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.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
I can get my wife to play games set in the Warhammer world with Kings of War rules, but the WHFB rules just make her chuckle and say "no.....I don't think so".

I've always said that I would happily try AoS rules in the old setting if some of the more important parts got tweaked and some of the brokenness removed.

So you can't get your wife to play games set in the Warhammer world with AoS rules? If she can play KoW, she can play AoS, and you can ignore both the KoW and AoS backgrounds.

If you are playing with your wife, why is "brokenness" an issue? Do you need to curb stomp her into the ground when you play? Is she in the habit of clubbing baby seals in her spare time? You can't just sit down with her and play a game "for fun"?

Did you even try AoS? Or did your preconceptions stop the whole thing dead in its tracks. Did you totally miss that the game has several non-points-based balancing mechanisms, and did you give them a fair chance? Or is it an issue of you being so conditioned by the notion of "points" that you can't conceive of any other way to play a fantasy battle game?

Are you even playing Skaven rat swarms? Does an extra base of swarms really unbalance the game?

Really? I'm suddenly attacked as the bad guy if I give reasons I don't love AoS? Sheesh.

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Really? I'm suddenly attacked as the bad guy if I give reasons I don't love AoS? Sheesh.

Excuse me, but how were you "attacked" as a "bad guy"?

You made all sorts of claims, but they don't appear to be based on any experience or effort, so I'm asking a few questions as to why AoS can't be something you'd even consider to try with your wife, given that you said you play KoW with her, and that you claimed to be willing to try AoS. You conditioned trying AoS on not having to deal with the churlish members tied to competitive play, so I asked whether you felt either of you were the churlish sort that would prevent you from trying AoS with your wife.

I'm sorry that you somehow interpreted the questioning as some sort of "attack", and at no point did I say you needed to love AoS.

I do think that you should give AoS a fair shake, and I believe that you have completely failed to do so. To me, you're like the little kid who proclaims cheese and yogurt "bad" (because it's spoiled milk), but refuses to try either foodstuff.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 AegisGrimm wrote:
Really? I'm suddenly attacked as the bad guy if I give reasons I don't love AoS? Sheesh.

Excuse me, but how were you "attacked" as a "bad guy"?

You made all sorts of claims, but they don't appear to be based on any experience or effort, so I'm asking a few questions as to why AoS can't be something you'd even consider to try with your wife, given that you said you play KoW with her, and that you claimed to be willing to try AoS. You conditioned trying AoS on not having to deal with the churlish members tied to competitive play, so I asked whether you felt either of you were the churlish sort that would prevent you from trying AoS with your wife.

I'm sorry that you somehow interpreted the questioning as some sort of "attack", and at no point did I say you needed to love AoS.

I do think that you should give AoS a fair shake, and I believe that you have completely failed to do so. To me, you're like the little kid who proclaims cheese and yogurt "bad" (because it's spoiled milk), but refuses to try either foodstuff.

I don't think its a matter of testing a theory that's the problem here (actually playing AoS). I haven't played AoS, but have listened to enough to simply know, its not my thing when it comes to rank & file infantry game. In other uses for it, I can see it being an introductory system, (though that's the maximum of its potential imo), and or, simply a beer & pretzels game. I've only heard KoW fitting the scale of fantasy better than AoS (like facilitating rank and file WFB maneuvering?). However, for me, I like the nuances and details within WFB, and would rather extend play to an extra hour if that meant the details were there.... I could always house rule things to trim, - that's easier than inventing rules for a system.


I'll quote something from the glorious movie 'Remo Williams' to convey a kind of similitude for my position:

Chiun: It would be better for you to eat this can than what is inside of it. Why must everything in this country be coated with monositi-... monosoti...

Remo Williams: Monosodium glutamate. You can't even say it.

Chiun: I can say "rat droppings." That does not mean I want to eat them.


Ultimately, I liked the system of WFB for its detail and brevity in die resolution. (thus at least some potential for RPGs with D6). The early point system calculation of 3rd edition was I think more true to the the real root reason for its popularity - it was more quantitative than merely theoretical army-balancing which 8th became very very problematic with. This excess in weighing things opposed to exclusively to lists became the fundamental problem with Warhammer. It arbitrarily (I think) created some fatigue/dislike progressively for the rules, and thus, something like AoS looks infinitely better even though AoS is built on a different premise that carved Warhammer out of the Immaterium. This is a very sad road, where progress was just degrees of streamlining things for the sake of legalizing an egocentric methodology around game play.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The single casualty figure removal mechanism used by WHFB had been superceded in historical wargame rules by the end of the 1980s.

Yes, and that's part of what makes AoS a WFB game, where KoW is not a WFB game.

Also the fact that a lot of the core rules are the same as WHFB.

Of course, you cannot do a skirmish game without single casualty removal because one figure is one man. However in AoS you have to keep track of wounds on the multi-wound units.

And AoS is pretty smart about wound tracking for Monsters, whereby they lose effectiveness as they take wounds.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
And AoS is pretty smart about wound tracking for Monsters, whereby they lose effectiveness as they take wounds.

How is that smart?

 kveldulf wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
And AoS is pretty smart about wound tracking for Monsters, whereby they lose effectiveness as they take wounds.

How is that smart?

Because its fluffy and evocative as well as being a neat game mechanic.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
And AoS is pretty smart about wound tracking for Monsters, whereby they lose effectiveness as they take wounds.

How is that smart?

Because its fluffy and evocative as well as being a neat game mechanic.

GW wants Monsters to differ from Heroes, while still having wounds matter. Monsters lose effectiveness intermediate between troops which lose 1:1 and Heroes fighting on to death. It's a nice level of detail that fits with AoS being skirmish-oriented and per-wound.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
And AoS is pretty smart about wound tracking for Monsters, whereby they lose effectiveness as they take wounds.

How is that smart?

Because its fluffy and evocative as well as being a neat game mechanic.

I like having details in the mechanics, but then there's the question as to where you stop it. Simply having more wounds seems just fine.

It's like saying random terrain effects bring out evocative instances, when in reality, it was just a way to make things interesting by shoe-horning some complexity. The idea of having some bizarre terrain doing some 'warhammer like things' sounds very cool - if it wasn't expected/enumerated in the core rules. It should just be something supplemental.

 kveldulf wrote:

I like having details in the mechanics, but then there's the question as to where you stop it. Simply having more wounds seems just fine.

It's like saying random terrain effects bring out evocative instances, when in reality, it was just a way to make things interesting by shoe-horning some complexity. The idea of having some bizarre terrain doing some 'warhammer like things' sounds very cool - if it wasn't expected/enumerated in the core rules. It should just be something supplemental.

I agree with you completely when it comes to the terrain rules. It's very difficult to imagine how a rock looks particularly "sinister". Surely just having it as an obstacle that blocks LoS and needs to be navigated is enough.

However the monster wound count is very evocative. It's not hard to imagine that the more the monster gets damaged the more it starts staggering around. When certain attacks get lost you could easily imagine limbs have been removed. And it doesn't add much more complexity as it's your's or your friend's model and they have the warscroll right in front of them. I'd personally like to add a similar wound count/HP removal system to my Pathfinder games.

ChazLikesCake wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:

I like having details in the mechanics, but then there's the question as to where you stop it. Simply having more wounds seems just fine.

It's like saying random terrain effects bring out evocative instances, when in reality, it was just a way to make things interesting by shoe-horning some complexity. The idea of having some bizarre terrain doing some 'warhammer like things' sounds very cool - if it wasn't expected/enumerated in the core rules. It should just be something supplemental.

I agree with you completely when it comes to the terrain rules. It's very difficult to imagine how a rock looks particularly "sinister". Surely just having it as an obstacle that blocks LoS and needs to be navigated is enough.

However the monster wound count is very evocative. It's not hard to imagine that the more the monster gets damaged the more it starts staggering around. When certain attacks get lost you could easily imagine limbs have been removed. And it doesn't add much more complexity as it's your's or your friend's model and they have the warscroll right in front of them. I'd personally like to add a similar wound count/HP removal system to my Pathfinder games.

Its not hard to imagine the grittiness by only adding wound counters either. If anything, it makes things simple yet polarized - to both players - that someone's purple people eater is about to die and he's going to perform like one until then.

 kveldulf wrote:

Its not hard to imagine the grittiness by only adding wound counters either. If anything, it makes things simple yet polarized - to both players - that someone's purple people eater is about to die and he's going to perform like one until then.

Um, no. Just adding a wound counter would make things less evocative, less fun, and even less balanced. Monsters are incredibly powerful for their wound counts at peak efficiency and that gives the opposing player incentive to attack them early, and the monster owner a choice to either be more careful with it or use it's full power immediately.

I don't understand how you could be against the concept unless you just feel like complaining about everything AoS and trying to find reasons to do so.

The Monster wound count is definitely a good thing in game terms, though it''s hardly a revolution of design, as similar mechanisms were in use in the 80s in historical and SF games.

The downside is you have the added complication of tracking the wounds, which doesn't worry me but seems an odd choice for a simple skirmish game, at least not what I would have done if I was writing it. However you probably won't ever have more than three monsters on one side, so it doesn't signify much.

I think the Terrain rules are fine as far as they go. You can ignore the whole Realm of Azyr terrain rules if you like -- essentially they are an optional supplement to support the official terrain kits -- and use some simple modifiers to fight over non-fantasy terrain.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Monster wound count is definitely a good thing in game terms, though it''s hardly a revolution of design, as similar mechanisms were in use in the 80s in historical and SF games.

The downside is you have the added complication of tracking the wounds, which doesn't worry me but seems an odd choice for a simple skirmish game, at least not what I would have done if I was writing it. However you probably won't ever have more than three monsters on one side, so it doesn't signify much.

I think the Terrain rules are fine as far as they go. You can ignore the whole Realm of Azyr terrain rules if you like -- essentially they are an optional supplement to support the official terrain kits -- and use some simple modifiers to fight over non-fantasy terrain.

quick question why dies it have to be revolutionary?

Someone was a smart idea and I merely pointed out it is a very old idea.

However also I do think AoS should have been revolutionary because GW had a golden opportunity to sweep away the whole clutter and cruft of WHFB and replace it with a streamlined, fast playing system. It is a huge disappointment that the game contains so much of the clunkiness of the old game.

 kveldulf wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

 kveldulf wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
And AoS is pretty smart about wound tracking for Monsters, whereby they lose effectiveness as they take wounds.

How is that smart?

Because its fluffy and evocative as well as being a neat game mechanic.

I like having details in the mechanics, but then there's the question as to where you stop it. Simply having more wounds seems just fine.

It's like saying random terrain effects bring out evocative instances, when in reality, it was just a way to make things interesting by shoe-horning some complexity. The idea of having some bizarre terrain doing some 'warhammer like things' sounds very cool - if it wasn't expected/enumerated in the core rules. It should just be something supplemental.

GW made a design decision to differentiate Heroes from Monsters from troopers, and they limited the Monsters to 5x 20% steps. 3x 30% steps might have been better, but it's not a big deal. The point is that they each play differently, with a different role on the tabletop.

The terrain thing is overdone, and I'm not a huge fan of it; however, GW believes in their fancy GW terrain versus generic terrain. If you are using their Dais or other stuff, adding a special rule probably makes sense above and beyond merely blocking LOS or being impassible. If you just have ordinary trees, then the rules probably don't work.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
The Monster wound count is definitely a good thing in game terms, though it''s hardly a revolution of design, as similar mechanisms were in use in the 80s in historical and SF games.

The downside is you have the added complication of tracking the wounds, which doesn't worry me but seems an odd choice for a simple skirmish game, at least not what I would have done if I was writing it. However you probably won't ever have more than three monsters on one side, so it doesn't signify much.

I think the Terrain rules are fine as far as they go. You can ignore the whole Realm of Azyr terrain rules if you like -- essentially they are an optional supplement to support the official terrain kits -- and use some simple modifiers to fight over non-fantasy terrain.

Yes, wound-based profiles have been around before. For Warhammer, it's a big step forward.

In WFB, we had to track wounds before, but they didn't affect the power until the unit died; now they do. For the scale of AoS (same as WFB5), if you have 3 monsters, that's probably your entire force in a large game, aside from the General and a couple minor blocks of infantry. Where AoS goes wrong is not having all Monsters start at 12 wounds, so 2d6 tracks them.

I agree on the Terrain stuff, that this is primarily for GW Terrain, not generic terrain.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Someone was a smart idea and I merely pointed out it is a very old idea.

However also I do think AoS should have been revolutionary because GW had a golden opportunity to sweep away the whole clutter and cruft of WHFB and replace it with a streamlined, fast playing system. It is a huge disappointment that the game contains so much of the clunkiness of the old game.

It is a smart idea for AoS to have appropriated.

AoS is only 4 pages - it doesn't get much slimmer than that and still retain any WFB pieces. As it is, people are saying AoS is nothing like WFB, while it's clear that there is a lot of WFB heritage in AoS. GW got rid of all of the tables and a ton of modifiers - I find it hard to fault them for going 80% down to zero, when 7th and 8th both increased the complexity. How much more streamlined could AoS have been and still been anything like WFB or 40k?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
How much more streamlined could AoS have been and still been anything like WFB or 40k?

One Page Fantasy does a good job of getting rid of GW's clutter and still presents a rank-and-file fantasy game with a low model count, spell lists for each faction, points, missions, and even random terrain effects.

And it's two pages.

 infinite_array wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
How much more streamlined could AoS have been and still been anything like WFB or 40k?

One Page Fantasy does a good job of getting rid of GW's clutter and still presents a rank-and-file fantasy game with a low model count, spell lists for each faction, points, missions, and even random terrain effects.

And it's two pages.

I get that, but is it anything like WFB6-8 or 40k3-7 mechanically?

One big problem AoS has is the weapon range issue. Measuring from model-to-model left aside, as it's riducolously stupid to begin with, having different weapon range still poses a problem as it can lead to lots of individual measuring, especially given the Skirmish formations AoS uses compared to WHFB. GW should have stuck with ye old "Everyone within X'' counts as fighting" rule. They could have even released a super-expensive big 3'' circle template to further rob people's lunch money.

In general, sticking to the old formations would work a lot better in terms of playability - moving a movement tray will always be faster than moving a bigger number of individual models. Just simply the Front Arc to everything in front of a 180° degree line in the front of the unit. There. Simple, streamlined, less measuring trouble. Faster play.

 Sigvatr wrote:
One big problem AoS has is the weapon range issue. Measuring from model-to-model left aside, as it's riducolously stupid to begin with, having different weapon range still poses a problem as it can lead to lots of individual measuring, especially given the Skirmish formations AoS uses compared to WHFB. GW should have stuck with ye old "Everyone within X'' counts as fighting" rule. They could have even released a super-expensive big 3'' circle template to further rob people's lunch money.

In general, sticking to the old formations would work a lot better in terms of playability - moving a movement tray will always be faster than moving a bigger number of individual models. Just simply the Front Arc to everything in front of a 180° degree line in the front of the unit. There. Simple, streamlined, less measuring trouble. Faster play.

WFB had weapon range by the number of ranks. 1" = 1 rank, 2" = 2 ranks, etc.

You can still use movement trays in AoS - I did.

That's what I was saying. Formations made weapon range very clear to everyone. No measuring necessary = streamlining = faster playing.

It doesn't matter whether you can or cannot use trays in AoS, they aren't part of the game.

I didn't read it like that, so maybe we have a language issue getting in the way of our agreement.

I wouldn't be surprised to see optional rules for ranked units.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

I get that, but is it anything like WFB6-8 or 40k3-7 mechanically?

Can you quantify what you're looking for when it comes to mechanics?

I mean, when it comes down to it, you need to roll dice.

But there's differing qualities of troops, different units, bonuses for engaging in the rear, different stats for weapons, heroes, wizards of differing levels that let you cast a variety of spells depending what race they are.

 infinite_array wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

I get that, but is it anything like WFB6-8 or 40k3-7 mechanically?

Can you quantify what you're looking for when it comes to mechanics?

I mean, when it comes down to it, you need to roll dice.

But there's differing qualities of troops, different units, bonuses for engaging in the rear, different stats for weapons, heroes, wizards of differing levels that let you cast a variety of spells depending what race they are.

WFB has a certain "feel" in how it does things, and it's not necessarily something you quantify.

Aside from their dice having 6 sides.

I'll check it out. Being only 2 pages has a certain appeal.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
I didn't read it like that, so maybe we have a language issue getting in the way of our agreement.

I wouldn't be surprised to see optional rules for ranked units.

Aye. That one document that came up early had a nice of idea of getting units gain +1 Nerve for each rank they have above one. Simple, neat addition.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

WFB has a certain "feel" in how it does things, and it's not necessarily something you quantify.

Aside from their dice having 6 sides.

I'll check it out. Being only 2 pages has a certain appeal.

I'd say try it. The games of OP40k I've played felt like the old 5th Ed games I used to play, and they went by fast and easy to figure out.

 kveldulf wrote:
I've been reading some posts here and there stating they've 'had an interest in warhammer rekindled' due to the release of Age of Sigmar.

AoS is really nothing like WFB so how can one really say its rekindled when even the lore is completely different, let alone the ruleset? It's not 'rekindled' just 'kindled'.

It's as though people think they are jumping in an old looking, re-branded ship but it's actually new.

Ha! Kinda funny, I've had the last two editions of WHFB around, but never played them. Too crazy complicated, and neither I nor my friends wanted to try to wade through that rulebook and codices to try to figure it out. (family + young kids = dad's brain power severely impacted...)

Then AoS came out and finally I get to try "warhammer fantasy battles"! It was actually pretty fun - but it was a friendly match, and I had another friend as an adviser, reminding us of special rules, keeping the game going, and helping with arbitration. Really the only way to play games like this is with a "referee" of sorts!

2 Games at our club tonight - both extremely enjoyable and very close - I won mine with 3 models left

 Sigvatr wrote:
One big problem AoS has is the weapon range issue. Measuring from model-to-model left aside, as it's riducolously stupid to begin with, having different weapon range still poses a problem as it can lead to lots of individual measuring, especially given the Skirmish formations AoS uses compared to WHFB. GW should have stuck with ye old "Everyone within X'' counts as fighting" rule. They could have even released a super-expensive big 3'' circle template to further rob people's lunch money.

In general, sticking to the old formations would work a lot better in terms of playability - moving a movement tray will always be faster than moving a bigger number of individual models. Just simply the Front Arc to everything in front of a 180° degree line in the front of the unit. There. Simple, streamlined, less measuring trouble. Faster play.

I must say that I don't agree, but it's only because I have played WarZone: Resurrection and Warmachine/Hordes, where all melee weapons have ranges (and front arcs too). It really doesn't slow the game at all - especially in skirmish games. If your whole unit has 2" range, extending your tape measure to 2" and having a quick sweep over the table to see who has the range is literally two seconds. And what you seem to not think about is the actual range. Say, there's 8.5" between your unit and you opponent's one. You roll 8 on the dice for charge, your first dude reaches the 0.25" required. Your unit has spears - you move the rest up 8 inches, closest guys get in the 0.25-1" range, they'd attack normally too even if they had swords, but now the rest is catching up and suddenly all of those guys behind them get to hit even if normally they wouldn't be in range thanks to pile-in moves, with more of your models closing into 2" range in a curved line if you spread your unit enough during the charge (charges aren't in straight line, just the pile-in), so more of your men can engage his soldiers. With regiment-based game it wouldn't be possible, it'd be defined that only two ranks fight. And rank&file quite obviously defeats the purpose of a skirmish system, as those are terrible at navigating around terrain, so they had to be dropped from core mechanics. Regiments are exactly the reason why WFB tables were always so scarce in terrain - otherwise those cumbersome hordes wouldn't fit through anything and trying to squeeze in would result in stupid situations like a hero charging on the flank because he can get into 1mm of the enemy front rank soldier's base side.

What you could do, though, is give bonuses for being in base-to-base contact with at least two other unit members, just like the Shield Wall special rule does in WarmaHordes or the locked slab shields rule for Bullgryns in 40k. This way it might not be exactly rectangular, stiff shoebox formation, but it would encourage players to move their miniatures in tight formations.

I agree that measuring range of 1" / 2" / 3" isn't that difficult - it's not different from determining shooting ranges, and we've been doing that for years. If anything, it standardizes shooting and fighting under the same "check weapon range" concept.

I do agree that the War Scroll giving rules for ranked units should give some sort of bonus for standing shoulder-to-shoulder, because that's how AoS war scrolls work..