Author |
Message |
 |
|
 |
Advert
|
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/07/27 17:07:39
Subject: Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Tea-Kettle of Blood
|
burningstuff wrote: Losing points, in my opinion, is the best thing that has happened to Warhammer, as no longer are models rendered useless if their points are too much and no longer does power creep matter.
I'm sorry, but what?
No, models are no longer rendered "useless" because of points, instead now every single model that isn't the absolutely best combination of stats is automatically "useless" since you don't have any incentive to use anything but the absolutely best models in your game.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/07/27 17:53:07
Subject: Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Smokin' Skorcha Driver
|
PhantomViper wrote:burningstuff wrote: Losing points, in my opinion, is the best thing that has happened to Warhammer, as no longer are models rendered useless if their points are too much and no longer does power creep matter.
I'm sorry, but what?
No, models are no longer rendered "useless" because of points, instead now every single model that isn't the absolutely best combination of stats is automatically "useless" since you don't have any incentive to use anything but the absolutely best models in your game.
Yep. I now have no need to take gnoblars, because everything else is so much better. Or High Elf Archers (since sisters are a thousand times better).
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/07/27 18:02:13
Subject: Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Been Around the Block
|
mrfantastical wrote:PhantomViper wrote:burningstuff wrote: Losing points, in my opinion, is the best thing that has happened to Warhammer, as no longer are models rendered useless if their points are too much and no longer does power creep matter.
I'm sorry, but what?
No, models are no longer rendered "useless" because of points, instead now every single model that isn't the absolutely best combination of stats is automatically "useless" since you don't have any incentive to use anything but the absolutely best models in your game.
Yep. I now have no need to take gnoblars, because everything else is so much better. Or High Elf Archers (since sisters are a thousand times better).
I do understand that perspective on it, but it's not how I view the change. I'm not so inclined to design my force to maximize the effectiveness of every unit I put down.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/07/27 18:25:46
Subject: Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
PhantomViper wrote:burningstuff wrote: Losing points, in my opinion, is the best thing that has happened to Warhammer, as no longer are models rendered useless if their points are too much and no longer does power creep matter.
I'm sorry, but what?
No, models are no longer rendered "useless" because of points, instead now every single model that isn't the absolutely best combination of stats is automatically "useless" since you don't have any incentive to use anything but the absolutely best models in your game.
True, but there are other ways of playing that don't focus on points or optimum combinations of things; this at least tries to be one of those games.
It's about scenario building, and Playing what's appropriate, within the context of the scenario.
A structure to build armies would help enormously though, but 'open ended' isn't strictly bad with the right mind set at least.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/07/27 18:56:00
Subject: Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Ladies Love the Vibro-Cannon Operator
|
Chute82 wrote:I tried AoS with my Skaven last week and the game was just awful we played rules as written. I think I had more fun getting a cavity filled by the dentist with no Novocain. Played 3 turns when my buddy and I decided it was enough. Could not imagine playing 6 turns of AoS. Our game was pretty much pile in the middle and roll 3 and 4's until something died. The game has the strategy of Yatzee with the fun factor of visiting your 100 year old great aunt at the nursing home.
This is what has been reported here and there.
A grand melee in the centre of the battlefield makes the game uninteresting after a few matches.
|
Former moderator 40kOnline
Lanchester's square law - please obey in list building!
Illumini: "And thank you for not finishing your post with a " " I'm sorry, but after 7200 's that has to be the most annoying sign-off ever."
Armies: Eldar, Necrons, Blood Angels, Grey Knights; World Eaters (30k); Bloodbound; Cryx, Circle, Cyriss |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/07/27 19:08:27
Subject: Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
I mean I know the book is expensive, but does no one play battle plans? They definitely seem to be able to add some more strategy and tactics.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/07/27 19:34:42
Subject: Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Slaanesh Chosen Marine Riding a Fiend
Maine
|
wuestenfux wrote: Chute82 wrote:I tried AoS with my Skaven last week and the game was just awful we played rules as written. I think I had more fun getting a cavity filled by the dentist with no Novocain. Played 3 turns when my buddy and I decided it was enough. Could not imagine playing 6 turns of AoS. Our game was pretty much pile in the middle and roll 3 and 4's until something died. The game has the strategy of Yatzee with the fun factor of visiting your 100 year old great aunt at the nursing home.
This is what has been reported here and there.
A grand melee in the centre of the battlefield makes the game uninteresting after a few matches.
It's almost like that's what happened back in olden times. People had to hit each other with [Danny DeVito voice] SWOOOAAARDS!
I can get why people might think mosh pitting to be a boring thing. Then again, I play Orks in 40k and love close combat over shooty battles. Same would/will apply for Fantasy/ AoS. Standing back and shooting bows/artillery for days is just as much of a snooze fest. I guess right now there's no real winning unless they make the battlefields a little bigger.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/27 19:55:39
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/07/27 19:53:24
Subject: Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord
|
Deadnight wrote:PhantomViper wrote:burningstuff wrote: Losing points, in my opinion, is the best thing that has happened to Warhammer, as no longer are models rendered useless if their points are too much and no longer does power creep matter.
I'm sorry, but what?
No, models are no longer rendered "useless" because of points, instead now every single model that isn't the absolutely best combination of stats is automatically "useless" since you don't have any incentive to use anything but the absolutely best models in your game.
True, but there are other ways of playing that don't focus on points or optimum combinations of things; this at least tries to be one of those games.
It's about scenario building, and Playing what's appropriate, within the context of the scenario.
A structure to build armies would help enormously though, but 'open ended' isn't strictly bad with the right mind set at least.
Which works wonderfully in a game like Malifaux, where you only have a handful of models per side, so the logistics of bringing everything you have and building a force for the appropriate scenario is a lot easier.
A game the scale of AoS which could potentially have a hundred models per side (not even taking into account summoning), less so.
|
    
Games Workshop Delenda Est.
Users on ignore- 53.
If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/07/27 19:59:11
Subject: Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer
Somewhere in south-central England.
|
wuestenfux wrote: Chute82 wrote:I tried AoS with my Skaven last week and the game was just awful we played rules as written. I think I had more fun getting a cavity filled by the dentist with no Novocain. Played 3 turns when my buddy and I decided it was enough. Could not imagine playing 6 turns of AoS. Our game was pretty much pile in the middle and roll 3 and 4's until something died. The game has the strategy of Yatzee with the fun factor of visiting your 100 year old great aunt at the nursing home.
This is what has been reported here and there.
A grand melee in the centre of the battlefield makes the game uninteresting after a few matches.
Some people have said this is the way to lose. It would depend on the type of units available.
Missile units tend to have worse H2H attacks and saves, so they would be best held out of the scrum until you need to apply maximum pressure. The best units to put into H2H would be the ones with the highest saves, number of wounds and bravery, to outlast the enemy while you chip them down with a combination of missile fire and melee.
Weapon range is also a factor, allowing units with longer weapons to get more models into attack. The enemy will be doing the same things to you, of course.
As far as movement goes, it's important to realise that units cannot retreat from H2H if the move would bring them closer to another enemy unit. The relative strength doesn't matter, so a Grot can block Emporer Sigmar. This means if you can charge a couple of hefty units of Oruks into Emporer Sigmar, and get a unit of Grots round behind him, the Grots can shoot up the Emporer's bum while the Oruks stick it in his face.
Magic should also be considered to (a) wear down your primary target with Magic Missile, and (b) protect your most crucial melee unit with the protect spell.
Overall there are tactics to be had, same as found in all warfare, minus most of the kind of bonuses you get for position, morale and so on.
The big imponderable is the special rules, that allow some units to summon large amounts of reinforcements, or other such way out west effects.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/07/27 20:31:38
Subject: Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Frenzied Berserker Terminator
Hatfield, PA
|
Deadnight wrote:
True, but there are other ways of playing that don't focus on points or optimum combinations of things; this at least tries to be one of those games.
It's about scenario building, and Playing what's appropriate, within the context of the scenario.
A structure to build armies would help enormously though, but 'open ended' isn't strictly bad with the right mind set at least.
'Being about scenario building' is a rationalization for poorly written rules lacking any kind of balance feature.  Any game can be used for scenario driven entertainment.
|
CSM 6k points CSM 4k points
CSM 4.5k points CSM 3.5k points
 and Daemons 4k points each
Renegades 4k points
SM 4k points
SM 2.5k Points
3K 2.3k
EW, MW and LW British in Flames of War |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/07/27 20:55:04
Subject: Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer
Somewhere in south-central England.
|
The thing about a scenario is you can take a historical scenario like say the Battle of Shiloh and translate it into WW2 or fantasy terms, to surprise the players who hopefully won't recognise it. But if the units involved in the new scenario are completely different to the historical originals, you can get a totally unbalanced result.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/07/27 22:25:27
Subject: Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Legendary Master of the Chapter
|
PhantomViper wrote:burningstuff wrote: Losing points, in my opinion, is the best thing that has happened to Warhammer, as no longer are models rendered useless if their points are too much and no longer does power creep matter.
I'm sorry, but what?
No, models are no longer rendered "useless" because of points, instead now every single model that isn't the absolutely best combination of stats is automatically "useless" since you don't have any incentive to use anything but the absolutely best models in your game.
Thank goodness I don't have to play pick up games with strangers. The idea that I'd need all my minis to have the best Stats for their type, maxed out if you will, or else Left unused, seems like such a limited way to view games. I know I'm in the extreme minority, but I really can't see how the hobby is fun with a mindset that reduces amazing miniatures of interesting characters into a series of stat lines so that the low numbers can be culled.
I'll just play with the minis I like forming the force I like. That way, I'll have fun even as they all get slaughtered.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/07/30 15:40:36
Subject: Re:Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Araqiel
|
My buddy and I played another random game yesterday.
His force: 20 chaos warriors with halberds, mounted sorcerer lord, chimera, 3 skull crushers
My force: 2x 5 hounds, 20 marauders with flails, 10 warriors with hand weapons and shields, nurgle sorcerer, 3 dragon ogres, gorebeast chariot
Roughly what happened was the dragon ogres fought the skull crushers, his unit of warriors fought my warriors, marauders, chariot and nurgle sorcerer, and his chimera ate the hounds and then flanked the big combat.
More thoughts:
-The chimera was totally and utterly overpowered. The sheer number of rending or high damage attacks it puts out in combat is bad, but then you realise that it can put out between 1 and 6 mortal wounds anywhere within 14 inches each turn... How is that fair? Admittedly, it should have destroyed the dogs, however I realised that I had nothing that could reasonably deal with it. The dragon ogres might have stood a chance, but that is assuming they were able to hit it first and luck out in doing some wounds to it before it struck first and wrecked them.
-The marauders, even at 20 models, were still utterly worthless. I basically concluded coming out of the game that I would never, ever field them. The hounds were similarly worthless. We both sort of resolved that things with no armour and low bravery were pretty useless.
-That weapons are usually rending OR damaging makes killing things with high armour and lots of wounds an exercise in futility. My dragon ogres were pretty ineffective against the skull crushers... Frankly, I'm not sure what in my army could have dealt with them effectively.
-Battleshock is pretty dumb. That you remove models and not number of wounds for battleshock seemed like it was maybe a balancing factor against units of high wound models. The phase just further makes me feel like this is Grindhammer. You do a bunch of wounds hopefully killing models, but then they lose more models to battleshock. It's a much less interesting mechanic than psychology previously, with fleeing.
-The game again felt really stale. It felt like an excuse just to roll lots of dice. Other than deployment and selection of forces, tactics didn't seem very deep. Not being able to strategize for who was going to go first in combat or who was going to get the charge off meant that all you could do was roughly position your units and then cross your fingers. Maybe this would be less of a factor in bigger games where there would be more "pivotal" combats from which you had to choose the order of attack, but in our game it was pretty trivial.
-I did not go into the game feeling ferociously competitive, gunning to absolutely win the game. Even in spite of that, I just found it entirely uninteresting. Movement was boring. Magic was boring. We had no shooting. And then combat just amounted to rolling a bunch of dice and slowly whittling away at the opponent. Where was the nuance? Where was the opportunity for high skill? I'm not denying that there isn't still strategy in the game in list selection and, to some degree, deployment and how your units engage. But it's absolutely nowhere near what fantasy used to offer.
I'm really trying to see how this game could be enjoyable, but even when playing with my best friend, it was boring.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/07/30 15:47:53
Subject: Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Raging Ravener
|
without some sort of army composition system, this game is doomed and will never be sucessful.
Hurry up GW, start adding points to your warscrolls and make restriction like rare/special/hero/core otherwise you will never see a tournament of warhammer ever again and your customers will move to other systems.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/07/30 18:04:37
Subject: Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Skriker wrote:Deadnight wrote:
True, but there are other ways of playing that don't focus on points or optimum combinations of things; this at least tries to be one of those games.
It's about scenario building, and Playing what's appropriate, within the context of the scenario.
A structure to build armies would help enormously though, but 'open ended' isn't strictly bad with the right mind set at least.
'Being about scenario building' is a rationalization for poorly written rules lacking any kind of balance feature.  Any game can be used for scenario driven entertainment.
Completely true striker. So why not use this one for scenario building as well then?
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/07/30 19:10:32
Subject: Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Slaanesh Chosen Marine Riding a Fiend
Maine
|
cyberjonesy wrote:without some sort of army composition system, this game is doomed and will never be sucessful.
Hurry up GW, start adding points to your warscrolls and make restriction like rare/special/hero/core otherwise you will never see a tournament of warhammer ever again and your customers will move to other systems.
I genuinely don't believe this game needs a point system. If they could come up with a good army construction outline, such as X scrolls with limitations on specific unit types, with max unit sizes, I think they game would be fine. Points just muddle things up in the long run.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/07/30 19:26:31
Subject: Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
Central WI
|
Jojoba can you expound on the following "movement was boring, magic was boring"?
99% of table top war games move in the same way as this game... ruler, move models for best strategic placement for shooting, assault, or objectives, etc. Magic is achieved nearly the same as 8th fantasy and 40k... pick spell, roll dice, try to deny spell, effects happen.
Yes there is no flanking but I rather like the less restrictive movements. If you want to move trays buy lotr wotr movement trays and you can still move them in squished crowded blocks.
|
IN ALAE MORTIS... On the wings of Death!! |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/07/30 19:45:03
Subject: Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Dakka Veteran
|
Movement does matter due to pile ins and weapon ranges if you get in the side of a unit theres less to hit back at you. Oh look flanking. Hit ghem front and back your opponant either splits attacks or takes a full units attack damage. how do you do this? by movement with fast units how to stop it is setting up 3" nogo zones with your own troops which require movement and thought. Oh strange these sound almost like tactics but no AoS doesn't have any. At least thats whats most people say.
Apoligies for the rant and this isnt directed at any one person.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/07/30 21:14:58
Subject: Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Storm Trooper with Maglight
Breslau
|
Please, stop saying that not caring about most min-maxed army is the way to go.
Using the very example brought here - Player A has fluffy High Elf army with archers. Quite generic, which he likes. One that typically shows up in books.
Player B has a fluffy High Elf army based on Avelorn, spamming Sisters. Less generic, but fluffy nonetheless.
No matter if it's a scenario or regular slaughterfest - Player B has an obvious, blatant advantage despite, say, same model count. Or wound count. Or whatever. What do they do next? Do they give Player A additional wounds to spend on more models? How many exactly? How many is enough, how many is too much, how many is too little? Do they reduce Player B's army? By how many wounds exactly? Et caetera.
Or maybe adjust the scenario to be a bit more in favour of Player A? But by how much? What is the right balance?
Pro tip - you don't know. They don't know either. You don't know that if you don't playtest it a dozen times with various combinations.
Point values (or any other balancing mechanism) are VITAL to wargames. Sure, you probably can come up with one or two examples of games where you don't have any, but then look at how many do have them in comparison.
I think that examples are the best at showing the issue. You can be fluffy player, you can not care about minmaxing and just be fielding a force you think is cool and it can be much, much better than your opponent's even if you're not being TFG.
As for the game - endless torrent of 4+, 3+ really hurts it. After three turns of smacking each other furiously with constant 4's and 3's I actually forgot what armies I was playing as they all felt the same (aside from monsters and heroes).
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/07/30 21:37:29
Subject: Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Legendary Master of the Chapter
|
Why is a blatant advantage a bad thing? Is the game only fun if it is a contest to determine who wins? I hear AOS doesn't support that.
I guess the problem here is trying to make the square peg fit in the round hole. AOS is an iconoclastic hipster who challenges our very assumptions about what it means to game.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/07/30 22:02:50
Subject: Re:Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Disbeliever of the Greater Good
England
|
Our group has tried Age of Sigmar a little bit and found it pretty poor at best. We are split on the Yay or Nay Question of are the "Funny" Rules any good. I like them a lot, they're pretty funny as long as you take the game in the spirit of a specialist game from GW, rather than take it as the latest edition of Fantasy. The people that weren't trying out Age of Sigmar did get pretty surprised when the Beastman player started making a gargling noise, which I think was completely worth it.
Again, we found the rules where a bit too short to solve all the rules debates that happened during the game which was disappointing, but full credit for Games Workshop for releasing rules and lists for free, regardless of quality.
What we really didn't like was the lack of magic (a problem shared by the other game we looked at, Kings of War), and the lack of real movement options to set up flanking manoeuvres and the like. We found there was a lot of big lines of units as they piled in, which lead to a lot of gridlock, which is surprising considering how much more fluid units should be. I think the fact that we started with the models on movement trays meant it wasn't brilliant for piling in, because although it felt right (wider units wrapping around smaller units), the fact that the units immediately broke coherency when units impacted felt very off for us Fantasy Players. I really think that having formations like the rumours suggested (loose, tight, square etc) would have really helped, and would have helped to stop more rules debates (and would only have required another page of rules, which could have been a nice summary sheet). Magic was very disappointing, with our Vampire Counts player pointing out how boring it was to be able to summon unit after unit with no chance of being stopped (a mass of models kept any enemy wizards completely out of range).
What we did really like where the Command Actions. It felt right that Standard Bearers and the like had to stay still and concentrate on waving a flag (or other such stuff) in order to inspire nearby troops, which meant that we really had to think about positioning, compared to fantasy when it was a lot easier to shuffle the command elements and provide good leadership to the army. We are thinking of using those command rules in Fantasy, which should help with Steadfast and the like (no gunlines in our meta, so having to move is actually important). We might play around with the attacking distance as well, which should encourage wide rather than deep units to wrap around enemy units, but it might be more work than it would be worth.
-Battleshock is pretty dumb. That you remove models and not number of wounds for battleshock seemed like it was maybe a balancing factor against units of high wound models. The phase just further makes me feel like this is Grindhammer. You do a bunch of wounds hopefully killing models, but then they lose more models to battleshock. It's a much less interesting mechanic than psychology previously, with fleeing.
As an Ogre player, I found Battleshock is pretty harsh. What doesn't help is the massive divide between a unit of multi wound models, and a single multi wound model.
No, models are no longer rendered "useless" because of points, instead now every single model that isn't the absolutely best combination of stats is automatically "useless" since you don't have any incentive to use anything but the absolutely best models in your game.
I would argue that this isn't necessarily true, simply due to people's physical collections. Whilst no-one can argue that taking 10 Chaos Marauders is as good as taking 10 Bloodthirsters, only you're physical collection will stop you from doing both. I will concede the point that there's nothing to stop you from using an "upgraded" version of a unit that has identical models - after all, why take Chaos Warriors when you can take Chaos Chosen instead? Or to go even further, why take a squad of Warriors or Chosen with the Mark of Khorne, when you could take an entire army of Khorne Hero's. My only defence against these points would be that both players can do this, which could lead to interesting situations - Army of Chaos Lords vs Army of Orc Warbosses for example would be entertaining at the very least.
I genuinely don't believe this game needs a point system. If they could come up with a good army construction outline, such as X scrolls with limitations on specific unit types, with max unit sizes, I think they game would be fine. Points just muddle things up in the long run.
I agree, I would have like to see more of a Decurion Style detachment from 40k, using the Keywords. So maybe you would have to take 1 unit with the "Core" keyword for every 1 with the "Hero" Keyword. It would add definition between the different levels of Heroes, Lords and Monsters. The whole list building aspect being removed from the game isn't brilliant as far as my groups found, although playing a game of bluff with your opponent when deciding how many models you're going to put down is a new and interesting experience
From the point of aiming Age of Sigmar at kids rather than adults - at the Library club I help out at, no interest at all has been shown about Age of Sigmar. I'm not 100% sure, but I think generally 40k tends to appeal to the kids more than fantasy stuff. I imagine as they expand the model range with the new more 40k-esque models that they might become more interested, as it seems to be the sort of things that kids like (humans in big suits of armour and all that). In particular, I think the Sigmarines will become popular with the kids, and that might lead them into looking into it, which I suppose is GW's plan.
TL-DR - Age of Sigmar isn't the worst thing ever, but if you want proper fantasy battles avoid it. Its not the game they needed to replace fantasy at the minute either. If you want a fun game by GW, then play the Fantasy expansion "Triumph & Treachery", it works for both Competitive and Casual gamers, and is likely the only version of traditional Fantasy that will be kept alive at little gaming clubs. If you want a small fantasy game, with very simplistic rules and you want a bit of a laugh, then I can see Age of Sigmar working well for you.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/07/30 22:06:55
Subject: Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle
|
Here's the thing, balance isn't necessary for a fun game. By extension points or equivalent system isn't needed for AoS to be good. But without such a system in place, AoS has alienated all of the players who wanted that. If it had a points system, then players who wanted to play without it could still do so but there is this pervasive idea that AoS somehow invented playing without points out of thin air and it is impossible to do that if the game had points. Similarly, WAAC/TFG could not be ignored in a game with points; we HAD to play against those people. But now with AoS we can walk away when they try to break the game, which we were somehow unable to do before.
To put it another way, most people want some semblance of balance in their games. A version of chess where one side has pawns instead of rooks might be fun for some folks, but would never sell as well as the version where both sides were equal.
I know what I'm saying here is an exaggeration, but regardless of one's opinion on the rules themselves we should be able to agree the total lack of a balance mechanism was not a good choice for players or for business. GW may want to be a model company with a light game on the side, but that attitude is not what made them successful in the first place, and will never sell as many models than if they had a great game alongside them.
Sidenote: AoS can have tactics, but that requires some semblance of balance first. The tactics available won't help you if my force is crushingly superior (which, as has been stated before, is possible even among friendly players trying to have a balanced game).
|
Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page
I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history.
I try to view Warhammer as more of a toolbox with examples than fully complete games. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/07/30 23:04:15
Subject: Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot
On moon miranda.
|
I haven't played AoS myself yet, or seen much of it played, but going through the rules, I wanted to add to what NinthMusketeer is saying, it's one thing to have a game without points, that's fine, but that usually doesn't jive for most people outside of trying it once or twice. The exception is when there's a scenario or story involved, with an actual narrative structure and pre-dseigned scenarios with specific units and terrain setup, or a 3rd player GM (the way say, Rogue Trader had in 1987).
AoS doesn't offer any of the latter really, it's still fundamentally approaching actual play from something of an easy "pickup" perspective, without wanting to shoulder the responsibility for balance, while ostensibly wanting to be more of a "narrative" or "cinematic" experience but without providing any tools or structure for narrative construction.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/30 23:05:35
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/07/30 23:11:19
Subject: Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
Maryland
|
Vaktathi wrote:I haven't played AoS myself yet, or seen much of it played, but going through the rules, I wanted to add to what NinthMusketeer is saying, it's one thing to have a game without points, that's fine, but that usually doesn't jive for most people outside of trying it once or twice. The exception is when there's a scenario or story involved, with an actual narrative structure and pre-dseigned scenarios with specific units and terrain setup, or a 3rd player GM (the way say, Rogue Trader had in 1987).
AoS doesn't offer any of the latter really, it's still fundamentally approaching actual play from something of an easy "pickup" perspective, without wanting to shoulder the responsibility for balance, while ostensibly wanting to be more of a "narrative" or "cinematic" experience but without providing any tools or structure for narrative construction.
This is a big concern I have. We've seen plenty of people claim that AoS is a great "narrative" game, but there's nothing there that supports a narrative in the game beyond what the players make themselves. And at that stage, any wargame becomes a "narrative" experience. And there are other games that do more to support that play style.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/07/31 00:45:11
Subject: Re:Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Grim Rune Priest in the Eye of the Storm
|
So what I am reading as one of the issues is once melee starts it become a confusing mess of most everyone for themselves in the middle of the battle field.
Sound like every War I was in with my Medieval Recreation Group.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/07/31 01:07:17
Subject: Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Legendary Master of the Chapter
|
NinthMusketeer wrote:Here's the thing, balance isn't necessary for a fun game. By extension points or equivalent system isn't needed for AoS to be good. But without such a system in place, AoS has alienated all of the players who wanted that. If it had a points system, then players who wanted to play without it could still do so but there is this pervasive idea that AoS somehow invented playing without points out of thin air and it is impossible to do that if the game had points. Similarly, WAAC/ TFG could not be ignored in a game with points; we HAD to play against those people. But now with AoS we can walk away when they try to break the game, which we were somehow unable to do before.
To put it another way, most people want some semblance of balance in their games. A version of chess where one side has pawns instead of rooks might be fun for some folks, but would never sell as well as the version where both sides were equal.
I know what I'm saying here is an exaggeration, but regardless of one's opinion on the rules themselves we should be able to agree the total lack of a balance mechanism was not a good choice for players or for business. GW may want to be a model company with a light game on the side, but that attitude is not what made them successful in the first place, and will never sell as many models than if they had a great game alongside them.
Sidenote: AoS can have tactics, but that requires some semblance of balance first. The tactics available won't help you if my force is crushingly superior (which, as has been stated before, is possible even among friendly players trying to have a balanced game).
Obviously abandoning everything their long term customers loved about WHF was a mistake if they care about repeat customers or word of mouth. However, AOS can still have its own merits once one gets past that. If one gets past that.
I expect to see gamers using KoW rules for their armies and only supporting the GW products they find worthwhile, such as FW or 40k starter sets.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/07/31 01:34:22
Subject: Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Enigmatic Chaos Sorcerer
|
Maybe they don't care because they figure KoW converts are just going to keep buying GW models to maintain the aesthetic of their armies.
|
BlaxicanX wrote:A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/07/31 01:47:18
Subject: Re:Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Furious Fire Dragon
In my game room playing Specialist GW games
|
AoS has caused my entire gaming group to give up completely on Games Workshop games. They are all in the process of trading or selling their stuff for other games or money. They find absolutely nothing exciting or interesting about AoS because it reminds them of playing like a little kid with his G I Joe action figures. Basically this: friend 1. "I shot your guy with my big super laser, he's dead!" friend 2. "Nuh uh!, he's got a laser shield that stops ALL lasers from hurting him. Your shot bounces off and back to you! Now your guy is dead!" friend 1." No way! cuz my guns don't hurt my guys!" friend 2." Uh huh! because when it bounced off, it took part of my guys energy with it so my energy hurts him! Your guy is dead!" friend 1." Nuh uh! because my guy dodges out of the way of the ricocheting shot!" friend 2." My energy has tracking. It tracks where your guy dodges and hits him. He's dead!" friend 1 " No, because........" That's about the extent of the way they feel AoS is. After years of playing GW games they have just grown tired of the way Gw does things and have moved on to Star Wars Armada, Wild West Exodus, Warmachine, Hordes, and any other non GW game that they find interesting. They won't even consider playing any of the specialist games I have because there won't be any new miniatures coming out for them. So thanks GW.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/31 01:53:56
"Khorne is a noble warrior who respects strength and bravery, who takes no joy in destroying the weak, and considers the helpless unworthy of his wrath. It is said that fate will spare any brave warrior who calls upon Khorne's name and pledges his soul to the blood god. It is also said that Khorne's daemons will hunt down and destroy any warrior who betrays his honour by killing a helpless innocent or murdering in cold blood..."
from the Renegades supplement for Epic Space Marine, page 54-55
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/07/31 01:52:16
Subject: Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps
|
Your group has a very poor understanding of the rules if they think there's any level of that stuff going on. Or, they should at least be saying the same thing about any of the other wargames they play...
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/07/31 02:00:25
Subject: Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Furious Fire Dragon
In my game room playing Specialist GW games
|
Rihgu wrote:Your group has a very poor understanding of the rules if they think there's any level of that stuff going on. Or, they should at least be saying the same thing about any of the other wargames they play... No, they just think the rules are that stupid. And considering I have read the rules and seen the silly things in the game such as getting re-rolls to dwarfs to hit rolls because you have a longer beard than your opponent, they aren't far wrong. It doesn't matter if those rules are simply a get you by list, they are still the only current rules set. And that is just too much for some people.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/07/31 02:01:53
"Khorne is a noble warrior who respects strength and bravery, who takes no joy in destroying the weak, and considers the helpless unworthy of his wrath. It is said that fate will spare any brave warrior who calls upon Khorne's name and pledges his soul to the blood god. It is also said that Khorne's daemons will hunt down and destroy any warrior who betrays his honour by killing a helpless innocent or murdering in cold blood..."
from the Renegades supplement for Epic Space Marine, page 54-55
|
|
 |
 |
|