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) 2015/08/06 10:57:52
Subject: Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Manchu wrote:Still no. PCs can try and fail. Tragic stories can be intensely interesting to play out.
That's fine; that's your opinion man. But I'm telling you, that a game includes RPGs and all games have victory conditions. Like I said earlier, if a game goes outside this definition, it's no longer a game.
If you are goofing around, that's your objective, that's your victory condition but its probably less about the external game and more about an internal, mental victory. If you want to have fun (be amused), then that's fine, but what's amusing to you is still a qualification - a condition set to bring you joy - a thing to achieve (to win).
I could elaborate but it may digress into materialism vs Christianity.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/06 10:58:55
Age of Sigmar - It's sorta like a clogged toilet, where the muck crests over the rim and onto the floor. Somehow 'ground marines' were created from this...
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/06 12:09:39
Subject: Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
I agree. Of course someone can have fun playing AoS. It can be someones happies day of their life. They play AoS and suddenly they get news about winning Power Ball. But having actual fun not from spending time with people you would have fun anyway, is much harder to get.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/06 14:36:28
Subject: Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
kveldulf wrote:But I'm telling you, that a game includes RPGs and all games have victory conditions.
Yet you have failed to name one. It seems like you are using words like "win" and "victory" really imprecisely to encompass the phenomenon of having fun/enjoying oneself.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/06 14:37:00
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/06 18:17:58
Subject: Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Manchu wrote: kveldulf wrote:But I'm telling you, that a game includes RPGs and all games have victory conditions.
Yet you have failed to name one. It seems like you are using words like "win" and "victory" really imprecisely to encompass the phenomenon of having fun/enjoying oneself.
In RPGs, there is a concept of "winning/losing" for the player characters. They can succeed or fail in their quest. It can mean their death or not. It can mean the story keeps on, with consequences happening because of their acts.
But, yes, you can have a feeling of "winning/losing" in a RPG. The GM/ DM is just here to tell what happens with the PC/"Heroes" actions.
Of course, there are very different kinds of RPGs. In Dungeon and Dragons, it often begins with the classic story of adventurers going into a dungeon or something to kill monsters and gain treasure. That kind of story has obvious "victory conditions" for the player characters. The thing is, the story doesn't have to end if they "fail" in their expedition.
This is the same for wargames. Losing a battle doesn't mean losing the war. The campaign can go on, though it can have some consequences for the winning side and the losing side in the next battles...
I find it strange people talk about "fun" and "enjoying themselves" while saying they "play with each other" in what is, in design, a competitive game. In AoS, each player plays against the other with their respective armies. It is then very clear there is a winner and a loser in that game. Sure, you can play "with" the other players - that's what we call a cooperative game, when they are not in competition with each other and have to play together to achieve a common purpose.
That's not the kind of game AoS is - at least, not as the rules are presented. You have to make house rules to do that - and if you can do that for AoS, you can do that with any other game in the world.
After all, you can't tell people who can win or lose to decide by themselves which is fair and which is balanced - because they are directly concerned by this "win/lose" situation. In RPG, there is a DM/ GM who can do that. Not in wargames...at least, not in the game presented by GW until now. They never talk about the possibility of using a GM, nowhere. And I'm really talking about AoS official publications (yes, I know, it's quite easy since they're not that many).
Of course you can have fun with AoS, be it if you win or if you lose! If not, there wouldn't be any battle reports/reviews saying the game is fun. But don't picture the game for what it isn't. That's really not helping you defending the game as it is, truly...and I'm saying this as someone who is interested to see where AoS will go.
|
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2015/08/06 18:25:23
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/06 18:28:19
Subject: Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
Sarouan wrote:there is a concept of "winning/losing" for the player characters
But the PCs aren't playing a game. They are living and dying. The players are the ones who are playing the game at which they can neither win nor lose. This is a dramatic example of how a game can be play-oriented rather than outcome-oriented. AoS, which can be won and lost, still strikes me as more play-oriented than outcome-oriented because its design does not really test or reward mastery of the rules; there's too much randomness in there for the winner to say, clearly my skill by and large determined the outcome. So instead, the point must be to just enjoy how the battle unfolds.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/08/06 18:29:21
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/06 19:23:11
Subject: Re:Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
The player characters are avatars for players behind them.
And even so, in their "story"...there IS a concept of "winning" and "losing". It's just not a game for these characters - it has harsh consequences. The winners live, the losers die...or wish they did.
Well, maybe not all the time. Even in reality, there are "winners" and "losers". That happens all the time, and some people thinking that way don't take that as a game but as the very core of their life. They "win" if they succeed. If they lose...well, they lose. Some would rather be dead instead. Others take that as a lesson and live with that...until they "win".
About the players, they can have a feeling of "winning" or "losing" the game. In my actual campaign where I play a halfling knight (not the half of a human knight, by the way  ), the last play we had was having to take care of a troll nest that was plaguing the region we were protecting (and also ruling). We fought our way to their boss and managed to kill them. We had a feeling of winning, here...managing to defeat the trolls and removing a serious threat to our subjects. If we had to retreat because we attacked too brashly, then we will have the feeling to have lost here - even if it didn't mean the death of our characters and still could try another time, there was no guarantee the trolls would stay here and do nothing. There would have been consequences, one and none the less the rumors running around our realm that their rulers were defeated by the rampaging trolls and couldn't do anything.
I know it's kinda a view of the mind, but still, the concept is here - and the feeling is the same. We could still have fun in either situation, by the way - it has nothing to do with winning or losing. But the feelings would be not exactly the same (it's always nicer to win than to lose, after all  ).
AoS could be seen as more play-oriented, but that's not how everyone has to see that. For myself, I'd rather say we are forced to be quite casual and easy-going with this game because it can't really be taken seriously - it has too many holes and can be easily exploited to a ridiculous point. I'm not sure it's really designed this way - I wouldn't dare to say the Design Studio are such great game designers as some people would think they are, especially Jervis Johnson - but what I'm sure of is that AoS is a support so that you can play your collection. The heart of the system is to be able to take anything you want with your collection and have fun with it on the table.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/06 19:24:10
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/06 19:34:27
Subject: Re:Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
Sarouan wrote:The player characters are avatars for players behind them.
No more so than characters in a play are avatars for the actors, which is to say not at all really. Sarouan wrote:The heart of the system is to be able to take anything you want with your collection and have fun with it on the table.
Yes, I think we agree on that point.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/08/06 20:19:21
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/07 09:11:52
Subject: Re:Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Manchu wrote: Sarouan wrote:The player characters are avatars for players behind them.
No more so than characters in a play are avatars for the actors, which is to say not at all really. Sarouan wrote:The heart of the system is to be able to take anything you want with your collection and have fun with it on the table.
Yes, I think we agree on that point.
Regarding the play/actor comment; the script is not written completely in an RPG. The characters are not already finished/fleshed out, but are still being written. It is utterly different than in a play, unless the play had actors rolling dice vs each other or at the system. I'm confused as to what you're trying to say with that example.
And about a good system: I agree somewhat, but a good system won't so much enable anything in your collection, rather, allow for the most mutually tasteful/fitting things (in relation to the universe being portrayed).
When you said in an earlier post "The players are the ones who are playing the game at which they can neither win nor lose." that's a contradictory statement. A 'player' is a person participating in some system of rules which involves success/failure. You can argue that all you want, but words like 'player' has a definition/connotation in the English language; It logically infers victory/defeat, win/loss, success/failure. The act of playing is one of many objective actions.
|
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/08/07 09:31:09
Age of Sigmar - It's sorta like a clogged toilet, where the muck crests over the rim and onto the floor. Somehow 'ground marines' were created from this...
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/07 10:17:46
Subject: Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Raging Rat Ogre
|
My impressions of AoS:
* The fluff is terrible.
* The new unit and model names are embarrassingly overblown, but Warhammer was already heading that way with its overblown terrain names (Skullvane Manse? Really?)
* The new models are weirdly scaled to deliberately kill off their old product line.
* The new models actually look fantastic.
* There are some silly rules which, if we lighten up for a moment, are actually quite fun, and definitely in keeping with the universe it's set it.
* There are far fewer restrictions.
* The rules are much easier to learn.
* The unit warscrolls are far more convenient than lugging army books around and flipping back to the rulebook.
* Army books are now free - Warhammer 40,000 codices are reaching 45 quid.
* The spirit of the game revolves around co-operation and human interaction instead of charts and rulebooks, so that is highly appealing to me.
* The game can be played using existing Warhammer armies, which is very good news.
* The startup cost for new players is minimal, relatively speaking.
* Complaints about the points system going AWOL assume that the points system ever worked in the first place, and there were lots of complaints about points values in the past.
* Complaints about people spamming the most powerful units assume people already own large numbers of such models or are going to go out and buy them purely to win games, which is highly unlikely due to prohibitive financial cost and also prohibitive points cost under the Warhammer rules - and it would also breach the ethics of AoS which seem to be its primary selling point.
All in all, if you disregard the loss of Warhammer, which I still believe is the fault of the gamers, AoS is not that bad a prospect for someone such as myself who wants to get back into the hobby, or who wants to start it.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/07 10:24:38
Upcoming work for 2022:
* Calgar's Barmy Pandemic Special
* Battle Sisters story (untitled)
* T'au story: Full Metal Fury
* 20K: On Eagles' Wings
* 20K: Gods and Daemons
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/07 10:20:12
Subject: Re:Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer
Somewhere in south-central England.
|
I think the RPG thing is a bit of a red herring and I regret introducing it.
We all understand I am sure that the most common pattern of a wargame is two sides with a violent competitive/combative dynamic ending in either win/loss or more rarely a draw. This is not the most common pattern of an RPG.
Sometimes a team of players will run both sides of a wargame together in a simulation to explore what might have happened if Napoleon did not occupy Moscow in 1812 or other What Ifs of history. However it is more common for the players to run one side each against each other.
To the extent that any battle or game has a series of events that involve troops and can be recorded and related as a battle diary, it is a narrative.
When GW talk about forging a narrative, I think they mean that the players are supposed to get emotionally bound up in the developing action, as if watching a drama rather than a documentary about the same battle.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/07 14:54:06
Subject: Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Grim Rune Priest in the Eye of the Storm
|
NoPoet wrote:My impressions of AoS:
* The fluff is terrible.
* The new unit and model names are embarrassingly overblown, but Warhammer was already heading that way with its overblown terrain names (Skullvane Manse? Really?)
* The new models are weirdly scaled to deliberately kill off their old product line.
* The new models actually look fantastic.
* There are some silly rules which, if we lighten up for a moment, are actually quite fun, and definitely in keeping with the universe it's set it.
* There are far fewer restrictions.
* The rules are much easier to learn.
* The unit warscrolls are far more convenient than lugging army books around and flipping back to the rulebook.
* Army books are now free - Warhammer 40,000 codices are reaching 45 quid.
* The spirit of the game revolves around co-operation and human interaction instead of charts and rulebooks, so that is highly appealing to me.
* The game can be played using existing Warhammer armies, which is very good news.
* The startup cost for new players is minimal, relatively speaking.
* Complaints about the points system going AWOL assume that the points system ever worked in the first place, and there were lots of complaints about points values in the past.
* Complaints about people spamming the most powerful units assume people already own large numbers of such models or are going to go out and buy them purely to win games, which is highly unlikely due to prohibitive financial cost and also prohibitive points cost under the Warhammer rules - and it would also breach the ethics of AoS which seem to be its primary selling point.
All in all, if you disregard the loss of Warhammer, which I still believe is the fault of the gamers, AoS is not that bad a prospect for someone such as myself who wants to get back into the hobby, or who wants to start it.
^ Yes! Everything!
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/07 15:17:55
Subject: Re:Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Mighty Vampire Count
|
We have played soem more games at our club
There are ongoing concerns about balance and also some mechanics - like being able to kill characters even when they are in combat - eg we had a cannon snip a Witch Elf Hag who was figthing a Daemon Slayer - seemed a bit off to all involved.
on the other hand - people like alot of aspects:
So we have (from various players)
Pros
melee combat,
pushing up, the fact that there is no devastating immediate end to combat on a single failed leadership roll after losing one model. Leadership abilities,
synergy.
Movement - 40k esque freedom of movement - love it.
Units seemed flavoursome and in keeping - we didn't use a single comedy rule - although they are great fun to read and very old skool Warhammer and tbh - you can ignore the comedy but and just use the specific ability without that element without causing any problems
Making new units up is easy and much fun
Games look great, as more like two warbands fighting, due to flexible formations. Warhammer never looked like a 'Battle' anyway.
Was quite easy to play. I actually like the alternate activating combat sequence, it adds an additional strategic thinking element, and allows both players to have a say as long as they have 2 combats going on.
Terrain actually matters
Cons
heroes can just be shot or magiced dead.
Some units are WAY WAY more powerful than others, Chameleon Skinks to Normal skinks, Temple guard to Normal Saurus. My Chameleons seemed to DELETE units, wheras my normal skinks seemed to struggle to achieve anything. Although their fleeing form combat rule is cool.
1st turn still played a massive role in our game,
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/08/07 15:18:36
I AM A MARINE PLAYER
"Unimaginably ancient xenos artefact somewhere on the planet, hive fleet poised above our heads, hidden 'stealer broods making an early start....and now a bloody Chaos cult crawling out of the woodwork just in case we were bored. Welcome to my world, Ciaphas."
Inquisitor Amberley Vail, Ordo Xenos
"I will admit that some Primachs like Russ or Horus could have a chance against an unarmed 12 year old novice but, a full Battle Sister??!! One to one? In close combat? Perhaps three Primarchs fighting together... but just one Primarch?" da001
www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/528517.page
A Bloody Road - my Warhammer Fantasy Fiction |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/07 16:14:55
Subject: Re:Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
[MOD]
Solahma
|
kveldulf wrote:Regarding the play/actor comment; the script is not written completely in an RPG. The characters are not already finished/fleshed out, but are still being written. It is utterly different than in a play, unless the play had actors rolling dice vs each other or at the system. I'm confused as to what you're trying to say with that example.
I am trying to say that a PC in D&D is not necessarily an avatar for the player. Character are not avatars for actors in a play. It doesn't matter that the script is already written. Characters in the script are not avatars of the scriptwriter, either. kveldulf wrote:When you said in an earlier post "The players are the ones who are playing the game at which they can neither win nor lose." that's a contradictory statement.
Not at all. All the word "player" implies is "play" which itself does not connote or imply winning and losing. Think back to when you were a kid -- playing did not always entail "victory conditions." Similarly, there are games that do not have victory conditions. D&D is just an example. AoS does have victory conditions, i.e., the circumstances under which play stops, the game is over, and one of the players is declared the winner. But even that does not prove that the point of AoS is winning. Kilkrazy wrote:I think the RPG thing is a bit of a red herring and I regret introducing it.
If nothing else, it has certainly revealed that some people cannot conceive of a game that does not involve winning and losing. Roleplayers are used to encountering this attitude. I think miniatures gamers, especially those who have only or primarily been exposed to games like 40k or WM/H, seem more likely to hold this attitude. It's only natural that some people who think winning is a fundamental element of gaming also believe that winning is the main purpose of playing any game. And if you think winning is the point, then fairness is going to be extremely important to you. Fairness in turn is almost always confused with balance in these discussions. And that brings us to the complaints about AoS not being balanced.
|
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/08/07 16:27:59
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/07 19:44:49
Subject: Re:Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Mr Morden wrote:We have played soem more games at our club Pros ... Cons heroes can just be shot or magiced dead. Some units are WAY WAY more powerful than others, Chameleon Skinks to Normal skinks, Temple guard to Normal Saurus. My Chameleons seemed to DELETE units, wheras my normal skinks seemed to struggle to achieve anything. Although their fleeing form combat rule is cool. 1st turn still played a massive role in our game, Glad you're playing, and I generally agree with your assessment. WRT the issues: - Heroes are more vulnerable, and I think that is by design. Heroes concentrate a lot of strong ability, but the downside is that it's a lot of eggs in one basket. - Unit power varies, and I think that is also by design, to give players a choice in what they choose to field. If all units were samey, that would be boring, no? - First Turn is determined by whomever stops deploying first. The other player can continue to deploy units if they feel that they need more stuff to mitigate going second. I'm not sure those are problems, per se. I do think there's an adjustment period in getting comfortable over what we should be fielding. Automatically Appended Next Post: NoPoet wrote:My impressions of AoS: ... * Complaints about the points system going AWOL assume that the points system ever worked in the first place, and there were lots of complaints about points values in the past. * Complaints about people spamming the most powerful units assume people already own large numbers of such models or are going to go out and buy them purely to win games, which is highly unlikely due to prohibitive financial cost and also prohibitive points cost under the Warhammer rules - and it would also breach the ethics of AoS which seem to be its primary selling point. All in all, if you disregard the loss of Warhammer, which I still believe is the fault of the gamers, AoS is not that bad a prospect for someone such as myself who wants to get back into the hobby, or who wants to start it. In my group, our Dwarf player gets a lot more out of his points than I do with my Dogs of War (because he's simply a better player than I am), and our Tyranid / Lizardmen player gets less out of his points than either of us (because he's just not that interested in "winning" per se). With points, it's uncomfortable suggesting that we should apply handicaps of some sort, whereas AoS kind of does away with that issue. I do not think GW would be particularly upset if "competitive" AoS players went out and bought lots of Lords of Change, Bloodthirsters, Dragons, etc. I think GW would welcome them doing so.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/08/07 19:50:33
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/08 16:14:38
Subject: Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Cosmic Joe
|
GW sucked at balancing points.
AOS players blame the concept of points and not the lazy/poor execution.
Points allow more freedom of army creation than formations or whatever. And with a company that actually cares, points work out really well.
Something awful can be fun. My list of favorite movies comprises a lot of really bad movies, but I still like them.
AOS is an awful game. But that doesn't mean people can't have fun with it.
It's totally not my idea of fun, but different strokes for different folks.
(But again, it is a crappy game.)
|
Also, check out my history blog: Minimum Wage Historian, a fun place to check out history that often falls between the couch cushions. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/08 17:20:00
Subject: Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Been Around the Block
|
I quite like how killable everything is. Nothing seems insurmountable. That Khorne Lord with the reality-splitting axe just wipes out single models.
I think the fact that to hit/to wound is now static (or mostly so) on the models helps balance the game. 10 Bloodthirsters, as the hyperbole goes, is a lot more of a threat in old Warhammer than in AoS.
It still feels like Warhammer to me, but fresher. I agree with the comment above that battles actually look like battles now. I always liked the look of regiments on their own, but during play it made things look more like game pieces than a miniature battle, in my opinion.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/08 23:05:20
Subject: Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
burningstuff wrote:I quite like how killable everything is. Nothing seems insurmountable. That Khorne Lord with the reality-splitting axe just wipes out single models
He does a handful job on units also, each unsaved wound kills d3 wound worth of people
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/09 05:18:52
Subject: Re:Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
Wallingford PA
|
Played 3 model vs. model games in a dueling style and I like it so far.  I used the starter kit Chaos Lord and my opponent used chaos guy on mount.
Not sure which exactly but it had some sort of fire breath.
The action is fast paced and combat is exciting. Now I need to get a n army built and see how it plays on that level. I have several chaos daemons already so that parts done.
It will be interesting to see how chaos units of different alignment work together as one.
Knowing that I only need to know one number each for hits and wounds is going to help me learn much quicker than 40k. The rules being so sort will be the biggest help.
It will be fun to read all the back story in WDs I've collected over the years and online. So much to catch up on.
|
He Who Controls The Dice Controls The Universe
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/09 14:11:03
Subject: Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Araqiel
|
Would someone who has bought the first big AoS book give me a sense of how its scenarios affect / improve the game beyond the 4 page rules.
Please and thank you!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/09 18:32:04
Subject: Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Painting Within the Lines
|
jojo_monkey_boy wrote:Would someone who has bought the first big AoS book give me a sense of how its scenarios affect / improve the game beyond the 4 page rules.
Please and thank you!
they give you a clear goal orientated game where destroying the enemy is not the key goal (even though it is a winning condition) and where you alter your game style or tactics to suit the scenario given instead of altering tactics to the enemy you are playing.. one scenario is played in 3 waves and the goretide gets reinforced and "healed" whilst the sigmarines do not... by using scenery you alter your tactics even more (if you so wish), the scenarios give you a clear goal of the game and in all fairness are designed using the new models and are "fairer" (if you using the new models or armies that is, they are more balanced and are less likely to be abused )..
there is even a "solo" game scenario believe it or not, I am not sure who would play it but can easily be converted to 2 players... and its pretty good if you want to learn the rules
they are also ideas for you to make your own or alter them, its easier to alter a ready made scenario then to make your own like changing the units you use to be used with the legacy armies instead... or altering the size etc, its like being given a basic design and working on it, the solo game scenario reminds me of the story of Archaon (how he became who he is)
in all honesty you should not get the scenario book if your army is not included and you are ok in making your own games/scenarios for fun... wait for a scenario book to be released with your particular army included
just remember that the scenarios are designed for a particular race/faction/army... the idea is that over time GW will release more book with scenarios for each race to combat etc
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/09 18:37:38
Subject: Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Hardened Veteran Guardsman
|
Okay, I've been posting everywhere else but here, so now that I finally have arrived here, let me throw in my two cents
I think AoS has poentantial. I actually do find it quite fun to play, but there are still some big flaws with it that I had to houserules out of the way, especially the issue of balanced games. However there are most definitely good things about it. First the free online rules, much in the same vein as Infinity, is good. The simplified rule systems are good as well, although I do feel that maybe they are a little to simplified. The extermination of the million options per unit is a mixed bag. So there are a lot of good ideas in here, so what GW needs to do is slowly grind the others one away. Overall, I enjoy it, but the fact that I need to make quite a few houserules means I overall give it an average review.
|
I am the Paper Proxy Man. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/09 18:48:01
Subject: Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM
|
bitethythumb wrote: jojo_monkey_boy wrote:Would someone who has bought the first big AoS book give me a sense of how its scenarios affect / improve the game beyond the 4 page rules.
Please and thank you!
they give you a clear goal orientated game where destroying the enemy is not the key goal (even though it is a winning condition) and where you alter your game style or tactics to suit the scenario given instead of altering tactics to the enemy you are playing.. one scenario is played in 3 waves and the goretide gets reinforced and "healed" whilst the sigmarines do not... by using scenery you alter your tactics even more (if you so wish), the scenarios give you a clear goal of the game and in all fairness are designed using the new models and are "fairer" (if you using the new models or armies that is, they are more balanced and are less likely to be abused )..
there is even a "solo" game scenario believe it or not, I am not sure who would play it but can easily be converted to 2 players... and its pretty good if you want to learn the rules
they are also ideas for you to make your own or alter them, its easier to alter a ready made scenario then to make your own like changing the units you use to be used with the legacy armies instead... or altering the size etc, its like being given a basic design and working on it, the solo game scenario reminds me of the story of Archaon (how he became who he is)
in all honesty you should not get the scenario book if your army is not included and you are ok in making your own games/scenarios for fun... wait for a scenario book to be released with your particular army included
just remember that the scenarios are designed for a particular race/faction/army... the idea is that over time GW will release more book with scenarios for each race to combat etc
You're talking about the starter set book right? Not the big AoS book, as the scenarios in that are for any force to use. Personally I haven't had the chance to play one of the big book scenarios, I'm not going to buy the book as I have looked through it and it is incredibly overpriced for what it is, but if my opponent wants to play a scenario from it I'm game. :-)
|
Bye bye Dakkadakka, happy hobbying! I really enjoyed my time on here. Opinions were always my own :-) |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/09 20:10:13
Subject: Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Painting Within the Lines
|
Bottle wrote: bitethythumb wrote: jojo_monkey_boy wrote:Would someone who has bought the first big AoS book give me a sense of how its scenarios affect / improve the game beyond the 4 page rules.
Please and thank you!
they give you a clear goal orientated game where destroying the enemy is not the key goal (even though it is a winning condition) and where you alter your game style or tactics to suit the scenario given instead of altering tactics to the enemy you are playing.. one scenario is played in 3 waves and the goretide gets reinforced and "healed" whilst the sigmarines do not... by using scenery you alter your tactics even more (if you so wish), the scenarios give you a clear goal of the game and in all fairness are designed using the new models and are "fairer" (if you using the new models or armies that is, they are more balanced and are less likely to be abused )..
there is even a "solo" game scenario believe it or not, I am not sure who would play it but can easily be converted to 2 players... and its pretty good if you want to learn the rules
they are also ideas for you to make your own or alter them, its easier to alter a ready made scenario then to make your own like changing the units you use to be used with the legacy armies instead... or altering the size etc, its like being given a basic design and working on it, the solo game scenario reminds me of the story of Archaon (how he became who he is)
in all honesty you should not get the scenario book if your army is not included and you are ok in making your own games/scenarios for fun... wait for a scenario book to be released with your particular army included
just remember that the scenarios are designed for a particular race/faction/army... the idea is that over time GW will release more book with scenarios for each race to combat etc
You're talking about the starter set book right? Not the big AoS book, as the scenarios in that are for any force to use. Personally I haven't had the chance to play one of the big book scenarios, I'm not going to buy the book as I have looked through it and it is incredibly overpriced for what it is, but if my opponent wants to play a scenario from it I'm game. :-)
I have said this before, I got into this hobby for the painting and building aspect (its like meditation for me  ) even though I suck at it, I enjoy it... the playing is just an added bonus and I am really game for anything.. scenarios, points, weird combos, heck I used to play warhammer chess  just replaced the chess pieces with warhammer ones and combat is still the same (king queen are lords/champs. rooks are large monsters. bishops are wizards and priests. knights are cavalry type and pawns are troops... enjoy)
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/09 21:13:11
Subject: Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM
|
I don't understand why you are telling me this lol
|
Bye bye Dakkadakka, happy hobbying! I really enjoyed my time on here. Opinions were always my own :-) |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/09 21:28:49
Subject: Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
[MOD]
Anti-piracy Officer
Somewhere in south-central England.
|
It has already been established that many GW customers aren't really interested in playing the games. It used to be that many customers were players first and collectors/painters second.
Perhaps the continuous decline in revenue of the past few years reflects the pissed off ness of the gamer segment of the GW customer base.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/09 23:56:08
Subject: Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Painting Within the Lines
|
I thought we were sharing things neither of us asked for
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/10 05:24:22
Subject: Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Arch Magos w/ 4 Meg of RAM
|
Oh okay, lol. The second part of my post was directed at Jojo really, as he was asking about scenarios and experience with them. I quoted you to highlight that the scenarios in the big book are not army specific like those in the starter box book.
|
Bye bye Dakkadakka, happy hobbying! I really enjoyed my time on here. Opinions were always my own :-) |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/10 09:36:18
Subject: Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Painting Within the Lines
|
Bottle wrote:Oh okay, lol. The second part of my post was directed at Jojo really, as he was asking about scenarios and experience with them. I quoted you to highlight that the scenarios in the big book are not army specific like those in the starter box book.
but jojo asked a specific question which you never answered... You just told him something he never asked for  ... Just play my chess game already
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/10 14:35:29
Subject: Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Araqiel
|
bitethythumb wrote:in all honesty you should not get the scenario book if your army is not included and you are ok in making your own games/scenarios for fun... wait for a scenario book to be released with your particular army included
Thanks for the response.
It's kind of disappointing. It was good of GW to create the warscrolls for old armies (and thus prevent all out rioting...), but it's too bad they're not providing more open ended support. Hopefully the community will come up with scenarios.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2015/08/10 15:05:04
Subject: Age of Sigmar - Your Opinions, Impressions, Reviews
|
 |
Painting Within the Lines
|
jojo_monkey_boy wrote: bitethythumb wrote:in all honesty you should not get the scenario book if your army is not included and you are ok in making your own games/scenarios for fun... wait for a scenario book to be released with your particular army included
Thanks for the response.
It's kind of disappointing. It was good of GW to create the warscrolls for old armies (and thus prevent all out rioting...), but it's too bad they're not providing more open ended support. Hopefully the community will come up with scenarios.
well apparently the big expensive book IS open ended and can focus on any army (but I have my doubts, seems to me each book is themed for particular conflicts, I am sure they CAN be adapted to any army but not designed for such) but in all honesty I would wait, the way I see it is that AoS is a NEW GAME... so I do not expect EVERYTHING to be given to us on a platter, yes GW is experienced ETC but you have to see AoS as a fresh born baby that will be molded over time.
I also feel as though the legacy armies are really there as to not piss off ye olde players and will simply be phased out, seems to me like the newer models are being kept (or maybe even designed) for AoS like the sylvaneth and clan pestilens (not the bell, but the bell is pretty awesome and unlikely to change) but most will no longer be supported, I would not be buying anything unless you REALLY like the models or can reuse them later on in general, I myself have only been buying random models with the goal of learning to play the game now but in the long run change them...
|
|
 |
 |
|