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.

Herzlos wrote:
I'd hazard a guess that it's hard to get motivated to drop 240E to try and regain some flavor after having your existing stuff essentially ruined.

I mean, what's the risk that you'd spend all that time and money and still not be happy? What if he could maintain that flavor by just moving to another game?

Yeah why would anyone reward GW with more money for killing their army? That's just insane thinking right there.

If a company destroys something you love the correct thing to do is walk away and vote with your wallet not go out and buy another army.

Talk about Stockholm syndrome...

 Haechi wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
I'd hazard a guess that it's hard to get motivated to drop 240E to try and regain some flavor after having your existing stuff essentially ruined.

I mean, what's the risk that you'd spend all that time and money and still not be happy? What if he could maintain that flavor by just moving to another game?

I don't know, but I feel like the consumers habits have evolved too. You can get a complete army for 240E. It's money for sure, but it's not that much money either... When you look at the prices of everything these days, how much a new phone costs you, or video games, or just a night out drinking, 240E is not that much for a complete set of units you will play for years without having anything to add to it. I've only just recently come back to the hobby, and of course when I was younger 240E seemed crazy to me. Now I'm 28 and I have a job. It seems more accessible than it used to be =].


But of course I'm not saying he should "gamble" his money on the hope he would have fun with it. But we all like to dream about armies while looking at the lists right? What I'm trying to say to him is that he should try to look at it with a new eye, and maybe find a new flavor he could like =]

When I was 24 (out of uni, real job, no real expenses) I'd have agreed with you to a point, but now at 31, 240E is an awful lot of money (like, 60% of my mortgage payment). That money can buy you a lot of entertainment that isn't an army for a game system that just killed off your last army.

Even taking gameplay completely out of it I hated how all the rich background material they had was butchered to create AoS. I tried playing AoS and it just wasn't for me, which is a real pity as the model range is beautiful, I run a gaunt summoner as a night lords sorcerer on disk. They brought the game, in my opinion, in a direction I wasn't comfortable following. On the tournament side of things, which i infrequently attended for fantasy, AoS tournaments are unheard of whereas they are KoW tourneys popping up the last six months or so. I wish the game appealed to me more as I always enjoyed fantasy more than 40k but AoS killed it for me

hobojebus wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
I'd hazard a guess that it's hard to get motivated to drop 240E to try and regain some flavor after having your existing stuff essentially ruined.

I mean, what's the risk that you'd spend all that time and money and still not be happy? What if he could maintain that flavor by just moving to another game?

Yeah why would anyone reward GW with more money for killing their army? That's just insane thinking right there.

If a company destroys something you love the correct thing to do is walk away and vote with your wallet not go out and buy another army.

Talk about Stockholm syndrome...

If the Empire army was moved to 'Last Chance to Buy', I would be picking up more units to finish off my collection. Don't see the problem really.

RoperPG wrote:

 Skimask Mohawk wrote:
It wasn't exactly the game mechanics, just how pretty much 90% of my army lost its flavour and effect on the board.

Not wishing to pick at scabs, but which units that were good in 8th and became bad in AoS?

I'm curious about this as well. I'm only really familiar with the undead scrolls, which did pretty well by tomb kings (chariots being a sad exception) and mostly maintained the fun, fluffy character that the vamp counts units had in 8th edition (though sadly it didn't do much to spruce up the already lacking corpse cart EDIT I meant black coach, the black coach was and remains lackluster, the corpse cart is fine).

I can certainly understand displeasure with the core rules, or disgruntlement of GW's handling of the transition, but the unit rules I've seen for AoS have mostly been quite enjoyable and characterful, giving most units some unique mechanical effect to bring their fluff to life on the table.

 Malisteen wrote:

RoperPG wrote:

 Skimask Mohawk wrote:
It wasn't exactly the game mechanics, just how pretty much 90% of my army lost its flavour and effect on the board.

Not wishing to pick at scabs, but which units that were good in 8th and became bad in AoS?

I'm curious about this as well. I'm only really familiar with the undead scrolls, which did pretty well by tomb kings (chariots being a sad exception) and mostly maintained the fun, fluffy character that the vamp counts units had in 8th edition (though sadly it didn't do much to spruce up the already lacking corpse cart EDIT I meant black coach, the black coach was and remains lackluster, the corpse cart is fine).

I can certainly understand displeasure with the core rules, or disgruntlement of GW's handling of the transition, but the unit rules I've seen for AoS have mostly been quite enjoyable and characterful, giving most units some unique mechanical effect to bring their fluff to life on the table.

To answer both your questions, theres a bunch, but a lot of them didn't necessarily get bad in terms of rules, but they lost 2 editions worth of flavor in how their rules got changed.

Liche Priests: really don't feel like their previous versions who made could stack a variety of buffs to help out; the most important spell in the 6th ed book and the default for their lore in 8th was a movement spell that was used in combination with their other spells to give an edge. Now you can only ever cast a version of Smiting along with the generic spells.

Casket: In 6th it affected everyone in Line of Sight and did wound (not very well iirc, but it was very much Indiana Jonesing people who could see). 8th wasn't as wide spread in the effect, but it was more powerful as a result and was also a powerful magic buff. Now they do d3 wounds to the initial target and can only bounce once, they still have a limited magic buff, but since magic has been relegated from one of the most important parts of Tomb Kings to kind of an afterthought its far less relevant. Lost its Arc of the Covenant vibe imo and a lot of its power.

Tomb Guard: Went from being better skeletons with killing blow, to very little difference in hitting and wounding, cursed blades got a lot worse, their shields are worse than the skeletons. Basically vanilla skeletons are better than them now. I owned 50 Tomb Guard to 100 Skeletons and the Skeletons blow them out of the water for less money.

Tomb King: not a fan of how generic they are now. Mostly sour about the loss of the same Tomb King I built the same way throughout all my time of playing fantasy.

Anyway, not everything got worse, a lot of things got really good in fact, but it just so happened that everything I really liked got worse or lost flavor in some ways.

Haechi wrote:

 Skimask Mohawk wrote:
It wasn't exactly the game mechanics, just how pretty much 90% of my army lost its flavour and effect on the board.

While I understand this statement, what I want to ask you is... Why not try building a new army with a new flavor then?

Anyway. I'm not saying you're wrong, at all. But as a player who loves "flavor" like you say, I believe you can find a new one. What about a full bat-winged themed VC army?

I sincerely hope you will find the inspiration to build a new army. Good luck!

Because no other army is attractive to me? I loved the fluff of the tomb kings and the flavour of my favorite units in particular, but flavour is a combination of the fluff of the unit (like the awesome page for the Tomb Guard in the 6th ed book) and how they play.

The core of what I own of my Wood Elves fortunately didn't lose their flavor, so if some friend of mine does want to play a game of AoS where we're using some comp I can use a force that feels true to their previous incarnations and feel worthwhile to me, but I have no motivation to go out and buy more or start a new army.

Vampires in AoS are one of the big reasons I turned my nose up at the game. In 8th ed they were amazing, you could really build them in a million different ways to do different things and they could be built to fit in with the different bloodlines.

AoS vampires have to friggen options. It;'s awful.

 jonolikespie wrote:
Vampires in AoS are one of the big reasons I turned my nose up at the game. In 8th ed they were amazing, you could really build them in a million different ways to do different things and they could be built to fit in with the different bloodlines.

AoS vampires have to friggen options. It;'s awful.

I liked that about vampires, even though I didn't play them. It was very cool. Rune weapons was one of the biggest draws for my dwarf army back when I first started playing them in 4th edition. Being able to assemble your own magic weapon (and of course give it a good name) was just so immersive.

Narrative, you might say?

 argonak wrote:

 jonolikespie wrote:
Vampires in AoS are one of the big reasons I turned my nose up at the game. In 8th ed they were amazing, you could really build them in a million different ways to do different things and they could be built to fit in with the different bloodlines.

AoS vampires have to friggen options. It;'s awful.

I liked that about vampires, even though I didn't play them. It was very cool. Rune weapons was one of the biggest draws for my dwarf army back when I first started playing them in 4th edition. Being able to assemble your own magic weapon (and of course give it a good name) was just so immersive.

Not gonna argue that customisation wasn't a good thing, but having been on the receiving end of Dwarf Lords in combat, I *never* encountered a rune weapon that made me howl like the standard weapon they now come with...

 Bottle wrote:

hobojebus wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
I'd hazard a guess that it's hard to get motivated to drop 240E to try and regain some flavor after having your existing stuff essentially ruined.

I mean, what's the risk that you'd spend all that time and money and still not be happy? What if he could maintain that flavor by just moving to another game?

Yeah why would anyone reward GW with more money for killing their army? That's just insane thinking right there.

If a company destroys something you love the correct thing to do is walk away and vote with your wallet not go out and buy another army.

Talk about Stockholm syndrome...

If the Empire army was moved to 'Last Chance to Buy', I would be picking up more units to finish off my collection. Don't see the problem really.

Absolutely, get models you like while you can. Our FLGS will have a clearance sale inApril and hopefully the WHFB still is on the table. It was LotR and Hobbit last time. Personally I predict an immediate price hike in eBay for cancelled models but after 6 months or earlier plunging back down to a buyers market. Some of the Chaos last chances came back in stock last night on the US web store.

Anyway, thanks for sharing your thoughts with us, Bottle.

If the Empire gets into clearance I'm ordering a full army from scratch hahaha

 Haechi wrote:
If the Empire gets into clearance I'm ordering a full army from scratch hahaha

From the Perrys?

Nice as the Perry models are, with Fyreslayers already getting close to the height of Empire Statetroopers (who are admittedly quite hunchbacked) - they would probably be taller than the Perry models!

Yeah they tower over the old dwarfs, which largely rules me out from buying any.

The Perry?

https://www.perry-miniatures.com/

Awesome models by former GW sculptures, back before the bland cad designed stuff they make now the Perry's hand sculpted some great miniatures.

They still do, actually. You could get a Perry Bros ACW 'battle in a box' army and run it as gnomes in AoS. Just replace the rifles with spears or crossbows. Run the cannons as Dwarf Cannons.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
They still do, actually. You could get a Perry Bros ACW 'battle in a box' army and run it as gnomes in AoS. Just replace the rifles with spears or crossbows. Run the cannons as Dwarf Cannons.

No offence but that is both a ridiculous and terrible idea lol

No offence but AoS is ridiculous and a terrible idea?

Perry Brothers plastics are really top notch though - well worth a look for you Bottle given your love of Empire plastics.

Yes, they are very nice! I'm actually hoping to get some of the Chosun Dynasty Korean figures to paint up as decorations for my new house. :-)

hobojebus wrote:
https://www.perry-miniatures.com/

Awesome models by former GW sculptures, back before the bland cad designed stuff they make now the Perry's hand sculpted some great miniatures.

Looked at them and regretfully I don't like them at all.

 Bottle wrote:
I find myself agreeing with both Deadknight and Da Boss when reading through the last two comments. With regards to RPG elements, I always thought Necromunda handled it in a very good way because A.) it was fun and B.) the tables and structure did away with the need for a DM.

Just a note that the Path to Glory system for Chaos Warbands in AoS is similar to my recollection of the Necromunda campaign system. Doesn't have gang members suffering long term injuries, or being imprisoned for ransom. But the rest of how your chaos warband changes over time, and the fluff of the special chaos scenarios works well.

broxus wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
https://www.perry-miniatures.com/

Awesome models by former GW sculptures, back before the bland cad designed stuff they make now the Perry's hand sculpted some great miniatures.

Looked at them and regretfully I don't like them at all.

What don't you like about them? I'm somewhat curious.

Is it the scale? The detail? The sculpting style? The fact they are straight historicals?

Herzlos wrote:

broxus wrote:

hobojebus wrote:
https://www.perry-miniatures.com/

Awesome models by former GW sculptures, back before the bland cad designed stuff they make now the Perry's hand sculpted some great miniatures.

Looked at them and regretfully I don't like them at all.

What don't you like about them? I'm somewhat curious.

Is it the scale? The detail? The sculpting style? The fact they are straight historicals?

Maybe it's the reasonable prices?

They are suspiciously cheap. I got 120 of the blighters for about the same as a start collecting bundle.

Herzlos wrote:
They are priced correctly for plastic. I got 120 of the blighters for about the same as a start collecting bundle.

Fixed that for you.

Imagine what they could do if they produced in the amount GW can.

endur wrote:

 Bottle wrote:
I find myself agreeing with both Deadknight and Da Boss when reading through the last two comments. With regards to RPG elements, I always thought Necromunda handled it in a very good way because A.) it was fun and B.) the tables and structure did away with the need for a DM.

Just a note that the Path to Glory system for Chaos Warbands in AoS is similar to my recollection of the Necromunda campaign system. Doesn't have gang members suffering long term injuries, or being imprisoned for ransom. But the rest of how your chaos warband changes over time, and the fluff of the special chaos scenarios works well.

Yeah! It looked really interesting! Shame I don't play chaos though...

I think "don't be that guy" is a good argument. Maybe this is because I have zero interest in any tournament scene and little more when it comes to pick up gaming. I don't need a game to be "that guy"-proof and therefore don't care to pay the price for that feature. Well, I have never yet seen a game that is actually "that guy"-proof to be honest; games that try end up being designed for "that guy" so far as I have seen. In the context of AoS, "that guy" means someone who needs to be restrained by rules. But AoS is an enabling ruleset. So naturally, when the two meet there are going to be problems.

By that same token I really agree about AoS being very strong for collecting what you want into a playable force, both as a matter of army composition and game scale. This is why I have already bought more for AoS than I ever had purchased for WHFB.

 Manchu wrote:
I think "don't be that guy" is a good argument.

It's a bad argument because "that guy" in common speak means "the person everyone hates", the jackarse, the jerk, the arsehole.

It's a bad argument because it just lumps a group of people in to something that has an extreme negative connotation. Unless that's what you intended to do, in which case you only need to look in the mirror to find your nearest "that guy".

In the context of AoS, "that guy" means someone who needs to be restrained by rules.

You said that you have little interest in pick up gaming, for those of us who rely on pick up gaming it's not "that guy" that has to be restrained by the rules, it's damned near everyone.

Though I find it funny you equate "that guy" with "someone who needs to be restrained by the rules", to me AoS is a game for people who simultaneously want freedom but also have to be told they're allowed to have freedom because they are restrained by the rules.

A large part of the reason I don't like AoS is because I was never restrained by the rules before, if I had an idea for an army that I thought was cool but was illegal, I just built it anyway. I could frequently talk my opponents in to letting me play with it, and if they weren't happy doing that I could usually pare it back to something that was legal but less points. Probably around half my armies for Epic40k, WH40k and WHFB aren't legal the way I intended them to be.

But despite not being constrained by the WHFB rules, they created the structure for when it was needed (pick up games, games where you didn't want to spend time beforehand negotiating the particulars of the game, games that you wanted to be more competitive rather than narrative, or the times when you and your opponent can't come to an agreement you can just fall back on the rules as written *cough* I mean when you're playing "that guy" ).