks things have etc. I have never seen a game use so many dice to decide so much, of course it has no strategy. DnD has a lot of strategy. How the classes work together, how you spend your gold and skills etc all greatly matter and every little thing in that game can be calculated. Even the casual players aren't walking into randomly placed forests with random rules moving random distances and getting random attacks. DnD, an RPG game, is far more tactical than AOS.

If you want a brain dead game AOS is definitely the way to go though.

Yea ok... I am just going to agree to disagree on that... Its funny how you say d&d has strategy but not AoS because in AoS you have so many options on how units help each other now as well as heroes and the terrain... Either way enjoy whatever game you wish, its your fun

Hahaha ok ok mate...

AoS you have so many options on how units help each other now as well as heroes and the terrain

What wargame does not do this? In fact I will go as far to say all wargames do this better. Name a game where terrain and models don't interact to provide depth, then name a game where AOS beats others here. Tip: There is none. Can't you charge models you can't see? I am very sure there are models that can burrow into the ground and not be interacted with (good luck shifting that objective holder and or killing it) and many more broken shenanigans that make these interactions with the terrain and other models you praise pretty bad dude.

Its fine to like a terrible game dude, just at least admit it is terrible.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Simplifed rules are good for introducing new players but they don't necessarily lead to long term play value.

The sad thing for me about AOS is how limited ambition the designers showed in tearing up the old rulebooks to make something radical, new and awesome.

Compare AOS with De Bellis Antiquitatis, which had a similar ambition, to present a smaller, simpler, quicker player game that you could use with existing armies or enable you to try out small, interesting armies at lower cost than a full size army.

DBA completely changed every single aspect of the previous WRG 7th Edition rules, except for base sizes and measurement. And it resulted in a dynamic, very playable game that is still popular 25 years later.

In AOS we still have the tired old clunky combat resolution, IGOUGO made worse by potentially alternating initiative, and special rules spewing out of the Design Studio's fundament to sell new models, which are already starting to unbalance and over-complicate the game.

Thank you KilKrazy. Out of all the nerd-rage and white-knightery (and everything inbetween), this is about the best summation of AoS I've seen.

Given GW's pure size, I suspect AoS will be a something of a success. But it's just a badly designed game. Period. That said, it fits perfectly in GW's implicit (if not explicit!) business model of looking to sell as many toys to kids as possible before they move on to other things. And that's the one quibble I'd have with KilKrazy's summation. I don't think the designers showed a lack of ambition. Although I certainly don't have any direct insights into the the decisions that lead to AoS, I'd go so far as to argue that AoS was never actually intended to be a game. Honestly. It's a marketing device, and a very cynical one that fits directly into GW's "pump and dump" strategy at that, and nothing more.

Successful at bringing kids in or not, at its core, AoS is just too limited -no matter how many special rules GW throws at it- to be a good game. There's just not enough structure in the core of the rules to force players to have to make interesting choices before and during the game, and to my mind at the heart of good game design is forcing players to make interesting decisions, I would argue that interesting decisions (within the context of game design at least, but also, as an example, in poetry) are forced when decision space is limited. The AoS rules just don't impose those limitations on players probably because "interesting" in this context is also dangerously close to "hard" and "hard" doesn't sell to GW's target audience for AoS.

But, hey, a cynical marketting platform masquerading as a game may be all GW needs to meet their corporate needs.

Valete,

JohnS

I still get the feeling (or maybe just wishful thinking) that they have more to the rules planned and we're basically just paying for a beta test, and something a little more balanced will come later on after they see what folks think of the game.

 Necros wrote:
I still get the feeling (or maybe just wishful thinking) that they have more to the rules planned and we're basically just paying for a beta test, and something a little more balanced will come later on after they see what folks think of the game.

How many games have you played yourself of this 'beta test'?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Swastakowey wrote:
Hahaha ok ok mate...

AoS you have so many options on how units help each other now as well as heroes and the terrain

What wargame does not do this? In fact I will go as far to say all wargames do this better. Name a game where terrain and models don't interact to provide depth, then name a game where AOS beats others here. Tip: There is none. Can't you charge models you can't see? I am very sure there are models that can burrow into the ground and not be interacted with (good luck shifting that objective holder and or killing it) and many more broken shenanigans that make these interactions with the terrain and other models you praise pretty bad dude.

Its fine to like a terrible game dude, just at least admit it is terrible.

Correct, you can charge a unit you could not see prior to moving the charge distance roll. And this is fine. Its works well in this game.

Yes but saying the terrain works well and adds strategy to the game is incorrect when it means nothing in many situations. Like charging.

In short, more people trying to pay this crap off as good without any good reason.