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.

 heartserenade wrote:
Meanwhile, while playing Kings of War I don't have to worry if what I bring is too overpowered against my enemy, and vice versa.

That is a good thing...it you like Kings of War. I have looked over it and went "Meh..."

This is really a problem unique to GW

No it is not "Unique" to GW. BattleTech has some real balance issues along with Crimson Skies. Even Star Fleet Battles have some serious issues and I think it is the closest thing to a perfect rules set out there. Now some of the newer games are better than some, but some are not.

, and people are treating AoS like it's the Emperor's new clothes.

And what about us who are not treating that way?

I'm not saying it can't be fun but don't pretend that having no points is a) innovative b) the most bestest thing ever and c) will weed TFG players out.

What about those of us who seem to just think it is a fun game, nothing more, nothing less?

You know, I'm gonna throw something else in the mix of why AoS -- or at least AoS style play -- makes it a good game to some people.

In my personal situation, I play with the same 6 people every two weeks (approximately) for an evening. The three things that I need most out of a miniature wargame are, in order:

1. A wide variety of really great models; this is by far the most important thing to me.

2. Game mechanics that are enjoyable. It has to be fun to go through the motions of the game.

3. The ability for either player to have a 50:50 chance of winning regardless of skill or game knowledge

#3 is actually REALLY important in our small, closed group of friends as a part of our recipe for success for 15+ years. I *know* I am a better gamer than at least 3 people in my group. I just spend way more time delving into the nitty-gritty, and exhaustively reading into rules, and am probably a better tactician, generally speaking. But I don't want to win more than half the games, give or take. Because it would really suck for 3 people to lose most of their games if paired with the 3 that are just generally more competitively-minded.

To me, that's the furthest thing from fun. And it would be for the people that lost too (including me, if I were one of them); and eventually, some of those people would just give up and do something else.

This is why when we play 40k, we do a lot of scenarios; the armies are carefully designed so that it's fair, not only from the perspective of army-versus-army, but player-versus-player.

To me, a fun game is, if both people are trying their hardest, both people have about the same chance to win -- regardless of how well the know the game, the rules, how experienced they are, or even how smart they are. And a big part of that is just because I play the same people all the time.

It's also worth noting that to me, a game like Hearthstone, where players are ranked and matched against equally skilled players is a much better test of skill than a tabletop miniature game. Suffice it to say, when I come to the tabletop, I'm not really looking for a test of skill, or a reinforcement of my personal cleverness. I do things all the time at work that accomplish that, where my cleverness, wit, and intelligence (sometimes against real-life competitors, sometimes against real-life challenges) is rewarded with real-world success (and money); and I've accomplished that in video games in a formal, ranked setting, and in CCG tournaments, at least to a degree where I feel good about my accomplishment relative to my time and monetary input.

What I want is out of a miniature wargame... is miniatures... lots of cool miniatures... and an entertaining game with the best of friends

 Sqorgar wrote:

So what you want are a variety of options to give you the ability to customize your game? Or to have variety in the kind of games you can play? Or maybe just more things to consider, with complex relationships, that give your brain a workout when planning strategy?

The first one may be it. I’m definitely missing the opportunity to alter the play style of my models through gear customization, for example. There’s some choice in AoS, but it is mostly between two possible weapons – a better hitting sword or a longer reaching halberd for example. True, other games are guilty aswell of doing this, but they’ve got other aspects that even the odds for me. The latter two, I think GW, may catch up with by releasing new books. Whether I like the content is up to me, but I think that eventually it will be released. Why they don't release it now though? Why not do an Altar of War collected missions book like for 40k? Here the scenarios are surely welcome and the game would have benefited greatly from them. Put out 20 scenarios for 20 quid and give something that the players may play and extrapolate upon while waiting for the next Realm book release with its specific missions and terrain/game rules. As you said, not every scenario is on par with the others - if more scenarios were published there could've been the good chance that atleast half of them are nicely thought out. 20 good, immersive and detailed scenarios are more than enough for any one gamer to play for a year. On the other hand, I realize that there may be the issue of releasing just a certain number of ways to play, regarding mission rules, deplyments etc, before players start to complain about repetitiveness.

 Sqorgar wrote:

I'm curious what you think of the soon to be released dreadfort? (Other than how expensive it is). There are 4 different modules to it, each with their own sets of rules. It seems like assaulting it (or defending it) would present a very different gaming experience than normal. Combined with the other 4 pieces of scenery, the random scenery effects, the realm rules, battalion warscrolls, the triumph table, and scenarios, it seems like you could have dozens of different effects on the field completely separate from whatever rules the units themselves bring. A lot of those effects are positional (units near this terrain gain this effect) or passive (rules always in effect), but I guess there isn't a lot there otherwise. I mean, scenarios have the power to affect deployment and potential goals, but there's only been about 20 scenarios released so far and they aren't all winners.

Terrain is something I feel most FB players (at least in my area) never embraced. Unlike in 40k where a minimum amount of terrain is required to slow down fast armies and block shooting lanes for shooty ones, fantasy games here have always been played with two small pieces of woods which the players diligently avoided most of the time, Glancing over pictures of the recent ETC the trend is still the same, but the game's blocky mechanics restrict movement, so I guess it is a challenge to arrange a nice WFB table with something more than hills, shallow lakes and low-grass woods. FB players are still pissed off with anything GW and WFB related and terrain goes along for the hate ride. With this in mind I think it will mostly appeal and be used by new gamers, which are unburdened by the old game (or any game that has somehow imposed terrain restrictions on them - warmachine comes to mind and DZC isn’t exactly innocent in that matter aswell, as it tends to work only if there’s a specific type of terrain on the table). As AoS haven’t got the sprawling plethora of different small rules and exceptions to the rules to remember, players could give more thought to what actually is on the table than to what is in their rule books and are trying to project on the gaming surface. Instead of trying to stack combat resolution modifiers, they’ll be trying to get hold of specific pieces of terrain for some bonuses. I hope that the new rules for the fortress don’t turn up to be just another totem extension tower. Rules for breaking pieces of the wall would be a good addition IMO. In 40k we never played anything drastically different than the terrain outlined in the source book as there was already plenty of stuff to give attention on the table. For AoS this may be a more pronounced aspect. It may already be said, but I’m just sharing my thoughts as you asked. The price is somewhat prohibitive if you view the terrain only as something to give more playability and not as a miniature on its own. Personally I couldn’t get over it.

Concerning table playability and aesthetics aside, I think the largest bundle takes too much space on the table. It would be good for a game or two and then it will become a big diorama. Broken into pieces it can serve its function although not looking that cool any more. The direstone redoubt, Ravagers of ruin and summoners' gate bundles are great centerpiece bundles though (for Khorne/Chaos themed tables atleast - they've got too few skull details on them for a Space marine fortress for example ). Conveniently a fortress of some kind is also a requirement for one of the two missions (the other being the Ritual) which I like the most from the first AoS book.

But one has to admit that it's not exclusively GW thing. It happens in games and it's hard to avoid, some things are always outright better than others.

Warmachine is the most competitive tabletop game I've ever played and it really reminds me of Magic: The Gathering with all those little synergies, combos, reaction stuff and overall level of micromanagement and it's one of the most suitable games for tournament play... and then there's Butcher with his Doomreaver list. If you don't bring a list explicitly designed to counter him, you're screwed 7 out of 10 times. You either have to shoot his huge sword dudes fast enough for them to not reach you (heh, heh, reach*, get it?) which is hard with their speed being set at 7" and your weapon ranges at 10-14" or endure them with ridiculous amounts of Tough special rule which acts like 40k's Feel no Pain and then lash back out. And then there are trencher-centric lists that are 99% unplayable.

Next good example is X-Wing. Another great game very suitable for tournaments due to it's simple, intuitive rules and nice combos. And we're seeing particular few lists winning the game over and over.

See, if you bring 100pts of X-Wings against 100pts of "super Dash" or Chiraneau + Fel combo you'll almost always lose unless the dice really love you and your opponent is an idiot.

It's exactly the same with every other game - if you want to play an even, balanced game both players have to bring the most overpowered, optimized and min-maxed netlist available for their faction and only then you can see if they're balanced together. There's no mystery over the fact that if one player brings optimized force and the other doesn't, despite the same point limit the former is stronger than the latter. And it works the same with StarCraft or any other strategy game - filling your pop limit with 200 marines opens you to having your opponent fill his 200 pop limit with units that are hard counters to the marines. In Wargame: AirLand Battle if you bring no AA your ground vehicles are screwed.

Real balance only comes when two equally optimized forces have more or less equal chances to win and in every game you'll hear that some armies are better than others, because that cannot be avoided.

* - Reach is a special rule that makes your melee weapons' range 2"

I'd put money on a good player with a trencher list over a noob with Butchers doom reaver theme list every time.

When people talk about the story aspect of the game what do they mean. In warmachine for example you have tournaments pushing story further, is there something like that in AoS ?

This years warmachine league has rules for solos gaining xp and spending that xp on new abilities across multiple games.

As far as I am aware AoS does not have anything like that.

AoS actually strikes me as a very narrative light game since it lacks rules for game to game progression, all I am aware of is simply the scenarios in the expansion books that are expected to be played in order with the results of one not effecting the next.

The "narrative gameplay" excuse gives me the thrills each and every time.

First, if you want real examples of narrative gameplay, go check the story-driven campaigns for 5th edition WHFB.

Second, virtually any tabletop game can be turned into a "narrative gameplay" experience if the players are into it. You don't need a terribly lazy ruleset in order to do that.

 jonolikespie wrote:
This years warmachine league has rules for solos gaining xp and spending that xp on new abilities across multiple games.

As far as I am aware AoS does not have anything like that.

It has something like that - triumphs. They're random and there are still only a couple of tables, but this (and the manner of getting them) may change over time.

 Anpu42 wrote:

That is a good thing...it you like Kings of War. I have looked over it and went "Meh..."

Was it you who said that you have to play the game first (AoS) before you can critique the rules? It's a two-way street.

No it is not "Unique" to GW. BattleTech has some real balance issues along with Crimson Skies. Even Star Fleet Battles have some serious issues and I think it is the closest thing to a perfect rules set out there. Now some of the newer games are better than some, but some are not.

Can't say I'm familiar with those games so I can't comment. What I'm familiar with is Infinity, KoW and MtG and I don't see this big of a divide between "narrative" and "competitive" players, or this many heated rules debate.

And what about us who are not treating that way?

What about those of us who seem to just think it is a fun game, nothing more, nothing less?

If you're not the one I described, then why are you responding? I think what I said was very clear.

 Klerych wrote:


Warmachine is the most competitive tabletop game I've ever played and it really reminds me of Magic: The Gathering with all those little synergies, combos, reaction stuff and overall level of micromanagement and it's one of the most suitable games for tournament play... and then there's Butcher with his Doomreaver list. If you don't bring a list explicitly designed to counter him, you're screwed 7 out of 10 times. You either have to shoot his huge sword dudes fast enough for them to not reach you (heh, heh, reach*, get it?) which is hard with their speed being set at 7" and your weapon ranges at 10-14" or endure them with ridiculous amounts of Tough special rule which acts like 40k's Feel no Pain and then lash back out. And then there are trencher-centric lists that are 99% unplayable.

Doomies are spd6. Not 7. And while they can get tough via the ua, it's not exactly cheap. It's also it's better to fail that tough roll, as if they pass, they're still knocked down and have to sacrifice movement/action thereby holding back the rest of the squad. Which makes them vulnerable.

They also have victim stars when it comes to def and armour. And no pathfinder. You don't need a specific list to counter it at all. Pow10s utterly murder them. Any control effects (eg a caster with a 'lolcantcharge' fear), or area denial (stormwall, winter guard riflemen, ravagores, cyclone etc) tech, feat or anything that creates or uses difficult terrain completely shuts them down. There is a lot of single wound infantry hate out there. Bear in mind, none of this explicitly designed to counter him, it's pretty generic tech that people will be using anyway. And at the end of the day, you have butcher2 running ahead of them all. Medium base, random focus, low def and a very exposed position.

 Korinov wrote:
The "narrative gameplay" excuse gives me the thrills each and every time.

First, if you want real examples of narrative gameplay, go check the story-driven campaigns for 5th edition WHFB.

Second, virtually any tabletop game can be turned into a "narrative gameplay" experience if the players are into it. You don't need a terribly lazy ruleset in order to do that.

Agree. Even chess can be narrative, if you try hard enough (as demonstrated by Age of Empires 2 Intro):

Deadnight wrote:

 Klerych wrote:


Warmachine is the most competitive tabletop game I've ever played and it really reminds me of Magic: The Gathering with all those little synergies, combos, reaction stuff and overall level of micromanagement and it's one of the most suitable games for tournament play... and then there's Butcher with his Doomreaver list. If you don't bring a list explicitly designed to counter him, you're screwed 7 out of 10 times. You either have to shoot his huge sword dudes fast enough for them to not reach you (heh, heh, reach*, get it?) which is hard with their speed being set at 7" and your weapon ranges at 10-14" or endure them with ridiculous amounts of Tough special rule which acts like 40k's Feel no Pain and then lash back out. And then there are trencher-centric lists that are 99% unplayable.

Doomies are spd6. Not 7. And while they can get tough via the ua, it's not exactly cheap. It's also it's better to fail that tough roll, as if they pass, they're still knocked down and have to sacrifice movement/action thereby holding back the rest of the squad. Which makes them vulnerable.

They also have victim stars when it comes to def and armour. And no pathfinder. You don't need a specific list to counter it at all. Pow10s utterly murder them. Any control effects (eg a caster with a 'lolcantcharge' fear), or area denial (stormwall, winter guard riflemen, ravagores, cyclone etc) tech, feat or anything that creates or uses difficult terrain completely shuts them down. There is a lot of single wound infantry hate out there. Bear in mind, none of this explicitly designed to counter him, it's pretty generic tech that people will be using anyway. And at the end of the day, you have butcher2 running ahead of them all. Medium base, random focus, low def and a very exposed position.

Right, forgot about the speed, been a while since I played against them. And with tough I meant myself and my trollbloods who tend to miraculously survive the onslaught to live long enough to punch back (Madrak brick).

Thing is - shooting is very, very scarce in the game and it's often one turn only as the ranges are ridiculously short, and frankly, there's really enough of those dudes for them to reach you, even if they take heavy fire for two turns and you know what P+S 13 weapon master, reach magical weapons can do to basically anything. Models, that are immune to spells and have Berserk special rule. With 6 for 6 points at SPD of 6, Advance Deployment, Abomination and Fearless. You really have to admit that 6 points is a bargain for them. Not to mention them costing actually 5 points in his tier list which is really bonkers as it contains all the models you would ever want with him - Manhunters, Fenris, Yuri, War Dogs. You rarely get to kill all of them in one unit, and you're looking at several more running 12" up to you (that's a first or second turn charge, by the way, especially that their threat range is actually 14" due to reach, so we're looking at 10" deployment zone + 6" advance deployment range + 14" threat range = 30 inches of threat turn one!) along with solos. Something -is- going to reach you and God forbid he gets to activate eButcher's feat for the tokens and let, say, Fenris chop through your army.

I have yet to see a "generic" (well-rounded) list to win against properly played eButcher who knows which units to sacrifice and which are charging and your point of trenchers being better in hands of a pro player than butcher played by an idiot... well, yeah, probably true, but equally skilled players? Please.

To not make this off-topic, I just was pointing out that even the most balanced and tightest-ruled games also have problems with total balance because some things are always outright worse than others due to various factors.

 Klerych wrote:

Thing is - shooting is very, very scarce in the game and it's often one turn only as the ranges are ridiculously short, and frankly, there's really enough of those dudes for them to reach you, even if they take heavy fire for two turns and you know what P+S 13 weapon master, reach magical weapons can do to basically anything.
.

They still need to get there to do 'basically anything'.

Shooting Is 'Very very scarce'? Rubbish. Utter rubbish. In any of my khador lists, I'll be fielding the winter guard Death Star (up to fifteen 8' sprays), winter guard riflemen with joe (14' rat5 boosted and suppressing fire), Nyss hunters along with a squad of widowmakers. Cygnar. Ret. protectorate. All have solid ranged options. Heck, even cryx can bile thrall purge. On the hordes side also, you have decent access to ranged set ups. Legion. Done. Skorne. Done. Circle and trolls? Doable. Along with berzerking warpwolves and arm/tough spam.

Most armies in the game are capable of putting together a decent firing line as part of any fifty point list.

Two turns is enough to clear enough of them out, and let's not forget thst I have the rest of my list to play with too. Plus, as I mentioned various area denial tools. Epic irusk. One of my go to casters. Clear out a wave or two of doomies, pop feat. No charges. Two more truns of clearing them out.

 Klerych wrote:

Models, that are immune to spells and have Berserk special rule. With 6 for 6 points at SPD of 6, Advance Deployment, Abomination and Fearless. You really have to admit that 6 points is a bargain for them. Not to mention them costing actually 5 points in his tier list which is really bonkers as it contains all the models you would ever want with him - Manhunters, Fenris, Yuri, War Dogs.

No argument. They're a brilliant unit. Then again, abomination is a double edged sword, and lets not forget the victim stars (13/14 doesn't scream survival) and the lack of pathfinder. And yes, spell immunity. Double edged sword. I can't put anything on them either. They're also not immune to bullets, swords, corrosion, fire etc etc.

 Klerych wrote:

You rarely get to kill all of them in one unit, and you're looking at several more running 12" up to you (that's a first or second turn charge, by the way, especially that their threat range is actually 14" due to reach, so we're looking at 10" deployment zone + 6" advance deployment range + 14" threat range = 30 inches of threat turn one!) along with solos. Something -is- going to reach you and God forbid he gets to activate eButcher's feat for the tokens and let, say, Fenris chop through your army
.

I play the list. I know what it can do. It doesn't really matter what squad the doomy is in, it's one less doomy to worry about.

Assuming they go first it's a 7 plus 6 deployment zone. If thry go second, thryre screwed as I've got my stuff in position to counter them. First or second turn charge? Sure. If I play terribly. And if there is no terrain. Lack of pathfinder hurts them severely. They're not going anywhere when I drop a control feat, or put down a suppressing fire marker from a colossal, cyclone etc between them and my dudes (auto hitting pow12s for the win). You say you have trolls? Meat mountain and grissel. No orders means no charges. No running. they're walking in. Gives you even more time to drop them all. Double warders with the krielstone aura, and all that means a hell of a loot of soakage.so many options really,

Something will reach the lines. Sure. Maybe. And I'll deal with it then. What's left of the army after I've murdered anything else.its not a very resilient army and its quite possible to shut it down on the way in. Fenris. 13/16. Butcher. Up front and vulnerable.

 Klerych wrote:

I have yet to see a "generic" (well-rounded) list to win against properly played eButcher who knows which units to sacrifice and which are charging and your point of trenchers being better in hands of a pro player than butcher played by an idiot... well, yeah, probably true, but equally skilled players? Please.
.

Never mentioned trenchers. And yes, I've seen well rounded lists played well take on and beat mad dogs. So yeah, my anecdotal evidence counters your anecdotal evidence.

 Korinov wrote:
The "narrative gameplay" excuse gives me the thrills each and every time.

First, if you want real examples of narrative gameplay, go check the story-driven campaigns for 5th edition WHFB.

Second, virtually any tabletop game can be turned into a "narrative gameplay" experience if the players are into it. You don't need a terribly lazy ruleset in order to do that.

Indeed! This "narrative versus competitive" false dichotomy conflated with the "balanced versus free-for-all" false dichotomy has led people to say it's impossible to make balanced games (which is false) and that anyway they are bad because balance means something stupid..

Any good wargames rules can be used for narrative play, and also can be balanced. Think about it logically. A wargame is a mathematical model. Of course it can be balanced, if the designers want to put the effort into it.

 Talys wrote:


3. The ability for either player to have a 50:50 chance of winning regardless of skill or game knowledge

That defeats the entire purpose of playing a strategy game for me. Granted, there's always the element of luck, but if learning to be a better player is irrelevant, then it's utterly pointless and you might as well have the turning wheel from LIFE and just win or lose at random.
(Crap, I better not give GW any ideas.)

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Talys wrote:


3. The ability for either player to have a 50:50 chance of winning regardless of skill or game knowledge

That defeats the entire purpose of playing a strategy game for me. Granted, there's always the element of luck, but if learning to be a better player is irrelevant, then it's utterly pointless and you might as well have the turning wheel from LIFE and just win or lose at random.
(Crap, I better not give GW any ideas.)

Too late. GW already put a spinny thing in Storm of Magic.

 heartserenade wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

That is a good thing...it you like Kings of War. I have looked over it and went "Meh..."

Was it you who said that you have to play the game first (AoS) before you can critique the rules? It's a two-way street.

Yes I am one of a number who said that.
My "Meh..." was I looked at the rule and was un-inspired by them. That did not say I did not like them. I did not say I hate them. I felt...meh about them.
I probably would play it if I had the Models to do such a few times to see if my opinion was wrong.
I have done that with Maulafax. I played it and I had a good time, but not enough to build the armies I would need to play it.
I want to really try and play Warmachine and have the figures to Proxy it. After reading the rules and having a few failed attempts to play and not being able to get any one who was willing to show us what we were doing wrong I stopped trying.

 Grimtuff wrote:
Storm of Magic.

Good old Storm of Magic, aka the stuff nobody ever saw anyone playing...and rightfully so. The spinning wheel idea actually wasn't too bad, though. It had fun potential and if someone with basic game design knowledge would pick the idea up, there's potential.

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Talys wrote:


3. The ability for either player to have a 50:50 chance of winning regardless of skill or game knowledge

That defeats the entire purpose of playing a strategy game for me. Granted, there's always the element of luck, but if learning to be a better player is irrelevant, then it's utterly pointless and you might as well have the turning wheel from LIFE and just win or lose at random.
(Crap, I better not give GW any ideas.)

When I expanded on it below, though, I said that this assumes both people are trying their hardest. It's really no different than playing chess and taking out a knight and rook, because you're a better player than the other person. It's also no different than playing a TBS or RTS against AI, where the AI gets more units because it's an inferior player that makes stupid choices.

Again, remember the context. I'm playing with the same people each time, over a periods of many years; I don't want to win 9/10 games against one person, and lose 9/10 games against another person because they're better or worse players. I certainly don't want that because my armies are better or worse designed. That just isn't very fun for anyone. At some point, if you play with people enough, you know how good they are, and how good you are relative to them, and the entertainment value (for me) comes in playing the game, not in the win/loss; but the win/loss IS important, and the distribution should not be severely skewed.

 Talys wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:

 Talys wrote:


3. The ability for either player to have a 50:50 chance of winning regardless of skill or game knowledge

That defeats the entire purpose of playing a strategy game for me. Granted, there's always the element of luck, but if learning to be a better player is irrelevant, then it's utterly pointless and you might as well have the turning wheel from LIFE and just win or lose at random.
(Crap, I better not give GW any ideas.)

When I expanded on it below, though, I said that this assumes both people are trying their hardest. It's really no different than playing chess and taking out a knight and rook, because you're a better player than the other person. It's also no different than playing a TBS or RTS against AI, where the AI gets more units because it's an inferior player that makes stupid choices.

Again, remember the context. I'm playing with the same people each time, over a periods of many years; I don't want to win 9/10 games against one person, and lose 9/10 games against another person because they're better or worse players. I certainly don't want that because my armies are better or worse designed. That just isn't very fun for anyone. At some point, if you play with people enough, you know how good they are, and how good you are relative to them, and the entertainment value (for me) comes in playing the game, not in the win/loss; but the win/loss IS important, and the distribution should not be severely skewed.

I don't understand your meaning. What, if not players skill, should determine the winner in a war game? (And not some one-off super specific thing you and your group does.)

I want to try AOS, but I can’t.
I can’t because I feel as though I have been betrayed by GW to many times now, I have a large amount of nerd rage because of AOS.
It killed my most favorite game of all times, I love fantasy, I loved formations, I loved my movement trays, and I miss the tactics.
In fantasy you could have a very strong army but still lose because of bad unit moves, causing you to get flanked or overrun. It was a unique game compared to 40k, but now they are almost indistinguishable.
The rules just keep merging closer and closer to both the fantasy universe and 40k having the same rule book (I know some people are yelling, but I would bet money that’s what GW goal is)
The sad point is, now my army’s don’t work. I will no longer be able to show up at a shop and find a fantasy game. I have a guy at my local shop who keeps trying to talk me into at least trying a gameof AOS, but every time I contemplate getting my models, I lose all ambition.
I look at my shelf full of fantasy book that have no value or meaning any more (except personal value to me), I can’t even ebay my old book, no one wants them. Im stuck. im so mad at GW with the releases of the End Times (the very expensive and now obsolete books and models) and then they drop AOS in my lap, and do the typical GW move, release new more expensive models that all the competitive players just gobble up ASAP. Shame on any fantasy players who accept this game and have already put all their models on round bases
AOS was not needed; it could have just been a standalone expansion like Mordheim.
I for one wont, and can’t allow myself to play AOS, no matter how fun or great you think it is now, it just means latter down the road GW will want more money and will write it out with another game with a stupid title.
Im not saying AOS is all bad, I just want all the people whom are pro AOS to take a look at us old fantasy vets and know why most of us feel the way we do. As corny as it is im very sad that I can never go to a game store to find a pickup game of fantasy ever again.
And as cool and fun as the new glimmering game of AOS and its models go, the end times were called “The End Times” and im going to leave the game of fantasy that way, Ended.

CoreCommander wrote:
Why they don't release it now though? Why not do an Altar of War collected missions book like for 40k? Here the scenarios are surely welcome and the game would have benefited greatly from them. Put out 20 scenarios for 20 quid and give something that the players may play and extrapolate upon while waiting for the next Realm book release with its specific missions and terrain/game rules. As you said, not every scenario is on par with the others - if more scenarios were published there could've been the good chance that atleast half of them are nicely thought out. 20 good, immersive and detailed scenarios are more than enough for any one gamer to play for a year. On the other hand, I realize that there may be the issue of releasing just a certain number of ways to play, regarding mission rules, deplyments etc, before players start to complain about repetitiveness.

I take my words back. Having a look at the different books I see there are about 22 scenarios + the scenarios in the new dreadhold book. It was ignorance on my part as I'm only familiar with the first book of which I liked only 2 missions.

 GraywarTS wrote:

The sad point is, now my army’s don’t work.

How so? It can't work in your 8e games or it can't work in AoS? Are your miniatures not represented in the new rules?

 GraywarTS wrote:

I look at my shelf full of fantasy book that have no value or meaning any more (except personal value to me), I can’t even ebay my old book, no one wants them. Im stuck.

Don't be quick to judge. Such things become expensive with time. Check Rogue trader for example. In 10 years you'll have the last of the old WFB books. Besides they have sentimental value. I still browse through my older 40k books with nostalgia.

 GraywarTS wrote:

Im not saying AOS is all bad, I just want all the people whom are pro AOS to take a look at us old fantasy vets and know why most of us feel the way we do. As corny as it is im very sad that I can never go to a game store to find a pickup game of fantasy ever again.

Believe me I understand you, but is most of your pain not linked to the fact that there will be no more NEW players to WHFB? It was already a dying game and a lot of people were on the mind that it had lived out its life time. Something had to be done.

P.S. By the way, I'm sorry if I'm bothering you with questions and all you wanted to do is vent out your frustration - it is perfectly understandable.

 GraywarTS wrote:
I want to try AOS, but I can’t.
I can’t because I feel as though I have been betrayed by GW to many times now, I have a large amount of nerd rage because of AOS.
It killed my most favorite game of all times, I love fantasy, I loved formations, I loved my movement trays, and I miss the tactics.
In fantasy you could have a very strong army but still lose because of bad unit moves, causing you to get flanked or overrun. It was a unique game compared to 40k, but now they are almost indistinguishable.
The rules just keep merging closer and closer to both the fantasy universe and 40k having the same rule book (I know some people are yelling, but I would bet money that’s what GW goal is)
The sad point is, now my army’s don’t work. I will no longer be able to show up at a shop and find a fantasy game. I have a guy at my local shop who keeps trying to talk me into at least trying a gameof AOS, but every time I contemplate getting my models, I lose all ambition.
I look at my shelf full of fantasy book that have no value or meaning any more (except personal value to me), I can’t even ebay my old book, no one wants them. Im stuck. im so mad at GW with the releases of the End Times (the very expensive and now obsolete books and models) and then they drop AOS in my lap, and do the typical GW move, release new more expensive models that all the competitive players just gobble up ASAP. Shame on any fantasy players who accept this game and have already put all their models on round bases
AOS was not needed; it could have just been a standalone expansion like Mordheim.
I for one wont, and can’t allow myself to play AOS, no matter how fun or great you think it is now, it just means latter down the road GW will want more money and will write it out with another game with a stupid title.
Im not saying AOS is all bad, I just want all the people whom are pro AOS to take a look at us old fantasy vets and know why most of us feel the way we do. As corny as it is im very sad that I can never go to a game store to find a pickup game of fantasy ever again.
And as cool and fun as the new glimmering game of AOS and its models go, the end times were called “The End Times” and im going to leave the game of fantasy that way, Ended.

Many of us playing AOS are "old fantasy vets". I've been playing since 3rd edition and own over a dozen large painted armies. My shelves have far more books than I need, and a run of White Dwarf going back to issue 1. I'm having fun with AOS and rotating what armies I play. So far have had fun with all of them. I understand if someone tries the game and doesn't want to play it. For me, I'd rather those armies get some exercise.

 MWHistorian wrote:
I don't understand your meaning. What, if not players skill, should determine the winner in a war game? (And not some one-off super specific thing you and your group does.)

Let's make it simpler. You and I are good buddies, and we like playing WMH (or some other game) with each other. You win 95% of the games because you're a better player, but we enjoy each other's company and gaming with each other. What would you suggest?

In golf, you have handicaps. In chess, you take out some pieces. In tennis, you can play 2:1. et cetera.

Once you prove that you're a more skillful player,. the next 100 games will be a waste of time, in a game that is based purely on skill, and where one person is more skillful than the other. Perhaps the other person can accumulate more skill over time -- but to take chess as an example, skill levels often plateau for long periods of time; or sometimes plateau permanently, because that's as good as that player's going to get, at least barring serious study and tutelage.

I play with a group of private friends; I don't think this is some super specific thing unique to me. I think lots of people prefer this to pickup games. The point is, if I know that I'm a better player than my buddy, I want to give him a handicap so that he has an even chance of winning.

The purpose of a miniature wargame, for me, is for two or more people who are trying their hardest to win. But because I value the social interactions and friendships much more than the outcome of the game, I want everyone to have an equal chance to win, with their skill level factored into the equation.

I do not think that I am unique in this.

I understand you Talys, you're putting an enjoyable experience with friends before reinforcing a hierarchical ranking of players by skill.

Some people just have different priorities

 Talys wrote:

 MWHistorian wrote:
I don't understand your meaning. What, if not players skill, should determine the winner in a war game? (And not some one-off super specific thing you and your group does.)

Let's make it simpler. You and I are good buddies, and we like playing WMH (or some other game) with each other. You win 95% of the games because you're a better player, but we enjoy each other's company and gaming with each other. What would you suggest?

In golf, you have handicaps. In chess, you take out some pieces. In tennis, you can play 2:1. et cetera.

Once you prove that you're a more skillful player,. the next 100 games will be a waste of time, in a game that is based purely on skill, and where one person is more skillful than the other. Perhaps the other person can accumulate more skill over time -- but to take chess as an example, skill levels often plateau for long periods of time; or sometimes plateau permanently, because that's as good as that player's going to get, at least barring serious study and tutelage.

I play with a group of private friends; I don't think this is some super specific thing unique to me. I think lots of people prefer this to pickup games. The point is, if I know that I'm a better player than my buddy, I want to give him a handicap so that he has an even chance of winning.

The purpose of a miniature wargame, for me, is for two or more people who are trying their hardest to win. But because I value the social interactions and friendships much more than the outcome of the game, I want everyone to have an equal chance to win, with their skill level factored into the equation.

I do not think that I am unique in this.

I'd suggest teaching the other guy until his skill level is adequate. This isn't learning concert cello, it's a game. It won't take that long. That way, you're not dumbing yourself down cheapening the victory for whoever gets it.
Now, if the guy just can't get up to the same level, then you adjust the points or however you want to do it. But once again, the ENTIRE point of doing that is so that player skill will be the determining factor. So, it still goes back to: What besides player skill should determine victory?
Also, not everyone has the luxury of a close group of friends. For that, the game needs to be workable for pick up games.

 GraywarTS wrote:
Im not saying AOS is all bad, I just want all the people whom are pro AOS to take a look at us old fantasy vets and know why most of us feel the way we do. As corny as it is im very sad that I can never go to a game store to find a pickup game of fantasy ever again.
And as cool and fun as the new glimmering game of AOS and its models go, the end times were called “The End Times” and im going to leave the game of fantasy that way, Ended.

First of all, I totally understand how depressing it is for your favorite game and world to be discontinued. It has happened to me in any number of RPGs.

But how a successor is perceived is all a matter of perspective. If you think of AoS as a totally different game than Fantasy that uses different models, it becomes a game to test on its own merits.

That GW is not making a WHFB 9e should not be a shocker to anyone -- if you go into virtually any independent store and ask them how WHFB sold, they'll tell you that its sales were horrible. But if you enjoy 8e, there's nothing stopping you from playing that, with the same models, right? You can even go buy more models.

Likewise, perspective is important for ET: it's a glorious sendoff for a 30 year franchise that GW didn't have to do, and probably wasn't even close to profitable. But they did it to tie off an era, and start a new one. Would you have been happier if ET was never published, they came out with AoS, and simply never published another WHFB book, and kept the old books on the shelf?

 Talys wrote:
But if you enjoy 8e, there's nothing stopping you from playing that, with the same models, right? You can even go buy more models.

Relying on pick up games.

 MWHistorian wrote:

I'd suggest teaching the other guy until his skill level is adequate. This isn't learning concert cello, it's a game. It won't take that long. That way, you're not dumbing yourself down cheapening the victory for whoever gets it.
Now, if the guy just can't get up to the same level, then you adjust the points or however you want to do it. But once again, the ENTIRE point of doing that is so that player skill will be the determining factor. So, it still goes back to: What besides player skill should determine victory?
Also, not everyone has the luxury of a close group of friends. For that, the game needs to be workable for pick up games.

Handicapped player skill should determine victory - to use the analogy of chess and golf.

If people play relatively infrequently, and if they are not so inclined, they really don't get that much better. There's a big difference between little tricks and combos (which is just game knowledge), and the ability think strategically. For example, a good CCG player will be able to tell you with great accuracy at any time past the first few turns what cards his opponent has in his hand, what they're saving, and what they're likely waiting for or likely to play. You can't teach that, because not everyone has the memory, quick thinking, and intuition to do so. Likewise, a good wargames player in a game that allows them to do so will be able to trick, outmaneuver and otherwise outplay their opponent, and this isn't something that can necessarily be taught. Not everyone can imagine the possibilities and play out the next 5 turns in their head, based on actions you'd take -- and do so quickly enough to not piss off your opponent.

You're right: you should try to help someone that's not as good a player become a better player, but at some point, just like golf, your game plateaus -- especially if you don't play a ton, and the game isn't that important to you (it's just something you do for entertainment).

Incidentally, after a period of time, playing with a group of friends becomes a choice, rather than a luxury. All you have to do is make friends with the people you play on games nights that you enjoy playing with, and arrange to play with them This is how our group formed... no magic in it at all.

And I agree with you: the lack of a mechanism for balanced armies makes pickup games of a predetermined size harder.

Edit: MW, think of it this way -- if you play a ranked game online (like Hearthstone or StarCraft), every win makes it progressively harder to keep winning, because you'll be matched with progressively more difficult players. To me, this is preferable to winning every game, because that would get boring really quickly. The goal of the game, for me, is to keep it equally challenging (roughly speaking) for both players. The outcome of the game is still determined by skill and good decision-making; the only difference is, the better player starts off with fewer resources or disadvantageous circumstances.