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.

Makumba wrote:
But small number of models AoS are very unbalanced and unfun. And technicly you can just have a basic set and try to play with it, but in reality to have a working army you need just as many models as you needed in WFB just to counter the stuff other people deploy. AoS is like a more extrem version of Warmahordes 3lists tournament armies.

That's not the reality at all. You need a lot less models than you did for a standard game of WHFB (1250-2000pts).

And deployment poker is only used for playing AoS from the 4 page rules only. If you are playing one of the scenarios you outline your forces before deployment so it's between you and your opponent to choose appropriate sides.

A quick AoS army needs only be 1 10-man regiment of infantry, 5 cavalry, 1 hero and 1 wizard/priest to have a fun game.

Makumba wrote:
But small number of models AoS are very unbalanced and unfun. And technicly you can just have a basic set and try to play with it, but in reality to have a working army you need just as many models as you needed in WFB just to counter the stuff other people deploy. AoS is like a more extrem version of Warmahordes 3lists tournament armies.

The fact you have just compared AOS to the fat steaming turd of warmachine is a disgrace!!! The models look crap and the prices are just as exorbitant as AOS!! But AOS wins because the models look better. The only thing that I enjoyed from privateer press was the p3 paint system which I use on my AOS models.

Sword Of Caliban wrote:

Makumba wrote:
But small number of models AoS are very unbalanced and unfun. And technicly you can just have a basic set and try to play with it, but in reality to have a working army you need just as many models as you needed in WFB just to counter the stuff other people deploy. AoS is like a more extrem version of Warmahordes 3lists tournament armies.

The fact you have just compared AOS to the fat steaming turd of warmachine is a disgrace!!! The models look crap and the prices are just as exorbitant as AOS!! But AOS wins because the models look better. The only thing that I enjoyed from privateer press was the p3 paint system which I use on my AOS models.

Chillax man.

Sword Of Caliban wrote:

The fact you have just compared AOS to the fat steaming turd of warmachine is a disgrace!!! The models look crap and the prices are just as exorbitant as AOS!! But AOS wins because the models look better. The only thing that I enjoyed from privateer press was the p3 paint system which I use on my AOS models.

First off, it's not an absurd comparison. Comparing the scale of AoS to WMH, a 50pt game of WMH would probably be about 50 models, and many WMH players say the game is unbalanced at lower point values. WMH is very much built on combos and counters (too much, in my opinion). While I'd argue that AoS counts aren't nearly as strong, yeah, you'd need a larger army to ensure that you had every potential counter for your opponent's army.

Second, WMH is not a "fat steaming turd". I have my problems with both the game and the models (I guess, specifically, the PVC ones), but it's not a bad game. It's just designed to be played in a way that I don't enjoy - but others do. One day, they'll create a format for the game that I find more agreeable (and that opponents want to play) than Steamroller. And I'm hoping the poor model quality is a stop gap as PP works towards better stuff.

As for the paints, I much prefer the Citadel paints. PP paints don't have enough pigment, so it takes me 7-9 coats to get a decent flat color out of them. Took me two days just to base paint a Spriggan red. Ugh. Give me two thin coats any day.

 Sqorgar wrote:

First off, it's not an absurd comparison. Comparing the scale of AoS to WMH, a 50pt game of WMH would probably be about 50 models

Depends on the army though. Usually you'd be looking at 20-30.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Sword Of Caliban wrote:

The fact you have just compared AOS to the fat steaming turd of warmachine is a disgrace!!! The models look crap and the prices are just as exorbitant as AOS!! But AOS wins because the models look better. The only thing that I enjoyed from privateer press was the p3 paint system which I use on my AOS models.

First off, it's not an absurd comparison. Comparing the scale of AoS to WMH, a 50pt game of WMH would probably be about 50 models, and many WMH players say the game is unbalanced at lower point values. WMH is very much built on combos and counters (too much, in my opinion). While I'd argue that AoS counts aren't nearly as strong, yeah, you'd need a larger army to ensure that you had every potential counter for your opponent's army.

Second, WMH is not a "fat steaming turd". I have my problems with both the game and the models (I guess, specifically, the PVC ones), but it's not a bad game. It's just designed to be played in a way that I don't enjoy - but others do. One day, they'll create a format for the game that I find more agreeable (and that opponents want to play) than Steamroller. And I'm hoping the poor model quality is a stop gap as PP works towards better stuff.

As for the paints, I much prefer the Citadel paints. PP paints don't have enough pigment, so it takes me 7-9 coats to get a decent flat color out of them. Took me two days just to base paint a Spriggan red. Ugh. Give me two thin coats any day.

I understand what you're saying but I still hate warmachine and that isn't going to change. I'm using mostly metallic p3 paints though so they might be slightly different to the normal colours you're using as I'm painting Stormcast Eternals...

The problem is that it is 200$.

Thats alot of money and that is just screwing people over. I don't care who you ARE. Thats kind of ridiculously dumb and stupid.

Deadnight wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

First off, it's not an absurd comparison. Comparing the scale of AoS to WMH, a 50pt game of WMH would probably be about 50 models

Depends on the army though. Usually you'd be looking at 20-30.

The Retribution All-In-One has 28 models in it, and it only fields 35 pts. A 50 pt game, you are probably looking at three or four units of 10 models, unless you are fielding a colossal or run jack heavy. I'd say AoS and WMH have very similar scales.

To get a bit back on subject, the new "collection starter" boxes that GW is releasing for $85 are a heck of a deal, and while they are a bit more than my $50 budget, I'm not sure I'm going to be able to resist the Seraphon starter. Hopefully, these boxes will be around for a while. I have my eye on one or two others as well.

Sword Of Caliban wrote:

Makumba wrote:
But small number of models AoS are very unbalanced and unfun. And technicly you can just have a basic set and try to play with it, but in reality to have a working army you need just as many models as you needed in WFB just to counter the stuff other people deploy. AoS is like a more extrem version of Warmahordes 3lists tournament armies.

The fact you have just compared AOS to the fat steaming turd of warmachine is a disgrace!!! The models look crap and the prices are just as exorbitant as AOS!! But AOS wins because the models look better. The only thing that I enjoyed from privateer press was the p3 paint system which I use on my AOS models.

Since when do model looks have anything to do with how good a game is. There are ton of models that looks stupid or ugly, even both at the same time, and people still buying them in multiples, because they are efficient. I mean your not going to tell me that all those corrions and borrowing stuff undead factions get, gets bought up so fast, just because the models look awesome.

A 50 pt game, you are probably looking at three or four units of 10 models, unless you are fielding a colossal or run jack heavy

I don't think there are that many armies in w40k that run 40+models. My cygnar is infantry heavy, and I don't have the colossal everyone runs in their lists,a nd my lists are not that big. Menoth or Retribution can do it, but that is like saying that skaven slave armies or goblin armies should be used as a norm for army size in WFB.

I would say most of the 40k armies where I play (2000 pts) are about 50-60 models on average. There are some that play very low model count with knights, and there are some that play horde guard or orks with 120-150 models.

My necron army is 65 models give or take.

40k must have changed a bit since I last played it a few years ago. I would use over 40 gaunts alone, and had about 100 if really needed (I still have about 60 in unopened boxes that have been sat in the garage for years). My old marine army had something like 50-60 models and they were both a lot less than 2000pts. I seem to remember 1250 pts being about standard when I first got into it then 1500pts becoming more normal.

Okay, with regards to the Codex I stand by my previous comments..... that said



What the hell is going on with the models? I just spotted that they are selling x3.... yes, thats THREE plastic horsies called 'Varanguard' at £60 a box. That's £20 per plastic horsie knight.


I can buy a box of x15 well sculpted Norman knights on horseback for SAGA for £20.


The feth am I seeing - this has to be a parody website I've stumbled onto

 Wulfmar wrote:

What the hell is going on with the models? I just spotted that they are selling x3.... yes, thats THREE plastic horsies called 'Varanguard' at £60 a box. That's £20 per plastic horsie knight.

A) GW prices according to their value to an army, not by the number of pounds of plastic they use.

B) They are VERY big horsies.

C) Only rich people get to play the Everchosen.

D) You should see the price tag on Archaon...

E) GW gonna GW.

If you can download the Varanguard rules free, why won't people use a proxy model like the Chaos Knights?

 Sqorgar wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

 Sqorgar wrote:

First off, it's not an absurd comparison. Comparing the scale of AoS to WMH, a 50pt game of WMH would probably be about 50 models

Depends on the army though. Usually you'd be looking at 20-30.

The Retribution All-In-One has 28 models in it, and it only fields 35 pts. A 50 pt game, you are probably looking at three or four units of 10 models, unless you are fielding a colossal or run jack heavy. I'd say AoS and WMH have very similar scales.
.

So what? thats one infantry spam list. That doesn't define the game. And it doesn't win the debate for you.

Like I said, it entirely depends on the army. It's more than 'run a colossal or jack heavy'.

For every one of those doodspam lists, you have something else with a far lower model count. Doodspam is not necessarily smart all the time - there is a lot of single wound infantry hate out there. My vlad3 charge of the horselords list is about 20models for example. Fenris, the drakhun and Markov are 30% of the list! and they're 3 models. Khador and ret are at the upper end in terms of body count lists as well, let's not forget. Most of the hordes lists out there (and they're half the game) run with lots more beasts than they run infantry spam, and it's not uncommon to see a legion or circle list with dozen models in in. My 50pt kromac lists is typical running a gorax, warpwolf trinity (30points right there...) and thst doesn't leave room for 'three or four units of 10 models'. YouLl typically see double shrimp, or wolf riders and bloodtrackers backing up the beasts. In terms of body count, It's a Hell of a lot less than 50, and it's pretty par for the course for circle builds in general.

So yeah, it's not as simple as you would like to believe. 50 might the upper limit, and yes, there are builds that focus on this. I've run them. I like some of them. Butcher2s mad dogs of war theme list (I run 8 squads of doom reavers in mine) is insane amounts of fun. But it's not necessarily common, smart nor does it somehow define the size of the game when so many other lists out there have a far smaller footprint. So like I said, 30 is a far more common size.

 Wulfmar wrote:
Okay, with regards to the Codex I stand by my previous comments..... that said



What the hell is going on with the models? I just spotted that they are selling x3.... yes, thats THREE plastic horsies called 'Varanguard' at £60 a box. That's £20 per plastic horsie knight.


I can buy a box of x15 well sculpted Norman knights on horseback for SAGA for £20.


The feth am I seeing - this has to be a parody website I've stumbled onto

Well, I will venture and say each Varanguard could easily have 10x more mass in plastic than a single SAGA knight, if not more. That's without taking into account the crazy fifference in detail, and the spare parts in the GW kit.

Aye there may be more plastic used and more detail - but in my mind at least I just can't justify the price. I could buy a 1/35 model warship with x5 the plastic of the three knights with an electric motor (control device extra) for the same price. It's my personal view though as there are other things that I consider buying model-wise rather than GW being my main hobby (it's been pushed further down the list as time marches on. I dearly would like a Tomb Kings force because of the Aesthetics but I have no confidence on how they would play in AoS, let alone if models will be replaced with pricier ones)

Deadnight wrote:

So what? thats one infantry spam list. That doesn't define the game. And it doesn't win the debate for you.

All the Warmachine All-In-One boxes are 35 pt tournament ready lists between 22-28 models - usually two group units, two jacks, and a handful of solo/support units. The new Cephalyx box is 37 models (has three group units of 10). The point is WMH and AoS operate at a similar scale - somewhere in the midrange of model counts. More than a handful, but less than a bucket.

Most of the hordes lists out there (and they're half the game) run with lots more beasts than they run infantry spam, and it's not uncommon to see a legion or circle list with dozen models in in.

It's actually kind of ironic that in a game called "Warmachine", the war machines are generally considered quite poor, while in a game called "Hordes", you end up playing with fewer models altogether.

 Sqorgar wrote:

Deadnight wrote:

So what? thats one infantry spam list. That doesn't define the game. And it doesn't win the debate for you.

All the Warmachine All-In-One boxes are 35 pt tournament ready lists between 22-28 models - usually two group units, two jacks, and a handful of solo/support units. The new Cephalyx box is 37 models (has three group units of 10). The point is WMH and AoS operate at a similar scale - somewhere in the midrange of model counts. More than a handful, but less than a bucket.

And like what was pointed out, these all in one boxes don't define the size. And I'm not going to repeat myself again.

 Sqorgar wrote:
It's actually kind of ironic that in a game called "Warmachine", the war machines are generally considered quite poor, while in a game called "Hordes", you end up playing with fewer models altogether.

Depends on the definition. Most dictionaries will define one of the meanings of warmachine as something along the lines of 'the military forces of a nation'. Similarly. Hordes works when you think of them as 'the hordes that inhabit the wilderness', rather than what appears on the table top.

And amusingly, 'warmachine' is a rather apt term (singular noun), as plenty lists only run a single jack in their list.

Still think that instead of combining Warmachine and Hordes to form the Warmahordes portmanteau, they should have gone down the Hordes and Warmachine route to make Hormachine

And if AoS is deemed a success, GW'll do the same with 40K so they have a franchise where AoS players can take on 40k players - warmahordes reborn warhammer style.
:-(

 Wulfmar wrote:
I dearly would like a Tomb Kings force because of the Aesthetics but I have no confidence on how they would play in AoS, let alone if models will be replaced with pricier ones)

*Cough*KingsofWar*cough*

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
And if AoS is deemed a success, GW'll do the same with 40K so they have a franchise where AoS players can take on 40k players - warmahordes reborn warhammer style.
:-(

I nearly made it through a whole year without someone spouting the Fantasy/SciFi crossover GW have had planned for ever because money...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jonolikespie wrote:

 Wulfmar wrote:
I dearly would like a Tomb Kings force because of the Aesthetics but I have no confidence on how they would play in AoS, let alone if models will be replaced with pricier ones)

*Cough*KingsofWar*cough*

Uh, how do you get 'confidence' in how a race will play before you use them?

RoperPG wrote:

Uh, how do you get 'confidence' in how a race will play before you use them?

I've not seen bat reps (though there may be some) that explain how Tomb Kings function in AoS. They haven't been made into an AoS faction like some of the other forces either from what I can see. I don't know how they translate into an AoS force and how they would work under the new system.

To get confidence, I would need to see videos of them in the new system, read the rules and understand how they have changed from the previous incarnation for which they were designed for.

As it is, the Tomb King forum is effectively dead and I see next to no discussion or army lists on them - it's like they've been left alone. When I say confidence, I mean confidence in what I need to buy to make a functional army, as well as confidence that what I but won't end up being a waste of money.

If anyone would like, I can post photos of Archaon and some Varanguard with a Venerable Dreadnought for scale.

Might not happen tonight, but I can put it on my to-do list.

 Kanluwen wrote:
If anyone would like, I can post photos of Archaon and some Varanguard with a Venerable Dreadnought for scale.

Might not happen tonight, but I can put it on my to-do list.

Would appreciate it. Thanks!

 Gimgamgoo wrote:
And if AoS is deemed a success, GW'll do the same with 40K so they have a franchise where AoS players can take on 40k players - warmahordes reborn warhammer style.
:-(

Depends on what "success" means. If it's successful by being "20% better than WHFB in 2014", there's no way GW will mess with their cash cow. On the other hand, if in 12 months, AoS ties 40k in sales and in 24 months, AoS climbs to a half billion in annual sales, out the door 40k goes, points and all, hello free 4 page rules. Hell, they might even go for 3.

And no, I don't think that the latter will happen I do think AoS will give GW better sales than WHFB in the last few years, but not enough that they'll be happy with it; and I think that eventually, they will capitulate and throw points back into the game, or some balancing system for pickup games. But what do I know!

I think "success" is defined by GW management as whatever the hell they say it is, with no actual metric behind it. If Kirby says it is a success it is a success and 40k is boned.

I have topped almost 100 AoS games, the numbers of models being cited is no where near the amount we use, maybe thats just us, but minimum of 50 models usually well closer to 100 on the table. the idea of 30 to 40 just isnt really realistic.

I wonder what number the game was designed for, are there batttle reports in WD that show AoS games?


The rules do suggest 100 models a side is an evenings worth of gaming, so I take that to mean that is their expected size, but that seems, from the outside at least, grossly bloated for a skirmish game.