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.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 Spinner wrote:

Battle for Skull Pass was...what, $45?

I have to admit that I didn't believe you, so I went and looked it up. It is truly amazing to me that GW ever released anything of that size at that price point - and only 8 years ago! Island of blood cost at least twice that and had half as many figures.

I know, right? I had to look it up myself - Battle for Skull Pass was what I started playing WHFB with (although I grew up with Heroquest!), and I KNEW I didn't pay anywhere near $70 for it, but it's still a heck of a shock. Try looking through old White Dwarf ads if you want an even bigger one. It's amazing how quickly GW prices rose.

By that same logic, two guys can split the current starter and pay nearly the same amount of money (inflation included) for half the models and still have two very functional armies.

Bolded part of that for you. I don't think that getting the same amount of plastic really equates to getting a larger number of models; furthermore, I'd argue that Battle for Skull Pass had lots more character. The grudge-pony with its little cart...that web-wrapped Slayer (he made a perfect objective before I converted him into being a makeshift troll club!)...heck, that tiny attack squig the night goblin boss was holding! Just loads more fun in general.

Just for clarification, the army books didn't come with the set, but you could purchase them and still stay below the price point Rihgu quoted. In addition, the rulebook itself had fluff in it. Not as much, but definitely some!

The problem there is that most pro-aosers point to formations and scenarios to how to balance the game. So the codexs aren't just fluff. They are a gaming tax

There was no need to bold it out - I knew what I wrote.

I don't think that getting the same amount of plastic really equates to getting a larger number of models

That depends on the person. If not for their sentimental value I'd trade right away many of my old, metal space marines for the newer, bigger, more detailed models at 2:1 or even 3:1 ratio.
I know that there's also the gamer's point of view - you get more models so you can play larger games etc. - but it is a discussion I don't want to participate in. Suffice to say, I consider the models that one gets from the AoS starter to be sufficient enough to play the game to a comparable enjoyment and diversity to the ones that BfSP gave in its own context of FB.

 CoreCommander wrote:
There was no need to bold it out - I knew what I wrote.

I don't think that getting the same amount of plastic really equates to getting a larger number of models

That depends on the person. If not for their sentimental value I'd trade right away many of my old, metal space marines for the newer, bigger, more detailed models at 2:1 or even 3:1 ratio.

I figured you did! Was more for pointing out to other people, really.

Actually, I've got an issue with the 'inflation' bit, too, now that I've checked it out. Not like I'm an economic expert or anything, but this calculator puts the price at Battle for Skull Pass - $45 - at a little over $50 if you adjust for inflation.

The Age of Sigmar starter set, which includes less than half the models and no scenery, will run you $125.

Now, if you split it between two people, you're paying only a little more than someone who bought the entire Battle for Skull Pass box for themselves, but you're only getting roughly twenty models, no terrain, you're sharing the rulebook, and you're still paying more.

Fair point on the space marines, I might feel the same - but that's mostly because smaller old ones would look kinda silly squaring off against newer models that they're supposed to be larger than Not sure of the exact scale difference, but I know it's visible.

 Spinner wrote:


The Age of Sigmar starter set, which includes less than half the models and no scenery, will run you $125.

Now, if you split it between two people, you're paying only a little more than someone who bought the entire Battle for Skull Pass box for themselves, but you're only getting roughly twenty models, no terrain, you're sharing the rulebook, and you're still paying more.

My mistake here. Well, get your iPad, and load up with enthusiasm for painting a fewer number but more awesome miniatures because that's more emphasized now with the big expensive figures. You should squeeze out your enjoyment from every square mil-inch

To be blunt and honest even as someone with very little recent interest in whfb and who has tried a couple of games of AoS.

The reason a lot of people were upset is that AoS is frankly gak as an actual game, not even as a wargame but just a game.

It is literally one step above shouting pew pew while pushing green/grey army men around, but a step below the game you design with your brother when your 9 or 10 years old to play with the army men.

gak i am pretty sure if I still had the rules me and my brother could sue GW for the ideas they pinched for AoS.

While I agree a lack of points or any other form of attempted balance sucks it is a bit of a moot point when the actual game is utter tripe.

SeanDrake wrote:
To be blunt and honest even as someone with very little recent interest in whfb and who has tried a couple of games of AoS.

The reason a lot of people were upset is that AoS is frankly gak as an actual game, not even as a wargame but just a game.

It is literally one step above shouting pew pew while pushing green/grey army men around, but a step below the game you design with your brother when your 9 or 10 years old to play with the army men.

gak i am pretty sure if I still had the rules me and my brother could sue GW for the ideas they pinched for AoS.

While I agree a lack of points or any other form of attempted balance sucks it is a bit of a moot point when the actual game is utter tripe.

Well, that certainly is a reasoned, informed opinion. Thanks for sharing!

Battle For Skull Pass was massively subsidised for the US if it was $45 dollars. The set was £40 pounds at least, in the UK!

 Bottle wrote:
Battle For Skull Pass was massively subsidised for the US if it was $45 dollars. The set was £40 pounds at least, in the UK!

I think that this may be because there is no tax included in this price (really, prices without already included tax, as we have VAT, REALLY confuse me)

I think the $45 figure was working on the presumption that two people would pay $45 each to get a $90 starter set and split the minis, as the discussion was around startup costs at that point.

 Sqorgar wrote:

SeanDrake wrote:
To be blunt and honest even as someone with very little recent interest in whfb and who has tried a couple of games of AoS.

The reason a lot of people were upset is that AoS is frankly gak as an actual game, not even as a wargame but just a game.

It is literally one step above shouting pew pew while pushing green/grey army men around, but a step below the game you design with your brother when your 9 or 10 years old to play with the army men.

gak i am pretty sure if I still had the rules me and my brother could sue GW for the ideas they pinched for AoS.

While I agree a lack of points or any other form of attempted balance sucks it is a bit of a moot point when the actual game is utter tripe.

Well, that certainly is a reasoned, informed opinion. Thanks for sharing!

He played "couple of games" so how is it uninformed?

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

SeanDrake wrote:
To be blunt and honest even as someone with very little recent interest in whfb and who has tried a couple of games of AoS.

The reason a lot of people were upset is that AoS is frankly gak as an actual game, not even as a wargame but just a game.

It is literally one step above shouting pew pew while pushing green/grey army men around, but a step below the game you design with your brother when your 9 or 10 years old to play with the army men.

gak i am pretty sure if I still had the rules me and my brother could sue GW for the ideas they pinched for AoS.

While I agree a lack of points or any other form of attempted balance sucks it is a bit of a moot point when the actual game is utter tripe.

Well, that certainly is a reasoned, informed opinion. Thanks for sharing!

He played "couple of games" so how is it uninformed?

Because he didn't like it

Informed is a rather vague term, but for any review of a game I'd expect a lot more than a couple of games before I'd class it as an 'informed' review.

There was certainly no reasoning. A lot of hyperbole and statements that push it into the sort of comments that one ignores if one wants some review.

Gak as a game never mind a wargame. Really care to explain why?

A step above going pew pew but not as good as what other designed at 10 years old with their brother. Really, how many have brothers in the same age category with the same hobby who wrote rules that were somehow 'more' than AOS. I wrote some at about that age, I had no brother though, They were hardly some awesome rule set that I'd put over AOS or any other game.

I had to laugh at that though, what does KOW (which has gained a lot of WFB players from what others are saying) provide that AOS doesn't on a gak scale? Formations and their rules take up a large amount of the extra rules in KOW, but that is subject matter (or are all skirmish style games gak?) and points, which don't make a game itself gak or not. Both have movement by inches, both have to hit and to wound that are simple rolls with no unit comparison, AOS has to save and 'rending'. KOW doesn't do casualties and does morale via cumulutive buildup. AOS does casualties and morale based on how well you did that turn. KOW is extreme IGOUGO where as AOS has alternate attacks during each turn. KOW has even simpler magic than AOS. KOW avoids synergies and combos like the plague so that it can do points better, AOS ignores points and makes synergies, with heroes especially, a key part of the game.

I've played both games, I consider both games pretty similar in complexity and would put both about the same place on some 'game scale' which has saying pew pew as bottom. If you want formations or point based armies then KOW is your game, if you want skirmish or unit combos or interesting heroes then AOS is better.

[edit] Thinking about it a bit more I'd put AOS as the better game on such a scale (I prefer games with more synergies and like the attack order interaction). Both are very simple games, but KOW feels somewhat 'bland' due to its lack of combos and very basic heroes.

Then we get how he might be able to sue GW for pinching his ideas. Really? Did the 10 year old version of him publish and have some copyright or IP that GW has illegally used? More garbage hyperbole.


If he had just said that after a couple of games he had realised it wasn't the sort of game for him then he'd come over a lot more reasoned. But adding in all that other stuff is very much in the unreasoned and uninformed category.

Hey that's just picking on words lol.

Though truth be told, any serious attempt at review trying to be objective and coming with a conclusion that AoS is a better game, that's much much worse than the post you reffer to. A complete garbage review and worthless blabber so to speak.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Truth Be Told 2, it wasn't a proffesional review but just a post stating an opinion and just enough hyperbole to describe an impression. Not to mention that, with enough experience, you can easily judge a ruleset after few games, especialy a simple one like AoS.

Don't get your panties in a bunch. I said it was a reasoned and informed opinion, and I even thanked him for sharing. Geez.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Don't get your panties in a bunch. I said it was a reasoned and informed opinion, and I even thanked him for sharing. Geez.

...and they say Americans don't get sarcasm.

RoperPG wrote:
I think the $45 figure was working on the presumption that two people would pay $45 each to get a $90 starter set and split the minis, as the discussion was around startup costs at that point.

It was not. Like I said, I couldn't remember exactly what I paid, so I did some digging. As unbelievable as it might sound, that was the figure that kept coming back. It was a starter box actually priced to get someone started in the hobby.

Worked like a charm on me!

...now, granted, it was more expensive elsewhere, roughly half the cost of the Age of Sigmar starter, I believe. For more than twice the models, some really neat terrain, general GW starter set bitz and pieces, and a rulebook.

 Sqorgar wrote:
Don't get your panties in a bunch. I said it was a reasoned and informed opinion, and I even thanked him for sharing. Geez.

Good one heh, thanks for the laugh.

puree wrote:

I had to laugh at that though, what does KOW (which has gained a lot of WFB players from what others are saying) provide that AOS doesn't on a gak scale?

Not much, just some tools so that the players can try to have a balanced game in another way than "taking your whole collection and play".

Both games are quite simple. KOW uses it so that it's easier to make new units and keep the point system nice to use.

Main difference is of course the scale; KOW focuses on mass battles while AoS is more at ease at a skirmish level.

The IGOUGO system is obvious in both games; after all, Alessio comes from GW as well. However, when making a mass battle game system and trying to make it quick...it's easier to keep track of your units if you play it whole in a row. Alternated activations is certainly more dynamic, but it becomes quickly tedious when there are many miniatures on the board.

AoS just uses the basis from their Warhammer core system. Sure, opponent may be attacking during the active player's turn, but this is a small disadvantage as well for multiplayers "free for all" games. Not a big deal, just a few "homemade rules" are enough.

Having everything made by the active player during his turn only also helps to make it quick. As always, advantages and disadvantages - but I believe it is a pure choice in game designing, rather than wanting to keep old rules for the sake of it.

Saying there is no synergy or combo in KOW is like saying there is no tactic in AoS; it's false, though it's maybe not as developped as in others, more complex games. It's mainly heroes that do the job in KOW, using spells, magic items or special rules to help the others units around hit harder, stand their ground, heal their wounds or just moving them/their enemies so that they can reach their target in time. Having generic support actions doesn't mean they don't have any.

True, there are less details in KOW. And that's purely intentionnal; it's always easier to balance things that are simple and don't have a lot of different, obscure special rules only designed for them. AoS goes the other way, and that's also a reason this GW game just throws standard balance out of the window - giving the ball in the hands of players alone.

Both games have their advantages and disadvantages.


Not really sure KOW is more popular than AOS, but in my country, Belgium, AOS doesn't seem to take roots. A lot of veteran players, who stayed with GW even when there was barely any new for WFB, felt betrayed and took their clubs with them. New players feel a bit alone when they try to pick up a game. A representative of GW at the last miniature convention in Anvers said we don't seem to "get AOS" - and that's basically our fault if the game doesn't start here.

Well, in a way, he's right. But in another...maybe GW just didn't bring the game they wanted?

Anyway, it's dead here. I still bought a huge Undead army. Took it at my local GW shop. I know, I'm stupid, I paid full price in their shops for it. Whatever, they had everything I wanted in stock and well...poor guys in the GW store are having it a bit rough for their AoS products. Wouldn't be a great thing not to have a GW store anymore in my town, after all.

But I took it for KOW mainly, and because they were the old boxes with square bases. At least, I will find some players...and if AOS starts later, I will be able to use my miniatures as well, since bases don't matter in it.

puree wrote:
Informed is a rather vague term, but for any review of a game I'd expect a lot more than a couple of games before I'd class it as an 'informed' review.

How many times should someone play a game they dislike before writing it off, in your opinion?

Herzlos wrote:

puree wrote:
Informed is a rather vague term, but for any review of a game I'd expect a lot more than a couple of games before I'd class it as an 'informed' review.

How many times should someone play a game they dislike before writing it off, in your opinion?

I think it is fair to expect a professional reviewer to play at least several games, but for any individual person to have formed their own opinion I'd say a single game is enough.

 jonolikespie wrote:

I think it is fair to expect a professional reviewer to play at least several games, but for any individual person to have formed their own opinion I'd say a single game is enough.

Exactly. From a professional reviewer, we expect reasoned objectivity, informed perspective, worldly comprehension, and a lack of inflammatory hyperbole. There's no reason we should expect similar reasonableness from everybody posting their opinions in a forum. After all, they aren't being paid (or even invited) to share their views with others, so why should we hold them to the same standards? There's no such thing as a wrong opinion, only wrong opinion listeners.

I'd say that even for a professional reviewer, a single game is enough if the result is "this game has no redeeming features at all". Like "The Club" or "Goat Simulator".

It should be easy enough to report back on any game after 1 or 2 playthroughs. First impressions are important and all that.

If you're still looking for 20mm (or even 15mm) round plastic bases, check out http://proxiemodels.com. They're thinner than GW's but they're good They also have really big round ones in lots of different sizes that will be good for bigger models. All the way up to 120mm I think.

I like that AoS is more of a casual game. I'm also someone that rarely plays and rarely remembers the rules, so I like that it's more simple. I'm kind of hoping over time it will develop into something kinda like Warmahordes and they eventually put out some kind of points system. It's an all new game system & world and it will take time for it to build up an audience, but I'm still kinda sad they have to kill off the old one i the process.

I'm kinda hoping though that the new Specialist games team will put out a Warhammer Old World rulebook or whatever, to keep the old game alive.. and/or have special movement trays made to fit the newer models that will all have round bases.

Herzlos wrote:
I'd say that even for a professional reviewer, a single game is enough if the result is "this game has no redeeming features at all". Like "The Club" or "Goat Simulator".

It should be easy enough to report back on any game after 1 or 2 playthroughs. First impressions are important and all that.

All evidence to the contrary, it IS possible to share one's opinions on the internet with dignity and be respected for it. However, hastily drawn conclusions from assumptions and incomplete information, presented in an arrogant and ungrammatical form is not it.

I didn't find it arrogant, it was fairly blunt, but to be fair an awful lot of people who've tried AoS have a lot worse to say about it than it being tripe.

Herzlos wrote:
I didn't find it arrogant, it was fairly blunt, but to be fair an awful lot of people who've tried AoS have a lot worse to say about it than it being tripe.

I just looked up "a step below the game you design with your brother when your 9 or 10 years old" on Google and it came back, not "arrogance personified" as I expected, but as "festively forthright"... Well, don't that just beat all? I stand corrected.

It also said, "Are you sure you didn't mean 'a step below the game you design with your brother when you're 9 or 10 years old'?" I didn't, but thanks for looking out for me, Google.

Herzlos wrote:
I'd say that even for a professional reviewer, a single game is enough if the result is "this game has no redeeming features at all". Like "The Club" or "Goat Simulator".

It should be easy enough to report back on any game after 1 or 2 playthroughs. First impressions are important and all that.

Goat Simulator actually has a lot of redeeming features, so I'm wondering if your statement is correct at all...

I've never played it, but I got the impression it was technically awful, but good fun for a while.

Goat Simulator is a great time for the first few hours when you're seeing everything for the first time, but once you've seen everything, there's no reason to keep playing.

That sounds a bit like life.