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.

bitethythumb wrote:


I believe the "spat" in their face comment is in regards to end times and how storm of chaos was great and end times was not... hence my comment, seriously do you have anything to contribute or are you just going to critique what I type...

Just read the posts you're replying too and you won't have people jumping at your throat. If you read such a post:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Huh? Storm of Chaos was great! Dogs of War were still a faction and they did their part.

Storm of Chaos was awesome - until GW retconned everything and spat on everyone's face :(

...and then think that the post was about End Times or anything...well...don't be surprised at people doubting your posting capabilities.

 infinite_array wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:
still if we want to be pedantic like you are, what does storm of chaos have to do with AoS and our opinions, impressions, reviews of it? or do you just like to throw sand in GWs face every chance you get.

The quote was originally confronting a claim that GW "loves campaigns and tables." While they certainly love tables - especially when populated with GW battleboards and terrain - their only campaign didn't end they way they wanted it to, so instead of following through with the results as promised, it was completely scrapped and thrown out. So hoping for GW to run another campaign seems like a poor place to put one's confidence.

makes sense now, good point, my mistake still, campaigns are really pointless if you ask me...they serve no purpose especially if they somehow affect the universe in question, which I guess why GW did the turn around


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:


I believe the "spat" in their face comment is in regards to end times and how storm of chaos was great and end times was not... hence my comment, seriously do you have anything to contribute or are you just going to critique what I type...

Just read the posts you're replying too and you won't have people jumping at your throat. If you read such a post:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Huh? Storm of Chaos was great! Dogs of War were still a faction and they did their part.

Storm of Chaos was awesome - until GW retconned everything and spat on everyone's face :(

...and then think that the post was about End Times or anything...well...don't be surprised at people doubting your posting capabilities.

you can doubt... you can also explain the mistake in a polite and friendly manner instead of just "what are you contributing" I mean I said nothing insulting or tried to in any way.... was my comment a mistake, sure, but you do not have to hump my post like I am a plague.... anyways, back to topic if you please, this conversation has ran its course

The structure of the new setting seems flexible enough that campaigns could have an effect without really having any effect, sort of like 40k (which I think was part of the plan of course).

 Manchu wrote:
The structure of the new setting seems flexible enough that campaigns could have an effect without really having any effect, sort of like 40k (which I think was part of the plan of course).

Easily! There are seven elemental planes to play with, each of which apparently is infinite. GW can do a campaign on the plane of fire, and if it goes very well for Chaos, an Order attack can start to overwhelm the plane of water.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ashitaka wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'm sure GW will do a scenario book for AoS,with restrictions and requirements for each force, along with scenario objectives. That's the only way this game works.

I'm also sure GW will have a campaign book, because, as you note, GW loves campaigns and tables.

The first campaign book they've released has these scenarios but there's no restrictions or requirements for each force.
The only thing is says in some cases is that if you're the larger force you have to take role X (attacker/defender) in this scenario.

Well, that is a bit of a bummer.

I had reckoned that at least the official scenarios would give us a guide on unit strength and match ups.

But it sounds like these 'scenarios' are very limited. What is in them if not an order of battle? Just a sort of objective?

 Manchu wrote:
The structure of the new setting seems flexible enough that campaigns could have an effect without really having any effect, sort of like 40k (which I think was part of the plan of course).

how so? I can sorta get 40k working (its so bloody big that anything can happen on any planet and have 0 affect on any other planet, apart from nids) like that and maybe AoS a little bit (Realms having their own conflicts etc, but its still limited... personally after reading some things I am not that pleased with the space station realms, would have made more sense to move everything to the warp and just have the map of the warp and each god/gods have their own territories always in conflict

Ashitaka wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'm sure GW will do a scenario book for AoS,with restrictions and requirements for each force, along with scenario objectives. That's the only way this game works.

I'm also sure GW will have a campaign book, because, as you note, GW loves campaigns and tables.

The first campaign book they've released has these scenarios but there's no restrictions or requirements for each force.
The only thing is says in some cases is that if you're the larger force you have to take role X (attacker/defender) in this scenario.

I haven't seen the book, but that is disappointing if they aren't leveraging the keywords to create scenarios. Consider the classic 7 Samurai scenario - specify exactly 7 non-Monster Characters for the one side. How hard is that? or a Monster Hunter scenario where it specifies exactly 1 Monster for the side. I'm rather shocked GW doesn't have this, because it drives sales of extra Characters in the first case and/or a Monster in the second.

Oh well, it's not like players can't create something.

There's a hint of that in one of the new scenarios. One requires two generals and another has a bonus if you take a Totem.

I expect it'll be more common as new models are realised.

Edit: If you have any specific questions on those scenarions, ask away.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Noir wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

AoS definitely works as a game, and it's actually better balanced than one might guess. GW is going with non-traditional, non-numerical balancing, and that is throwing pepole like you for a loop. GW is also going for a "looser", more dynamic game, with the historical constraints of a Igo-Ugo system to allow for large multi-player per sides..

And people like you don't get is some of us play game with no point value.

Can you translate that broken English into standard English, using shorter sentences that actually makes some sense to someone who natively reads English? Thanks.

As in there are many non-point system out there, has been for years. So it is not hard to see how bad GW failed at AoS using the same concept. We already seen what AoS idea of missions is. GW failed.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

Ashitaka wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I'm sure GW will do a scenario book for AoS,with restrictions and requirements for each force, along with scenario objectives. That's the only way this game works.

I'm also sure GW will have a campaign book, because, as you note, GW loves campaigns and tables.

The first campaign book they've released has these scenarios but there's no restrictions or requirements for each force.
The only thing is says in some cases is that if you're the larger force you have to take role X (attacker/defender) in this scenario.

I haven't seen the book, but that is disappointing if they aren't leveraging the keywords to create scenarios. Consider the classic 7 Samurai scenario - specify exactly 7 non-Monster Characters for the one side. How hard is that? or a Monster Hunter scenario where it specifies exactly 1 Monster for the side. I'm rather shocked GW doesn't have this, because it drives sales of extra Characters in the first case and/or a Monster in the second.

Oh well, it's not like players can't create something.

I think the whole point is for players to make their own, the first book has a solo play scenario of no quarter that could easily be adapted into 7 samurai style (great movie choice by the way)

I read the scenarios from the book and yes, they are quite generic. To be honest, that's nothing really astounding - and nothing any player with a few imagination can write by himself.

Anyone can do the job of the Studio, now. To be honest, I feel like the books they will produce for AoS will only have an interest for the background. Everything else, you can do it by yourself - yes, even the warscrolls.

Rules for the "realms" are the same, IMHO.

I think I will just take the models. That's the only thing I can't make by myself...for now.


About campaigns...the first interest of a campaign is to have a background and linked games, telling a story by playing them after the other. It has, of course, a beginning and an end. Most campaigns are local, made by players for players, and generally the story is also local - it can have an impact on the Warhammer universe, but since it is local, another player group can have a very different story.

That's why most campaigns usually happen in a remote location or a totally new continent (sometimes, even a different world). The GW Studio loves campaigns; you can see they are used to play games that have a story behind and may be linked together. Maybe you don't remember the other campaign books they released (no, there wasn't "just" Storm of Chaos), but I do.

The thing behind Storm of Chaos was to make a world event. Like all campaigns, it had a beginning and an end. And even so its ending wasn't kept in the following books...it was mostly because they "stopped" the story just before the events of Storm of Chaos. So that players could redo their own campaign on that event, with a different ending. Maybe.

That was also the same for the Nemesis Crown campaign. The ending wasn't "world breaking" as well. End Times series was, on the other hand...and you could say it was a campaign in design.


Yes, GW loves campaigns. That's not for nothing they keep talking about "Forging the Narrative". Rules aren't important in a campaign...it's the story told through the battles that matters. Yeah, sure, it's not always written in all the books...but it's remembered by the main actors; the players who played it. And that's all that is really important.

@Sarouan - I agree: glancing through the book, the most value seems to be the fluff/background.

This is not really that different from a lot of the other campaign sets from GW -- even when they have rules, the rules are a miniscule portion of the "value" (yes, you really want the formation... but it's one page out of 200).

I agree with you totally that GW loves its campaigns Which is okay with me, though in 40k, we prefer to create our own than to play the GW ones. In AoS, if we ever do really spend a significant amount of time playing it, I imagine it would be the same. However, if we *don't* spend a lot of time playing it, there is the possibility that a premade campaign that we can just chip away at every now and then without a lot of planning and forethought would be fun to do.

Yes, maybe I expected too much from their big book. It's really too generic to me...sure, we have rules to play battles in the Realms of Fire and Life, but I wanted more from the scenarios. Not just generic ones that tell me the same things than in the main rules; "play whatever you want".

I'd like to answer to GW: "Thank you, Captain Obvious. I'm not paying you for that."

I hope they will not do what I think they're trying to; big books with warscrolls only to be found in those and the same generic scenarios so that "everyone can play whatever they want". If they really wish to take the "no points" road, then they better go at full speed on it and give real tools so that we can enjoy what they want us to truly enjoy - not that half-assed attitude.

Rules of AoS are fine as long as they are free. If we have to pay for them...that's a completely different question; because they're not worth paying anything. And yes, that include the warscrolls, scenarios and "realm rules". However, new background, awesome drawing, tools for true campaigns making...a bit like a RPG Game Master's Guide, now that will be really interesting to buy.

These are all very good points about how GW could have done this and that in their campaign books to boost sales of such and such but, to be honest, I think the main aim of these campaign books is not to sell more models but to sell more, well, campaign books. GW can produce these books at little time or money expense and I'm sure they'll be making a decent profit. People will buy them, so they'll just keep on churning out generic campaign at silly prices.

 Sarouan wrote:
I read the scenarios from the book and yes, they are quite generic. To be honest, that's nothing really astounding - and nothing any player with a few imagination can write by himself.

Anyone can do the job of the Studio, now. To be honest, I feel like the books they will produce for AoS will only have an interest for the background. Everything else, you can do it by yourself - yes, even the warscrolls.

Players can create warscrolls, made easier because GW released a full range of warscrolls that define the characteristics of various units from grot to giant. I'm in the process of creating and Alpha-testing a set of Dogs of War warscrolls for my personal use, corresponding to the models I own. It wasn't too difficult at all, but it sure would have been nice if GW had just released the blank unit warscroll templates.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sarouan wrote:
Rules of AoS are fine as long as they are free. If we have to pay for them...that's a completely different question; because they're not worth paying anything. And yes, that include the warscrolls, scenarios and "realm rules".

As I said earlier, I would gladly have paid $25 to have GW print and bind *ALL* of the AoS materials into a single A4-sized volume. It would have saved me a lot of trouble downloading and printing. My time and eyesight are worth that much.

Gotta say the app truly is top-notch. Perfectly executed.

 Sigvatr wrote:
Gotta say the app truly is top-notch. Perfectly executed.

Except...don't you have to pay for any of the new content? Even if you've bought a hardcover or iTunes version already?

PirateRobotNinjaofDeath wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
Gotta say the app truly is top-notch. Perfectly executed.

Except...don't you have to pay for any of the new content? Even if you've bought a hardcover or iTunes version already?

Only for formations. You can use any model with the free warscrolls.

My buddy and I played an incredibly disorganized and random game of the new rules to try them out. On my side was: a chaos sorcerer lord, 10 chaos warriors with hand weapons and shields, 10 marauders with flails, and a gorebeast chariot. My friend put down 10 gladeguard, 5 chaos knights, a khorne lord on a juggernaut, and 10 skeletons. We weren't really aiming at balance or armies that made sense, we just threw down some things we had lying around.

My/our thoughts:
-The simplification of the to hit and wound rolls wasn't noticeably bad at all.
-It wasn't terrible. The way I felt about the game after it was over was that had I never played warhammer before and had no previous expectations or experience, I would not have said I had a bad time.
-Pretty much every infantry option fielded was terrible. The marauders were abysmal. They ended up fighting the glade guard and lost due to the gladeguard being able to attack essentially twice a round, once shooting in combat and once in the actual melee. The skeletons were similarly bad, however their high bravery meant that at least they didn't just melt in the battleshock phase (which is pretty ironic, given that's what they used to do through their mediocre combat ability and instability). We messed up with the warriors, not realising that they had 2 wounds each, which meant that they were destroyed by the knights rather quickly. However even had we played it correctly, their ability to put out damage with the hand weapon option was pretty disappointing. Their shields did not seem like a great advantage over having another weapon type.
-The chaos knights were totally ridiculous. Three wounds each and putting out 5 attacks each saw them melt anything they hit. We both agreed they were way too good compared to everything else.
-The characters didn't have a huge impact. His lord died to a combination of lucky rolling by the chariot and being finished off by a magic missile from the sorcerer. Once he had eliminated the other character, the sorcerer seemed pretty inconsequential. The magic missile only really seemed worth using on characters or monsters. The armour buff seemed like a better option. The particular chaos buff spell didn't seem effective. However I noticed after about summoning...
-...which is totally ridiculous. The summoning rules are absolutely over the top. All you have to do is roll a 6 on two dice and suddenly you have 10 bloodletters? Huh? A 9 and you have a lord of change? I don't see how this is "fair" to anyone except GW stockholders.
-There is no more balance. We had read of people talking about using wound counts for balance, however even that seemed ineffective. There was no way that three gladeguard/skeletons/marauders were comparable to a chaos knight, and don't even get me started on models like nagash.
-Being unable to predict who would go first in the charging phase made movement pretty weird. You were sort of at a loss as to whether you should position your unit to charge or not. However, as it seemed that charging itself was relatively inconsequential, barring for units with charge related rules. The careful position and movement of fantasy seemed pretty much dead, replaced by: "do I want this unit in combat? yes? move forward. no? stay back." I realise that with the retreat rule and counter engaging with fresh units, there is a tiny degree of nuance. But it is a pale shadow to what warhammer used to be.
-The game seemed really, really simple. With movement all but unimportant and psychology/fleeing gone, the game didn't seem like much beyond smushing units together and trying to out roll your opponent. I was trying to imagine how scenarios would improve the game, but again, due to the simple movement and psychology rules, I don't see how every game isn't just going to turn into a series of slow boring combats.

All in all, I now recognize how someone who just wanted a really simple game or someone who had never played warhammer before might like this game. However, I'm at a loss as to how anyone who liked what warhammer was before would enjoy AoS. It was not warhammer. Nothing about it except the unit names was warhammer'y, and even that seems to be on the chopping block as GW's release schedule advances over the next two years.

Jojo, thanks for the insight.
A major issue is that maneuvering important in Fantasy is gone and what the new game has to offer is large combat phases.
This is what the game makes boring. Scenarios as in WMH, steamroller, might be useful.

 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:

-...which is totally ridiculous. The summoning rules are absolutely over the top. All you have to do is roll a 6 on two dice and suddenly you have 10 bloodletters? Huh? A 9 and you have a lord of change? I don't see how this is "fair" to anyone except GW stockholders.

summoning is risky because at the end of the game they count as lost dead units even if they all remain standing, making summoning very tricky, you CAN summon and kill your opponent but you will more or less lose the game itself, if you count how many dead on each side that is... if that was your means of deciding who wins.

IMO opinion it made summoning better as now you have to think carefully about what you summon and why because at the end they are lost points.... I do agree (after a few more games) that it does become a free for all pile in but I am looking more and more at little things (like keeping units closer when away from melee, like ranked, to keep them further away getting shot, and then spreading them out when nearer to melee to block paths etc) that enhance/change tactics... I am also looking at combining or mixing units of different armies for different effects... like VC necromancers and TK skeletons (achers, tomb guard, riders) as a wound damper... as well as using terrain rules to change things up.

good review though, play more and tell more.

bitethythumb wrote:
...on summoning...

That's a really good rebuttal. I had not thought about any of that. I guess it raises hope that with scenarios the game might become more fleshed out.

I'm sort of on the fence about the game though. My buddy and I both pretty much agreed that unless buying the new stuff coming out (Sigmarines or the not warriors of chaos warriors of chaos), there isn't much incentive to buy anything right now. My understanding of the first AoS book is that the scenarios are only for the two new factions. That is worrying for the game going forward.

I'm presently debating selling off all of my chaos dwarfs for a clean slate. I do feel a bit dirty at the prospect of making a new big investment from GW after their invalidating my existing army as a supported thing. A part of me is debating simply leaving gaming. Warhammer was my toe in the sand holding me from drifting away on the current. Now it's done...

 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:
...on summoning...

That's a really good rebuttal. I had not thought about any of that. I guess it raises hope that with scenarios the game might become more fleshed out.

I'm sort of on the fence about the game though. My buddy and I both pretty much agreed that unless buying the new stuff coming out (Sigmarines or the not warriors of chaos warriors of chaos), there isn't much incentive to buy anything right now. My understanding of the first AoS book is that the scenarios are only for the two new factions. That is worrying for the game going forward.

I'm presently debating selling off all of my chaos dwarfs for a clean slate. I do feel a bit dirty at the prospect of making a new big investment from GW after their invalidating my existing army as a supported thing. A part of me is debating simply leaving gaming. Warhammer was my toe in the sand holding me from drifting away on the current. Now it's done...

Don't leave wargaming. Outside the GW bubble its a golden age of gaming. There are so many awesome games from companies that don't actually despise you.

 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:

I'm presently debating selling off all of my chaos dwarfs for a clean slate. I do feel a bit dirty at the prospect of making a new big investment from GW after their invalidating my existing army as a supported thing. A part of me is debating simply leaving gaming. Warhammer was my toe in the sand holding me from drifting away on the current. Now it's done...

I see I'm not the only one who feels that way. Sad, ain't it?

 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:
I do feel a bit dirty at the prospect of making a new big investment from GW after their invalidating my existing army as a supported thing.

You don't have to buy from GW. There's a huge second hand market out there waiting for your investment. Alternatively...well...the three gaming clubs of us make scheduled appointments when all members (~80-100) hand in lists and order at...Asian...sellers.

2nd hand is very good too, though, if you don't want to wait for the long shipping times.

 jojo_monkey_boy wrote:

bitethythumb wrote:
...on summoning...

That's a really good rebuttal. I had not thought about any of that. I guess it raises hope that with scenarios the game might become more fleshed out.

I'm sort of on the fence about the game though. My buddy and I both pretty much agreed that unless buying the new stuff coming out (Sigmarines or the not warriors of chaos warriors of chaos), there isn't much incentive to buy anything right now. My understanding of the first AoS book is that the scenarios are only for the two new factions. That is worrying for the game going forward.

I'm presently debating selling off all of my chaos dwarfs for a clean slate. I do feel a bit dirty at the prospect of making a new big investment from GW after their invalidating my existing army as a supported thing. A part of me is debating simply leaving gaming. Warhammer was my toe in the sand holding me from drifting away on the current. Now it's done...

No, each scenario is preceded by a fluff section describing an instance of a battle using the scenario (the Sigmarines are assaulting a Khornate watchtower, for the Watchtower scenario), but the rules are fluff-agnostic. That is, nothing about the scenario says "use 5 Sigmarines and 20 Khorne Bloodmen". Several of the scenarios even give a reassuring "don't worry, we say that the Bloodmarines fought the Sigmarian Titans here, but you can also fight with, IDK, dwarfs or whatever against orcs".

Jojo - Mantic have a fully supported Abyssal Dwarf list that you should be able to work your Chaos Dwarves into without problem. At least give it a try before selling the minis or quitting.

My advise, too. Using Mantic rules and Old World fluff actually supports some WHFB armies better than GW has done, and the Mantic switch costs Warhammer players absolutely nothing right now, and only 40 bucks for both lists and full rules when the hardcover rules (less for softcover) come out in a month.

If you want to keep playing Age of Sigmar you could just write up your own battlescrolls for your chaos dwarf units. Since there aren't any points costs you can't really get it wrong unless you somehow make a unit unbeatable.

Well, for foreseeable future you can use official scrolls for chaos dwarfs once FW puts them up. As for later... wait and see what happens with dwarfs in AoS.

Or go KoW and not worry about, if your army will be removed from the system your playing.