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.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
RPGs don't need a balancing structure because they have a Games Master who provides that function.

Similarly, wargames with a player or team versus an umpire running a hidden enemy, and be balanced by the umpire; this can also be done in versus games. It is not ideal, since players tend to suspect the umpire is manipulating the results to present the narrative he prefers, even if he isn't.

There's no reason you can't use the AoS rules as a kind of very simple RPG or with an umpire. There almost certainly are better rules for doing such a function. AoS is designed for medium to large scale skirmishes between two players. This would tend to indicate that scenario design should be done by one or both of the players involved, if you don't want to just buy the GW scenarios.

I'd say that balancing is quite important in an RPG because no one likes being the useless character, utterly overshadowed by someone else just because he's played the game before and knows the super powerful abilities to take.

Okay...

* Cracks knuckles *

 RiTides wrote:
That sounds like a great scenario, MongooseMatt - but also one that would be best structured by a GM.

No, no, and thrice no

What I just described was completely off the top of my head, and is exactly the sort of thing we might play as a one-off. There was nothing I described there that required a GM. You could use The Ritual as the basis for it (or even the whole of it, really...), have the terrain set up as the cavern, make sure the elves are outnumbered at the start (do it on wounds, 30-50% more for the Skaven), then flip the other way for reinforcements.

Honestly... job done.

Do that three or four times, and you'll be able to create games like that at will, no effort at all.

 RiTides wrote:
Everything you've said sounds great, but could be just as well had with any game system really - I don't see anything about AoS that allows me to easily play it that way, other than the fact that they've left everything that could give it structure out.

This has come up before, but it is worth picking up on.

If they had stuck a points system into AoS, it is what everyone would have gravitated to and much of what makes AoS what it is would never see the light of day. Note that I am not saying WHFB would be improved by removing points. AoS is its own animal - think of it as a toolkit which, through Battleplans, Time of War sheets and Warscrolls (and your own creativity!), you can layer things on to create the games you want to play. Try not to see it as a lack of structure - think of it as an invitation, encouraging you to try types of games you might never have seen in WHFB.

Yes, a points system could have been put in and you could say anyone wanting the more narrative angle could just ignore them. But they wouldn't. If you put a points system in, that is what 99% of the players will do, and someone at GW (I have an idea who) wanted to show the world that different games were possible and that they were really fun.

I think he was right.

 RiTides wrote:
who don't live so close to the Warhammer headquarters,

This is not a factor at all - we were playing this way before I went to any event and, in any case, GW HQ is a fair ways away. More than that, the games they play are far more 'restrictive' than those we play at home (they have to be, they have to cater for different types of groups and approaches to the game).

 RiTides wrote:

In the case of AoS, I feel like you have to both provide your own structure, narrative, characters, not to mention the normal hobby work of building the army... so again, everything I see you post looks at the same time awesome and completely inaccessible to me.

Well, first off, you have the structure of the current storyline in AoS (spread across three different realms/campaigns, with more added next week, it looks like). That is a perfectly good start, and the starter box set gives you all the models you need to kick off on that.

However, there is no one reading this who would be incapable of putting together that Dark Elf/Eshin game. No one.

You just need to change the way you approach the game.

Now, you can question whether you want to do that, and that is perfectly valid. However, if that elf game (or any of the battle reports I do on the blog) appeal to you on any level... well, that is your reason right there.

Honestly, try it. What will you lose? An hour or two of gaming time? You stand to gain a lot more. You may get things a little wrong in terms of scenarios or forces in your first couple, but so what? Fix it next time - this is nothing particularly complicated, you'll pick it up quickly.

The benefit: You will likely find you have a far, far wider range of games/battles than you ever did with WHFB. Not saying they will be better, mind - but variety is the spice, and all that...

 RiTides wrote:
Sorry for the book

Oh, I think I may be overtaking you with this post

 Guildsman wrote:

Hell, RPGs even have balancing mechanics to ensure that combat encounters are roughly equal.

You sound like a D20 player Nothing wrong with that, mind, built the back of my business on D20

However, comparatively few RPGs have that type of balancing and, frankly, most do not need it. Traveller, for example (new edition recently released, go check it out!) has never needed balance, even within character creation (to a large degree, anyway).

autumnlotus wrote:
^this. I love events, love to work out how my army/flock/warband/etc works and fits into the Narrative and how the fight fits into that narrative. But this is something that requires context. What are witch elves now in AoS? Do they still worship khaine? Are they affiliated with the bloodbound now? Are they the same powerhouses in Lore? Are they still elves in appearance and following dark elf culture? All of this is important to know when I set up a narrative game, and I have no info beyond a generic rundown of each of the realms, plus name drops for characters that may or may not be people we know..

A fair point, but...

You have two choices here. First off, you mentioned you had Nurgle forces - Nurgle has been getting all kinds of love in the Realm of Life campaign, so you immediately have something to build upon.

For your Dark Elves, use what you already have with the Warscrolls they did - there is going to be some area of the Realms where Witch Elves still worship Khaine, and they can be yours. You can, if you wish, create your own little Witch Elf province, and it will never be outmoded by the background GW releases (seriously, this is one of the big Plus Points of AoS). However, that might be going too far, too soon. That kind of information is not needed for the quick scenario I outlined earlier. You have a Death Hag and her girls, you have some Eshin Skaven who are honked off at them - and that is all you need for a decent evening's gaming.

autumnlotus wrote:

Would it make sense to take death hags if you Don't care about narrative? Same for chaos warriors: why take a Nurgle sorcerer when Festus is a better profile? Why not take glotkin even? There is no basis for balance at all. .

The thing is... it really isn't needed

However, there is a crucial point here: If you do not care about the narrative, then AoS (at least as I describe it here, there are lots of ways to approach the game, partly my point) is not going to be the game for you.

That said, if you were in the least interested in the way I described the Dark Elf/Eshin mash-up... then maybe it is. But, it will take a change in the way you approach games.

First off: Tell yourself you don't give a damn whether you win or not. And mean it. In the example I gave, you are not looking to crush your Skaven opponent into the ground - you are looking for that pitched fight on the steps of Khaine's own altar, in the shadowy recesses of the Dark Elf cavern, between the Death Hag and the Assassin. Think of how that fight would look on the cover of a Black Library novel.

That is what you are trying to create. And if you do... do you really care who wins? If you have been playing through a game where Witch Elves and Gutter Runners are playing cat and mouse around rock falls and stalamites, desperately hoping the Furies will arrive in time, playing against someone who is a good laugh... isn't that a win right there? I mean, be honest... you have had games of WHFB and/or 40k where someone has been a complete twot when beating you. In AoS, it shouldn't/doesn't matter.

But you need to adjust the thinking. You don't take a Death Matron/Hellebron because she would not be present in that cavern, as this is just a low level enclave of Witch Elves - and that is the only reason you need not to take her. But if you want another one, Hellebron would utterly stomp the Eshin Assassin and make the game Not Fun.

A points-based game becomes, inevitably, about beating your opponent and his army - and that is just fine. Still play WHFB and 40k myself. But AoS offers an alternative approach to this type of gaming, and it is one that is at least worth a look.

Yes, you will have to put some effort into creating the games, it is not all served up for you like WHFB. However, if you figure (like an hobby game) you get out of this what you out into it... you are going to come out ahead if you try it.

 RiTides wrote:
Coldgaming, it's not playing a scenario that's inaccessible - it's setting it up how MongooseMatt describes, the way the forces come in (and getting them about equal, or appropriately asymmetric, if desired), the way the key characters meet up in battle, etc..

Anyone could do what I described. I'll put it another way - a kid could do this. And if he can do it, grown adults can. I do appreciate that if you have been playing Warhammer games for all.most of your gaming life, then this approach to AoS is going to seem utterly alien, and yes, I think GW could probably have done more to show people how to go about this, but it is what it is.

I guess a kind of leap of faith is involved, approaching your opponent and saying 'hey, let's try X, Y and Z, and not worry about who wins.' There are gamers that will be resistant to this, and there are some who will never be able to cope without the support mechanisms they have grown used to. In all honesty, I know of gamers I would never, in a million years, play AoS with because they just do not 'get it'. If I said 'let's play a small 20-ish model game' the first model they would put on the table would be Skarbrand or the Glottkin. They just don't get it.

I will note that they are also the players who have the least interest in the background of the game - I know for a fact that one of them has had an army book for 3 or 4 years and has never, repeat never, read the background sections. He just goes straight to the army lists and magic items.

That sort of player is never going to get on with AoS. Maybe ever.

 RiTides wrote:
but there's nothing in AoS itself (other than the lack of things, if that can be considered something) to help the rest of us have that RPG experience.

I could really be interested in something that goes for that

If you are genuinely interested in this type of gaming but want at least a little structure - play through the Realm of Fire campaign in the first hardback, using the models in the starter set as a core. Just doing those battles, with the odd unit getting added in as you go, will teach you pretty much everything you need to know - about force balancing, about Battleplan construction, and about narrative gaming.

Seriously. Everything you need to get started. Right there. Go take back the Brimstone Peninsula

 argonak wrote:
It certainly doesn't help that the traditional market for this type of wargaming is a competitive hobby, rather than some sort o shared storytelling experience hobby like D&D.

Yes, yes, and thrice yes

The block, for those who might be interested in AoS (and I am at pains to stress that not everyone will be - nor should they be) is the competitive background they are likely coming from. AoS does not lack for competitiveness, in any of its games (I really do try as hard as I can to win once everything is set up!). However, the competitiveness tacks the back seat to just having a bloody good game. It is as simple as that.

Oh, and there is a side benefit. You know that bit in WHFB or 40k where you and your opponent get into a rules debate/argument/interpretation? Never seen it happen in AoS. Once you remove the absolute need to push competitiveness ahead of everything else, those little squabbles seem to disappear instantly...

AoS can offer you stress-free gaming. Which is good for the heart. So, there you go, play AoS and you will live longer

autumnlotus wrote:
it would be nice if I could take different weapons for my hags. Maybe let me take the spears present on the cauldren . or have different armor choices for a chaos lord. If this game doesn't care about balance, why take away all these options?

For a lot of units (certainly the new ones, those intended specifically for AoS rather than WHFB), those options are there, and they are done in an interesting way - there is normally no one 'best' option, so it becomes a matter of personal taste. For example, with Chaos Knights, you can batter away at people with really nice swords - or perhaps you prefer to try to sweep them away in one go with lances. Neither are inherently better than the other, because of the way the rules are handled.

Older units may suffer from this lack of choice and/or consolidation - I think that is kind of inevitable. However, if you really want those options, I have a thought that might really blow your mind if you are truly rooted in WHFB and 40k:

There is no such thing as an unbalanced or over-powered unit in AoS. You can have unbalanced forces, but that is a different argument. A unit in and of itself can never be unbalanced - that means you can make your own Warscrolls.

You want your own special Death Hag (let's call her Snowflake)? Go ahead. No one is going to say you cannot use her because whatever super powers Snowflake has, you will balance out by taking fewer Witch Elves with her than you would with a normal Death Hag. Re,e,mber, you have not created Snowflake so she can crush all she sees before her, you did it because you wanted Snowflake in the game.

And that, I am pretty sure, is exactly what the designers of the game want you to do.

We really ought to have threads (many, many threads) of people creating their own Warscrolls, with people chipping in with comments not about how powerful or overbalanced the Warscrolls are, but how they could be made more characterful and interesting. Perhaps with suggestions on Battleplans based around their abilities.

'Tis but a dream I have

MongooseMatt wrote:
We really ought to have threads (many, many threads) of people creating their own Warscrolls, with people chipping in with comments not about how powerful or overbalanced the Warscrolls are, but how they could be made more characterful and interesting. Perhaps with suggestions on Battleplans based around their abilities.

'Tis but a dream I have

Perhaps we would have that if GW offered any sort of support or encouragement for people to be creative outside of their own, narrow and rigid definition of it they have these days.

When was the last time GW talked about conversions rather than 'kitbashes'?

 jonolikespie wrote:

Perhaps we would have that if GW offered any sort of support or encouragement for people to be creative outside of their own, narrow and rigid definition of it they have these days.

Well, right now, at this moment, it is just you and me, Jono. Let's put a Warscroll together

MongooseMatt wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

Perhaps we would have that if GW offered any sort of support or encouragement for people to be creative outside of their own, narrow and rigid definition of it they have these days.

Well, right now, at this moment, it is just you and me, Jono. Let's put a Warscroll together

Alright. Dwarves are in the spotlight recently, but I am not big on the new slayer types. How about something from the 'steamhead howeveryouspellsit'?

Perhaps something less traditional given that AoS is moving away from that. What about dwarves with shorter barreled carbines with a revolving cartridge. We could give them backpacks, knives, goggles, and call them Steamhead commandos.

How would you do the rules for them?

I'm not convinced by this idea that if AoS had points, people would always use them or scenarios/balance would be harder to achieve. Unmatched forces have been a thing outside of GW for decades, with or without points.

Personally, I find it easier to do a narrative game like yours above by saying that 500pts of Witch Elves get ambushed by 1500pts of Skaven, and backed up by 1000pts of Nurgle. That gives you the same thing but without all the back-and-forth.

I also reckon you could play exactly the same scenario with WHFB and minimal house ruling. We've managed similar with 40K (or at least, I'd planned it out before I discovered WHW got rid of the hobbit table).

No matter what, AoS becomes quite the issue with pick up games. I like a lot of the ideas here, all sound like they can lend to quite the enjoyable experience in AoS.

I find a lot of the challenge is the community though. (not talking about pro-con, I'm talking about wargaming in general.)

I loved inquisitor even with it's clunky rules. before I gave them all away to an awesome kid who was running a game for friends every week, I had around 27 Inquisitor models. I had an Ork warband I sculpted up, a chaos mutant gang, a Genestealer cult (complete with pysker and a Genestealer!), a nurgle terminator, Fabius Bile, and a Gray Knight terminator. That is just the bad guys! I had every inquisitor, and sculpted up many more good guys like a Imp Guard Stormtrooper.

I played it because at the time I worked in the FLGS, so I could keep the shop open after hours for the regular group game, and during shop hours I could show players how to play with custom scenarios or I could do games with people whom I knew. AoS could work like this, playing the same group with everyone working out all the internal balance.

The issue with AoS is the same as with Inquisitor. It can't really be played as a pick up game, and it can't be played as a tournament game. For me I only really have time for pick up games, and AoS is a very hard game to just show up and play. That also means it's competition are other games that are similar, like RPG's even if I did have the time to have a regular game night with the same group of people, running a RPG game takes the same amount of time, scratches the same itch, and is cheaper.

 jonolikespie wrote:

MongooseMatt wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

Perhaps we would have that if GW offered any sort of support or encouragement for people to be creative outside of their own, narrow and rigid definition of it they have these days.

Well, right now, at this moment, it is just you and me, Jono. Let's put a Warscroll together

Alright. Dwarves are in the spotlight recently, but I am not big on the new slayer types. How about something from the 'steamhead howeveryouspellsit'?

Perhaps something less traditional given that AoS is moving away from that. What about dwarves with shorter barreled carbines with a revolving cartridge. We could give them backpacks, knives, goggles, and call them Steamhead commandos.

How would you do the rules for them?

Steamhead Golem

@jono: what is your definition of a conversion vs. a kitbash???

to me, they are one and the same...
as WD is encouraging kitbashing, that is encouraging converting...

i would define converting as changing the base model from it's stock pose out of the box...
kitbashing is the same, but using parts from at least one other kit to provide unique bits that don't come in the stock box...
it can be as simple as using a distinct head or weapon from another kit, to as complicated as cutting a couple of models in half and combining them in a new way, to sculpting entire new sections of detail...

what is your view, and why put quotes around kitbash, like it is not a legit thing to do with your models???

cheers
jah

I think by converting he means making something without using GW proscribed products. Custom armatures, green stuff work, plasticard, etc.

All GW encourage is kitbashing; gluing arm from kit x onto model from kit y, in a way that is unrealistic for anyone who doesn't happen to have a well stocked bits box, or doesn't want to spend an extra $50 for a single arm.

To many, kitbashing isn't really converting.

 jah-joshua wrote:
@jono: what is your definition of a conversion vs. a kitbash???

to me, they are one and the same...
as WD is encouraging kitbashing, that is encouraging converting...

i would define converting as changing the base model from it's stock pose out of the box...
kitbashing is the same, but using parts from at least one other kit to provide unique bits that don't come in the stock box...
it can be as simple as using a distinct head or weapon from another kit, to as complicated as cutting a couple of models in half and combining them in a new way, to sculpting entire new sections of detail...

what is your view, and why put quotes around kitbash, like it is not a legit thing to do with your models???

cheers
jah

Conversion means using greenstuff, plasticard, copper pipes, and the ever dreaded non GW parts.

Kitbashes means gluing parts from one GW kit to another.

One of those two allows much more creativity and freedom than the other, but it is not the one that I would be able to enter into a local GW comp because the entries go up on the GW facebook page and only GW models can go up there.

 jonolikespie wrote:


Perhaps something less traditional given that AoS is moving away from that. What about dwarves with shorter barreled carbines with a revolving cartridge. We could give them backpacks, knives, goggles, and call them Steamhead commandos.

How would you do the rules for them?

First question - you got miniatures to work from? And any fluff in your mind to begin with?

why does a conversion have to include non-GW parts???
can it still be a conversion without greenstuff, plastic card, and copper pipes???

can a kitbash not include creative cutting as well, rather than simply gluing parts together???

this is a subject that i am very passionate about, because i really enjoy kitbashing/converting...

cheers
jah

I guess you *could* do a conversion by creative cutting of GW parts, using sprues instead of copper pipe and so on. But you're really restricting yourself there?

Why the artificial restriction on GW-only, especially when it comes to generic sculpting materials?

Remember when White Dwarf would have articles that showed you how to make stuff with plasticard? How awesome was the magazine then?

MongooseMatt wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:


Perhaps something less traditional given that AoS is moving away from that. What about dwarves with shorter barreled carbines with a revolving cartridge. We could give them backpacks, knives, goggles, and call them Steamhead commandos.

How would you do the rules for them?

First question - you got miniatures to work from? And any fluff in your mind to begin with?

Would you laugh if I told you the miniature I had in mind was a Khadorian Assault Commando because that's what's sitting next to my monitor an they are a little on the squat side?


For the fluff I'd say they are the elite of the dwarf ranged forces, operating in smaller numbers than riflemen or crossbowmen, perhaps more skirmishers (not that the other two have to line up anymore) and with more utility to them. They can operate ahead of the main dwarf army, using the terrain to their advantage as well as superior technology than we have previously seen from the dwarves or the empire, like perhaps smoke grenades and explosives with timers attached.

They would fulfill a recon, harassment and sabotage role while not really being a unit that wants to be in the thick of the fighting.

jah-joshua wrote:why does a conversion have to include non-GW parts???
can it still be a conversion without greenstuff, plastic card, and copper pipes???

can a kitbash not include creative cutting as well, rather than simply gluing parts together???

this is a subject that i am very passionate about, because i really enjoy kitbashing/converting...

cheers
jah

No, a conversion doesn't HAVE to have non-GW parts, but it isn't a kitbash if it has non-GW bits.

Yes kitbashes include cutting, but my point was GW do not show off people using brass rods, plasticard or anything like that anymore because they only want to talk about things they sell you, so they invented the word kitbash to replace conversion in their vocabulary.

I'd say that balancing is quite important in an RPG because no one likes being the useless character, utterly overshadowed by someone else just because he's played the game before and knows the super powerful abilities to take.

The person you responded to was correct. The GM and not the game provides RPG balance. For the overwhelming majority of games there is no, and cannot be, such a thing as super powerful abilities that make other characters redundant, unless the GM makes it so.

If you are playing a warrior with an attack that slaughters everything with 30' and the other guy plays a thief who is great at thieving but little else then who is redundant? There is no correct answer because it depends entirely on what the GM put before you. If he throws you into a combat grinding mission then the warrior shines, if you are in a city sneaking through the palace with a need to not be seen the warrior is useless. A game where you need the sneaking and thieving to set up the right fight, or find the clues/objectives, and the muscle to get past other parts has both characters heavily involved.

Balance in RPG, as in the game rules, is something that never used to get discussed much. I reckon that was because prior to the very combat heavy grinding computer MMOs generation most RPGs didn't see a game as being a combat fest. Good GMs always take account of the party make up and adjust accordingly. Good adventures provide opportunity for everyone to take part. Alternatively the GM makes it clear before characters are created that his game will be combat/sneaky/magic heavy etc etc, and therefore choose characters accordingly.

puree wrote:

I'd say that balancing is quite important in an RPG because no one likes being the useless character, utterly overshadowed by someone else just because he's played the game before and knows the super powerful abilities to take.

The person you responded to was correct. The GM and not the game provides RPG balance. For the overwhelming majority of games there is no, and cannot be, such a thing as super powerful abilities that make other characters redundant, unless the GM makes it so.

If you are playing a warrior with an attack that slaughters everything with 30' and the other guy plays a thief who is great at thieving but little else then who is redundant? There is no correct answer because it depends entirely on what the GM put before you. If he throws you into a combat grinding mission then the warrior shines, if you are in a city sneaking through the palace with a need to not be seen the warrior is useless. A game where you need the sneaking and thieving to set up the right fight, or find the clues/objectives, and the muscle to get past other parts has both characters heavily involved.

Balance in RPG, as in the game rules, is something that never used to get discussed much. I reckon that was because prior to the very combat heavy grinding computer MMOs generation most RPGs didn't see a game as being a combat fest. Good GMs always take account of the party make up and adjust accordingly. Good adventures provide opportunity for everyone to take part. Alternatively the GM makes it clear before characters are created that his game will be combat/sneaky/magic heavy etc etc, and therefore choose characters accordingly.

By that logic no RPG can be bad because a good GM can fix it.

That is not true, RPGs can in fact be bad, and shouldn't NEED a good GM to fix them.

Lets just alter your example a bit. One warrior can slaughter everything within 30' with one attack. The other warrior didn't pick that ability because he didn't realize how good it was. He instead chose an attack that does the same amount of damage the first warrior's does, but only to a single target. This makes him objectively much worse in combat but he is not a thief, he doesn't have anything else different from the first warrior to make up for it.

Okay then...

The first thing I would do is look at the closest thing to these guys, the Thunderers. Take their stats, and start changing things that should be different. That would give us:

Move: 4" (they are no faster than other dwarfs)
Wounds: 1
Save: 5+ (they have those shields, but let's come back to that in a mo)
Bravery: 7 (let's give them a slight bump because they are elite)

For their guns, they do not look too snipery, and have two barrels. Equivalent of shotguns?

In which case I might say:

Range: 12"
Attacks: 2
To Hit: 4+
To Wound: 4+
Rend: -
Damage: 1

Nothing too potent - short ranged and bounces off armour (like a shotgun) but can pour it on when they get close.

For melee, we don't want them too hard, so the gun-butts (blades for these guys) from the Thunderers will probably work;

Range: 1"
Attacks: 1
To Hit: 4+
To Wound: 5+
Rend: -
Damage: 1

We need a name and unit description for these guys now.

A unit of Vanguard Commandos has ten or more models. They go to war armed with Commando Shotguns and Spiked Shields. Vanguard Commandos can bludgeon foes in close combat using their Gun-butts.

Don't appear to be any special characters in that box set, so we can skip unit leaders, standards and the like.

We want some interesting abilities though. How about....

Thunderous Assault: If a Vanguard Commando moves in its movement phase, it can add one to the number of attacks it makes in its next shooting phase. (encourages these guys to run about and get in there)

Sudden Attack: A unit of Vanguard Commandos can flank the enemy. Instead of deploying them at the start of a battle, you can place them to one side off the table. In any of your movement phases, you may place the unit within 6" of any table edge. No model may be closer than 9" to any enemy model. This counts as their movement for that turn.

And we need something for those shields. We could just use the Dwarf Buckler rules from the Thunderers, but what about...

Spiked Shields: If a unit of Vanguard Commandos charges an enemy, its Gun-butts gain Rend -1 for the next combat phase.


How does that look for a start?

It's also worth noting that the GW style of play pretty much requires a GM (they even mentioned GM's in a few of the reports) to handle the scenario. So I can totally live with the idea that AoS is essentially useless without a GM, but it'd be nice of them to explicitly state that somewhere.

Hail Caesar, for instance, also recommends a GM to make things more interesting, but it plays fine without it.

I don't think any wargame could fail to be improved on with a GM role, but it's just not pragmatic to do so in most games.

MongooseMatt wrote:

Spoiler:

Okay then...

The first thing I would do is look at the closest thing to these guys, the Thunderers. Take their stats, and start changing things that should be different. That would give us:

Move: 4" (they are no faster than other dwarfs)
Wounds: 1
Save: 5+ (they have those shields, but let's come back to that in a mo)
Bravery: 7 (let's give them a slight bump because they are elite)

For their guns, they do not look too snipery, and have two barrels. Equivalent of shotguns?

In which case I might say:

Range: 12"
Attacks: 2
To Hit: 4+
To Wound: 4+
Rend: -
Damage: 1

Nothing too potent - short ranged and bounces off armour (like a shotgun) but can pour it on when they get close.

For melee, we don't want them too hard, so the gun-butts (blades for these guys) from the Thunderers will probably work;

Range: 1"
Attacks: 1
To Hit: 4+
To Wound: 5+
Rend: -
Damage: 1

We need a name and unit description for these guys now.

A unit of Vanguard Commandos has ten or more models. They go to war armed with Commando Shotguns and Spiked Shields. Vanguard Commandos can bludgeon foes in close combat using their Gun-butts.

Don't appear to be any special characters in that box set, so we can skip unit leaders, standards and the like.

We want some interesting abilities though. How about....

Thunderous Assault: If a Vanguard Commando moves in its movement phase, it can add one to the number of attacks it makes in its next shooting phase. (encourages these guys to run about and get in there)

Sudden Attack: A unit of Vanguard Commandos can flank the enemy. Instead of deploying them at the start of a battle, you can place them to one side off the table. In any of your movement phases, you may place the unit within 6" of any table edge. No model may be closer than 9" to any enemy model. This counts as their movement for that turn.

And we need something for those shields. We could just use the Dwarf Buckler rules from the Thunderers, but what about...

Spiked Shields: If a unit of Vanguard Commandos charges an enemy, its Gun-butts gain Rend -1 for the next combat phase.

How does that look for a start?

That sounds quite interesting. I'd love ton see that kind of thing show up in White Dwarf and have GW themselves talk about how you can make your own warscrolls for other models.

*Edit*
This is probably totally off topic, but could be hilarious as it's own thread

@jono: of course they only want to talk about things they sell you...
GW is all about creating a complete hobby ecosystem...
love it or hate it, that is their intention...

honestly, when you start talking about brass rod and plastic card, the word scratch-building comes to mind...
i can't say i miss the days of the deodorant dispenser skimmer with a plastic spoon cockpit, or Pringles can tower scratch-builds...
not when GW now has so many great vehicle kits and terrain pieces...

like i said, kitbash and conversion are the same thing to me....
i just happen to be flipping through Companies of Fenris tonight ( a book printed in 2014), and the text for Egil Ironwolf says he is "converted from the Space Marine Tech-Marine miniature"...

kitbashing has been a common reference since at least the 70's, in relation to movie model making, train sets, and planes...
taking any kits, regardless of manufacturer or genre, and throwing them together is a kitbash...
you just wouldn't be able to enter that kitbash in a GW painting contest, as you pointed out, and rightly so...
if GW is going through the effort of organizing the contest, and providing the trophies, i don't see why other manufacturers minis should be allowed, since GW will use the resulting winners to show off what hobbyists can do with their kits...
would you expect to be able to take a Gundam bashed with a Pan-O TAG to an officially sponsored Infinity painting comp., and entering it as a Seraph???

cheers
jah

 jonolikespie wrote:


That is not true, RPGs can in fact be bad, and shouldn't NEED a good GM to fix them.

This is true but, speaking as an RPG designer, the GM is a massive shock absorber when it comes to balance. As a designer, you need to make the GM's life easy (my main aim) but you also need to give him plenty of options - and some of those will inevitably work for some groups and not others. You rely on the GM to weed through what he thinks he can use and discard what he can't - you never expect the GM to use absolutely everything in your game, and you likely would not want him to (not in the same campaign, anyway).

AoS does something very similar, but it removes the GM (well, by default, no reason you cannot have one). This relies on two players coming together with similar expectations. Yes, this can be fraught in pick up games, but it is by no means impossible - far from it.

The events at GW HQ, for example, are basically pick up games, and you have no idea who you will be facing. However, despite the presence of the occasional twit (you can't stop 'em, some will always get through!), the vast majority of people I have met there 'get it'. They understand what is required for them because, basically, people want to work together and are normally nice.

That might just be AoS players, of course (I cannot back that up).

All kitbashes are conversions, but not all conversions are kitbashes.

Herzlos wrote:
It's also worth noting that the GW style of play pretty much requires a GM (they even mentioned GM's in a few of the reports) to handle the scenario. So I can totally live with the idea that AoS is essentially useless without a GM, but it'd be nice of them to explicitly state that somewhere.

Well... you can live with it... but you would not be correct.

I have not played one game of AoS with a GM. Not one.

No issues.

 jonolikespie wrote:
That sounds quite interesting. I'd love ton see that kind of thing show up in White Dwarf and have GW themselves talk about how you can make your own warscrolls for other models.

Well, here is a thing. Don't wait for GW to spoon feed you - just do it. This is, at its heart, a creative hobby. Just extend that creativity past the models themselves to the game behind it. Take the leap

MongooseMatt wrote:
That might just be AoS players, of course (I cannot back that up).

Just putting it out there, but it might just be AoS players because the rest of us took one look at the game and said 'we wanted WHFB fixed, not this' and walked off.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MongooseMatt wrote:
Well, here is a thing. Don't wait for GW to spoon feed you - just do it. This is, at its heart, a creative hobby. Just extend that creativity past the models themselves to the game behind it. Take the leap

I'm just pointing out the stupidity of calling it a creative game when there is nothing encouraging creativity, it just lacks restrictions, which is not the same thing.

 jonolikespie wrote:

I'm just pointing out the stupidity of calling it a creative game when there is nothing encouraging creativity, it just lacks restrictions, which is not the same thing.

Isn't that odd? You see a lack of restrictions, I see an open invitation. Takes all sorts in gaming

MongooseMatt wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

I'm just pointing out the stupidity of calling it a creative game when there is nothing encouraging creativity, it just lacks restrictions, which is not the same thing.

Isn't that odd? You see a lack of restrictions, I see an open invitation. Takes all sorts in gaming

I suppose the difference could simply be that I see no restrictions on X wing, 40k, Infinity, KoW or Warmachine either. With any one of those it is simply down to if my opponent agrees or not, which is still something they have to do in AoS as far as I am aware.

There's a lot encouraging creativity actually. The entire premise of not being restricted is that you can come up with anything at all to run through. That to me is the pinnacle of creativity as opposed to running battleline scenario or a variant of battleline scenario 24/7 with the same basic army builds that conform to the meta.

auticus wrote:
There's a lot encouraging creativity actually. The entire premise of not being restricted is that you can come up with anything at all to run through. That to me is the pinnacle of creativity as opposed to running battleline scenario or a variant of battleline scenario 24/7 with the same basic army builds that conform to the meta.

How?

How is AoS different?

Where do GW encourage you to do other things? I'll give you battleplans seem to be encouraging people to play something other than Battleline, but WHFB had both Triumph and Treachery and Storm of Magic expansions just in it's final edition to try and encourage the same thing, not to mention the other 5 standard missions and the other, more scenario driven, missions in the back of the BRB.

Nothing in 8th ed was forcing you to play battleline, that was just what the majority of people wanted to play.

 jah-joshua wrote:

honestly, when you start talking about brass rod and plastic card, the word scratch-building comes to mind...
i can't say i miss the days of the deodorant dispenser skimmer with a plastic spoon cockpit, or Pringles can tower scratch-builds...
not when GW now has so many great vehicle kits and terrain pieces...

The only problem with that approach is that every battle is played out on the same RoBB with the same buildings, and at huge expense. Pringles-can-and-cereal-box buildings allow you much more scope for a fraction of the price. Plus you get to eat the pringles

Sure, GW scenery looks better than basic scratchbuilt (my cardboard Bonecrusher was a monstrosity - but I followed the instructions in WD), but you can do anything with scratchbuilt stuff.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MongooseMatt wrote:

AoS does something very similar, but it removes the GM (well, by default, no reason you cannot have one). This relies on two players coming together with similar expectations. Yes, this can be fraught in pick up games, but it is by no means impossible - far from it.

So you're just pushing the GM'ing onto the players?

The events at GW HQ, for example, are basically pick up games, and you have no idea who you will be facing. However, despite the presence of the occasional twit (you can't stop 'em, some will always get through!), the vast majority of people I have met there 'get it'. They understand what is required for them because, basically, people want to work together and are normally nice.

And in this case the set-up / GM work is done by GW in advance.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

MongooseMatt wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:

I'm just pointing out the stupidity of calling it a creative game when there is nothing encouraging creativity, it just lacks restrictions, which is not the same thing.

Isn't that odd? You see a lack of restrictions, I see an open invitation. Takes all sorts in gaming

I guess some of us just didn't need the invitation. We did the stuff you're doing in AoS using WHFB and 40K (and Bolt Action, and Malifaux, and so on). There's nothing about AoS that encourages the make-it-up-as-you-go-along style of play, except perhaps that it's driven away everyone else, because that's all it's good for.

AoS doesn't come with any guidelines for making your own units or scenarios or realms or factions or anything. It just doesn't give you any real framework for anything beyond "buy our models, put them on a table, guess at balance and throw some dice". But that's how we used to play WHFB. It's how we play Hail Caesar.

Song Of Blades & Heroes is a game that lets you do what you want; it's got a points system but has rules to make your own units. So does 7TV.

If you want to avoid battle-lines, then you can play any of the non-battleline missions in WHFB, or play something like Malifaux or Frostgrave (both games let you "win" even if you lose all of your minis).

What's so special about the AoS missions that makes it better than a battleline? Can you give me an example of one that adds this super narrative effect?