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.

text removed.

Reds8n

10 weird tricks Single Mom discovered turn you into Sigmarine with perfect abs! Nagash hates her!

Deadnight wrote:

If you are going to criticise warmachine for stuff, getting your facts right in the first place helps Enormously.

I'd agree with that principle, but the irony here is that to some AoS doesn't even get that courtesy in its' own section of the forum...

Be polite to other users on this forum, like you did in your last sentence here

This a great article, thanks for posting it

Deadnight wrote:

(1) Nearest necrosurgeon gets the corpse token, not all three. The rules are quite clear. So that ends that whole made up scenario right there. Three grunts die generate three corpse tokens which can bring back one mcthrall, assuming they all go to the same necrosurgeon in the first place.

I'll admit when I'm wrong. The rule for the Necrosurgeon just says that it gets a corpse token for models that die within 5". What we missed when we played it was the one paragraph rule on page 63 of the Prime rulebook (buried between the rules for Gunfighter and falling) which said that models only generate one of each type of token. It was an honest mistake, and not the only one we made. My opponent actually resurrected full Mechanithralls rather than the weaker Grunts, though we realized that error later.

I'm actually somewhat relieved that we were mistaken, truth be told - though weakening the resurrective capabilities of the units wouldn't have made the match up any more fun to play.

(2) spawned grunts must be added to a mcthrall unit in its command range. So kill the unit in question and nothing can be added to it. Those corpse tokens go to waste then, And to be fair, there are plenty mass infantry removing techniques available.

He used Terminous as his caster, giving all the Mechanithralls tough, and had roughly 30 of them on the table, swarming my models such that they could not use ranged attacks, move, or basically do anything at all.

If you are going to criticise warmachine for stuff, getting your facts right in the first place helps Enormously.

I admit my example was incorrect. I do stand by my statement that WMH uses field allowances and point systems to keep certain excessive combos under control, and ignoring them would open the game to combos that have no effective counter.

Minijack wrote:
Cant believe this thread is still going!

Well,,actually I guess I don't find it that unbelievable as you did use the word "cool" along with "AoS" in the title and everyone knows those don't go together,lol


With that,I have an 11th thing to add to the list

11) Enjoy a game of AoS then go on any online Miniatures games forum and post about your experience.Then grab some popcorn,sit back and watch the entertainment roll in about how you actually didn't enjoy the game,you are a simpleton and nothing but a GW fanboy for liking their game.

Seriously,,its just playing with toy soldiers...just like WMH,40k,Infinity,KoW and a host of other games...Its not worth all the angst some of you give it.

And yet people still keep posting and are still here. So there is something cool with AoS for people to be around.

 judgedoug wrote:

coldgaming wrote:
AoS graciously also lets you never have to play the game to post every day on a forum about the game about why it doesn't work.

This insightful quote (exalted btw) easily explains, well, literally, everything!

Except it doesn't. You don't need to play to know that given the disproportion in model strenght, a boost to the side with less models is an awful rule, for example.

judgedog wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's the fact that it is an AoS-specific board that makes the title "blah blah blah for AoS" unnecessary and therefore open to interpretation as a two fingers up to everything that isn't AoS.

You only need to read the results to see that this is true.

Haha, hahaha. This is excellent. Blaming the victim is always correct - Matt deserved to get trounced because he antagonized a bunch of whiny babies! (not naming names, I'm sure there's NO whiny babies on this thread whose sole purpose in life is to complain about Age of Sigmar)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

To those of you that dont like Matts post and ideas, why even bother to post?
Its a post about some cool things you can do in AoS, in an AoS thread, in an AoS subforum for fun.

Welcome to the internet. You'll notice that 90% of the posts in this thread are spewed garbage.

Whiney babies spewing garbage, nice. I love the 'haters insult the game, supporters insult the haters' routine.

You see, I actualy insulted GW staff personaly once in all my conversations, calling them morons. Still regret that and have conscience fits heh and would never say that directly in conversation with them. "Your company is awful and your ruleset lazy", that's from me. "You're a whiney baby spewing garbage", that's from you. See the difference?

Well, this thread went to excellent places. It started with flame bait and ended up as a burning inferno.

All the while toeing the line, and in many cases crossing over the line, of RULE #1 here.

So, here we are - Official In Thread General Warning to keep it polite.

Nothing in the OP is even close to flamebait.

 Manchu wrote:
Nothing in the OP is even close to flamebait.

Going over the OP again I retract my statement.

I skipped page 3 so I don't know if it's been said but:

Fun thing to do in AoS that could reasonably be extrapolated to other games if AoS isn't people's cup of tea and they enjoy other games where doing these is within the realms of possibility:

1- Make a gameboard with the realm gates halfway dividing the board into two separate realms. Use the two nominated realm rules for the respective board halves!

2- Paint a sigmarine in NMM yellow/gold with all cloth painted like the cosmos. I saw this once and it changed how I view the faction.

3- Build a 30 model max Slaaneshi themed warband. Find that god! Stick his face on milk cartons if you have to!

4- Dwarf warband. Drunken dwarfs and dwarf explorers. Nuff said.

5. Orc/goblin/ogre warband (either one or all of them)- Loot the realms! Have something looted from every other race and realm! Wot's yors iz mine or else I'll krump ya an' take it.

6. Collect mountains of plastic/metal/resin and have it accumulate with you having the desire to paint it, but never actually getting around to do it

7. Make a scenario where Karl Franz has to try and steal Ghal Maraz from Optimus er, Celestant Prime with a guest appearance by Archaon on murderhorsedragondogbirdchaosthing.

Ok, so there's 7 and not 10 but that's what I think would be kinda neat to do in AoS, if I ever started it (wanted to in the past, but that itch kinda died and I became a heretic instead)

I think that first one has some potential!

 judgedoug wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's the fact that it is an AoS-specific board that makes the title "blah blah blah for AoS" unnecessary and therefore open to interpretation as a two fingers up to everything that isn't AoS.

You only need to read the results to see that this is true.

Haha, hahaha. This is excellent. Blaming the victim is always correct - Matt deserved to get trounced because he antagonized a bunch of whiny babies! (not naming names, I'm sure there's NO whiny babies on this thread whose sole purpose in life is to complain about Age of Sigmar)

It's not blaming the victim because MongooseMatt isn't a victim.

A discussion forum is a forum for discussion. If you make a post, you are silly not to expect people to discuss it. People have a right to do so.

Not all that discussion necessarily will be positive, but that's the way things work. You can frame the tone of the discussion by the way you present your argument.

Edit: That was improper. My apologies.

Mongoose is enthusiastic about AoS - HE MUST BE A PAID GEE DUBS SHILL!



Good grief.

I could well be wrong.

Mongoose Matt, as far as I'm aware, runs Mongoose Publishing http://www.mongoosepublishing.com/, who publish, amongst other things, the excellent and underrated Judge Dredd miniatures game. I think he did work for GW back in the day, but is no shill!

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:

coldgaming wrote:
AoS graciously also lets you never have to play the game to post every day on a forum about the game about why it doesn't work.

This insightful quote (exalted btw) easily explains, well, literally, everything!

Except it doesn't. You don't need to play to know that given the disproportion in model strenght, a boost to the side with less models is an awful rule, for example.

How so?

RoperPG wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:

coldgaming wrote:
AoS graciously also lets you never have to play the game to post every day on a forum about the game about why it doesn't work.

This insightful quote (exalted btw) easily explains, well, literally, everything!

Except it doesn't. You don't need to play to know that given the disproportion in model strenght, a boost to the side with less models is an awful rule, for example.

How so?

20 gryphon knights vs 31 skeletons, should the gryphons get sudden death victory condition?

 Sqorgar wrote:

1. Create a Unique Force Not Possible Before - In Warmachine, the factions don't work together, and because of the combo heavy nature of the game, creating suboptimal forces is a great way to have a very unfun gaming experience. Warmachine is a game built around a handful of builds - so much so that tournaments are won based on anticipating which builds you will end up facing.

Having unoptimal and not having possibility to do so are different things. In AOS take unoptimal list and you'll get smacked same as warmachine as well. Gee. Duh.

So false.

2. Play Hero Deathmatch - In Warmachine, the casters are extremely unbalanced against each other individually, and if you played casters only, there's a great chance that Butcher or Feora will decimate the other casters before they get a chance to do anything. Retribution even has a caster with zero offensive capabilities.

I'm sure goblin hero is going to have a fighting chance against Archaon as well...

False.

4. Have a Massive Dogfight - Warmachine doesn't really have many flying units, and the game doesn't work without casters (of which, I can only think of two flying casters, both Cryx)

Okay I'll give you that. Not that it really affects because it's still 2d thingie. Imagine wings on your warmachines and effect is same.

5. Collect Lots of Small Forces Rather Than One Big One - Because of the standard point size games, you'll have a minimum of a 25 pt army for each faction, since you can't combine stuff. Even then, most players prefer 50 pts, so you'll probably need a minimum of 50 pts too. It is very, very hard in Warmachine to dabble in multiple factions without committing to a large army. I say this as someone with 5 different WM armies (Cryx, Retribution, Menoth, Khador, Convergence).

Remove points from warmachine. Takes about 1 second.

Newsflash: Points aren't "cannot remove them" in warmachine. It's what players want. Same as AOS. You can do that THE same possibility to do minimum pointless armies in warmachine as in AOS.

False.

7. Create a New Warscroll - Due to the precarious balance Warmachine enjoys, creating a new unit that doesn't horribly break the game is rather difficult. AoS is a simple game without innate balance, so it is easier to balance around the created unit rather than balancing the unit within the game's very specific framework.

Again that's what players choose to do. Creating units is just as easy in both. Both players agree, new unit done. You ain't playing any new warscroll in AOS without opponent consent. In warmachine you can bring in new unit same as AOS if opponent consents.

False.

9. Play Through the Official Campaign Storyline - I think the last campaign that Warmachine had was in the MK1 Colossals book. Everybody just plays Steamroller.

That's because players wants. Nothing to do with rules but WHAT PLAYERS WANT.

False.

So you have one of just about right though cosmetic thingie since there's no real flying rules that is any different to game on flat board. Others are again what you can do WITH SAME EFFORT in warmachine(or FB 8th for that matter) as in AOS.

Removing rules is easy. Adding rules is harder. Therefore AOS removing rules makes it harder to do what other games can do than reverse.

You are confusing rules with player choices. What you listed were player options which are identical within games.

The problem with thread title is that it's actually misleading. Who are looking here are probably going to be "hey wonder if there's actually something you CAN'T do in other games that you can do in AOS". Then they find it's 100% standard list of any games.

Less confusing title or actually 10 cool things that actually depend on AOS rules...That would be lot less confusing title.

Plumbumbarum wrote:

RoperPG wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:

coldgaming wrote:
AoS graciously also lets you never have to play the game to post every day on a forum about the game about why it doesn't work.

This insightful quote (exalted btw) easily explains, well, literally, everything!

Except it doesn't. You don't need to play to know that given the disproportion in model strenght, a boost to the side with less models is an awful rule, for example.

How so?

20 gryphon knights vs 31 skeletons, should the gryphons get sudden death victory condition?

Yes.

And that'll give either side a good game?

Herzlos wrote:
And that'll give either side a good game?

No. If both players have deployed that as their armies, then they will have a terrible game but at least sudden death will ensure it's over by turn 4 at the latest.
That's not a problem with the rules, that's a problem with two people playing a game who obviously have very different approaches to it.
'Good' games have always been down to the players playing that game, regardless of the system.
'Bad' games will occur in any system, no matter how finely balanced the force construction is or well crafted the rules are.

Even assuming that the two players in the example had never met before,and the only discussion was agreeing to play the 4-page rules vanilla with no extras, how were they expecting to have a good game?
Was that all they had/brought with them? Who deployed first? Did neither of them say anything?

Back to the topic, I do love how some individuals complain that AoS is unplayable because it has no intrinsic comp, but when a post like this comes up suggesting ideas for mix'n'match armies the stock response is always "well you could do that in system X!".
It's adorable. You either need comp to play a game, or you don't. You can't hack on a game for not using it then claim you don't have to use it in other games either.

 Sqorgar wrote:
[pI'll admit when I'm wrong. The rule for the Necrosurgeon just says that it gets a corpse token for models that die within 5". What we missed when we played it was the one paragraph rule on page 63 of the Prime rulebook (buried between the rules for Gunfighter and falling) which said that models only generate one of each type of token. It was an honest mistake, and not the only one we made. My opponent actually resurrected full Mechanithralls rather than the weaker Grunts, though we realized that error later.

I'm actually somewhat relieved that we were mistaken, truth be told - though weakening the resurrective capabilities of the units wouldn't have made the match up any more fun to play.

Which has everything to do with him playing wrong, and you playing poorly.

 Sqorgar wrote:

He used Terminous as his caster, giving all the Mechanithralls tough, and had roughly 30 of them on the table, swarming my models such that they could not use ranged attacks, move, or basically do anything at all.
.

Play better then. I've played against terminus doodspam, and it's fine.

Tough can be worked around. I went up against cryx doodspam at a recent tournament and cleaned house with it. It's amazing how much work sprays can do for you. Or, depending on army, controlling their movement with things like suppressing fire or various spells and feats. You got swarmed because you let the,other guy dictate the flow of the game. Like was mentioned, there are plenty ways of dealing with it.

RoperPG wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
And that'll give either side a good game?

No. If both players have deployed that as their armies, then they will have a terrible game but at least sudden death will ensure it's over by turn 4 at the latest.
That's not a problem with the rules, that's a problem with two people playing a game who obviously have very different approaches to it.

So it's not the game's fault for being unbalanced as feth, it's the player's fault. Right-o.

RoperPG wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
And that'll give either side a good game?

No. If both players have deployed that as their armies, then they will have a terrible game but at least sudden death will ensure it's over by turn 4 at the latest.
That's not a problem with the rules, that's a problem with two people playing a game who obviously have very different approaches to it.
'Good' games have always been down to the players playing that game, regardless of the system.
'Bad' games will occur in any system, no matter how finely balanced the force construction is or well crafted the rules are.

Good games make it a lot harder to land in these pathalogically bad cases.

Even assuming that the two players in the example had never met before,and the only discussion was agreeing to play the 4-page rules vanilla with no extras, how were they expecting to have a good game?
Was that all they had/brought with them? Who deployed first? Did neither of them say anything?

Why would they say anything? They were following the rules exactly as written. Maybe they've never played before?

Back to the topic, I do love how some individuals complain that AoS is unplayable because it has no intrinsic comp, but when a post like this comes up suggesting ideas for mix'n'match armies the stock response is always "well you could do that in system X!".
It's adorable. You either need comp to play a game, or you don't. You can't hack on a game for not using it then claim you don't have to use it in other games either.

Not true. With a points system as per any other game, it'd be blindingly obvious how outmatched the skeletons were, and you could compensate for it. You have the option of just throwing them on the table and getting on with it (much easier when you have experience of how the units work), or going strictly by the points and making up equal lists, or some hybrid where you eyeball it based on the points (i.e. I've got about 1000ish points, you've got maybe 1200ish, that's close enough, go).

How are a pair of new players to know that it's a poor match up, and that the sudden death should actually go the other way? It's certainly not the players fault.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

RoperPG wrote:

Herzlos wrote:
And that'll give either side a good game?

No. If both players have deployed that as their armies, then they will have a terrible game but at least sudden death will ensure it's over by turn 4 at the latest.
That's not a problem with the rules, that's a problem with two people playing a game who obviously have very different approaches to it.

So it's not the game's fault for being unbalanced as feth, it's the player's fault. Right-o.

Nice strawman, not what I said. The problem is because one of the players thinks 20 Demigryphs is a 'good' army, the other thinks 31 Skellies is a 'good' army.
Or they may not have any idea about potency of those units at all. But then if they've never played, why does one of then *only* have 20 Demigryph knights? That's the problem with hypothetical, I guess...
But the hallmarks are that these players have very different ideas about what a 'good' game means to them, so they will only ever have bad gamesdue to terrible matchups against each other.

I have encountered exactly the same situation in every other game system I've ever seen, except there the players had lists and points.
Players have a terrible game, chat, decide unit X is broken or unit Y is unusable, adjust their view and carry on.
So if it's not unique to AoS, it's not an AoS problem.

Because there's no framework to identifying that 20 demigryphs isn't equal to 31 skellies, nor any framework to handle balance beyond model count. AoS does nothing to help users find a good matchup, beyond leaving them in the wild to just figure it out.

I've seen the occasional OP unit in a pointed game, but I've never run into a totally unbalanced game unless one of the players has brought an army that's too specialised (like tank hunters when facing an infantry company, or putting all of their points into King Tigers and bunker busters).

RoperPG wrote:

Plumbumbarum wrote:

 judgedoug wrote:

coldgaming wrote:
AoS graciously also lets you never have to play the game to post every day on a forum about the game about why it doesn't work.

This insightful quote (exalted btw) easily explains, well, literally, everything!

Except it doesn't. You don't need to play to know that given the disproportion in model strenght, a boost to the side with less models is an awful rule, for example.

How so?

3 Bloodthirsters against 10 goblins, is it balanced to give the thirsters sudden death?