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.

I actually like the fact they exploded Fantasy.

It's not as bad as the prequels for Star Wars, but as a company you had to move forward.

I'm hoping they do the same thing for 40k, although their prequel there seems to be taking over...

Makes me wonder how many points a stardrake, or Nagash or hell Archaon is going to be

I wouldn't have minded the exploded Fantasy setting if it didn't mean that so many factions were being at best rolled together or at worst removed entirely.

Poor Bretonia :-(

motski wrote:
Makes me wonder how many points a stardrake, or Nagash or hell Archaon is going to be

Nagash is probably going to be quite a bit since he's a god.

You know, technically, they could do a return to the old world in a pre-empire era and could still call it Age of Sigmar....

NoggintheNog wrote:
Good news.

But the question really should be asked. Who thought it viable to have no balancing mechanism at all when they launched it?

I appreciate they are doing something about it, but I am still at a loss as to why anyone thought not having something there from day 1 would be in any way a viable approach.

Because over the past dozen years all the real rules writing and game playing talent in the design studio was driven out, leaving a lot of compliant yes men who fell into group think.

Ignoring the fact that the problems with points were caused by GW fething things up, the studio went with the theory that points are bad because only the wrong type of players like them.

It's sad that all existing books and war scrolls will become obsolete in less that a year from launch.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
It's sad that all existing books and war scrolls will become obsolete in less that a year from launch.

How's so? They can have points separate from books.

motski wrote:
Makes me wonder how many points a stardrake, or Nagash or hell Archaon is going to be

In SCGT a Lord Celestant Stardrake is 28, Nagash is 55, and Archaon is 35. In comparison, 10 skeletons are 4 points and 5 Stormcast Liberators are 5 Points.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

It's sad that all existing books and war scrolls will become obsolete in less that a year from launch.

Why do you think so? I imagine there will be a comp pack similar to SGCT with pools listings. No need to alter any of the existing material.

Great! I wonder how many pts my warsphinx will end up costing? I hope they don't make it overpriced!

Three ways to play, including the much sought after 'points'?

GW listening to customer feedback - and that sounds a bit like some 'market research' right there?

GW taking on and using the Internet Community too?

This is - and I do mean this sincerely - good news!

Ugh.

Do not like. It's bad enough that some of the locals get themselves worked up into paranoid tizzies when they want to do games with certain number of units--now those guys are going to want it to be nothing but "balanced play".

You can still play Brets, just labeled Legacy.

Just like you can still play OnG, even with new items coming out.

They are all listed in the SCGT pool data.

That's pretty cool. I wasn't expecting points, and working with tournament organisers is a really good move imo. Definitely a big step in the right direction.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

NoggintheNog wrote:
Good news.

But the question really should be asked. Who thought it viable to have no balancing mechanism at all when they launched it?

I appreciate they are doing something about it, but I am still at a loss as to why anyone thought not having something there from day 1 would be in any way a viable approach.

Because over the past dozen years all the real rules writing and game playing talent in the design studio was driven out, leaving a lot of compliant yes men who fell into group think.

Ignoring the fact that the problems with points were caused by GW fething things up, the studio went with the theory that points are bad because only the wrong type of players like them.

It's sad that all existing books and war scrolls will become obsolete in less that a year from launch.

They won't. GW specifically stated on FB that no existing books will be outdated. The only thing you will be missing is the Points. And even if you consider that to be making them obsolete, the major part of the books are the new scenarios and Times of War, all of which will still be completely usable.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Ugh.

Do not like. It's bad enough that some of the locals get themselves worked up into paranoid tizzies when they want to do games with certain number of units--now those guys are going to want it to be nothing but "balanced play".

Play the scenarios out of the books with points values to decide the forces. What's the downside?

 Abadabadoobaddon wrote:
Great! I wonder how many pts my warsphinx will end up costing? I hope they don't make it overpriced!

In case you're being sarcastic, they've confirmed that Tomb Kings, Brettonia and any other "squatted" armies will get Points as well.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Ugh.

Do not like. It's bad enough that some of the locals get themselves worked up into paranoid tizzies when they want to do games with certain number of units--now those guys are going to want it to be nothing but "balanced play".

what? I have no idea what you're talking about here. You mean folks in UK?

 Bottle wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Ugh.

Do not like. It's bad enough that some of the locals get themselves worked up into paranoid tizzies when they want to do games with certain number of units--now those guys are going to want it to be nothing but "balanced play".

Play the scenarios out of the books with points values to decide the forces. What's the downside?

The 'downside' is that they caved to the constant complaints about "I don't know how to play without points!".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 VeteranNoob wrote:

 Kanluwen wrote:
Ugh.

Do not like. It's bad enough that some of the locals get themselves worked up into paranoid tizzies when they want to do games with certain number of units--now those guys are going to want it to be nothing but "balanced play".

what? I have no idea what you're talking about here. You mean folks in UK?

Do you know what "local" means?

It means people within my immediate area.

How exactly did this ''pool system'' work that I hear people talking about?

 Ferrum_Sanguinis wrote:
How exactly did this ''pool system'' work that I hear people talking about?

Pool choices = Points.

We've had this argument at great length about the Grand Alliance: Something book which doesn't contain all the Grand Alliance: Something units because some new ones were published shortly after the faction bible had been issued.

Existing books will be completely usable unless you want to include points values, in which case players will have to refer to some other books or downloads to obtain the necessary information.

It remains to be seen how the new narrative rules will retrofit into the already available books.

I think the narrative rules were in the big book that just came out; Godbeasts.

Surely:

Open Play = 4-page rules
Narrative Play = The campaign books
Balanced Play = a comp pack similar to SCGT

With regards to it being a separate document. That would be preferable because it could be tweaked and amended without having to republish the warscrolls.

Imagine how much hassle could have been saved if they'd done this for launch.

Better late than never, I suppose.

I'm guessing that sales are falling enough to make it worth doing this even if people feel short changed about books they have bought (some will even if they are not technically made redundant).

There is probably a much broader possible user base like myself, who bought the initial 2 player box and nothing since, who they are trying to get back. I also think they probably have lost a lot of players to kings of war, even if a lot of those use GW minis.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
We've had this argument at great length about the Grand Alliance: Something book which doesn't contain all the Grand Alliance: Something units because some new ones were published shortly after the faction bible had been issued.

Existing books will be completely usable unless you want to include points values, in which case players will have to refer to some other books or downloads to obtain the necessary information.

It remains to be seen how the new narrative rules will retrofit into the already available books.

I very much doubt that they will include points values in future books anyway, and if I'm right there will be nothing missing from the older books. Remains to be seen.

NoggintheNog wrote:
I'm guessing that sales are falling enough to make it worth doing this even if people feel short changed about books they have bought (some will even if they are not technically made redundant).

There is probably a much broader possible user base like myself, who bought the initial 2 player box and nothing since, who they are trying to get back. I also think they probably have lost a lot of players to kings of war, even if a lot of those use GW minis.

As a 40k player, who went through excitement for a skirmish game and then total disinterest for a 'points less' system, I'm really really excited to see points coming to this game and to actually be contemplating playing it. Given that I'm mostly reliant on pick up games and events, I can finally start building a force to be able to carry about and say 'hey, fancy a game at XX points?'.

I am so pleased with how GW seems to be changing direction lately.

 Bottle wrote:
Surely:

Open Play = 4-page rules
Narrative Play = The campaign books
Balanced Play = a comp pack similar to SCGT

With regards to it being a separate document. That would be preferable because it could be tweaked and amended without having to republish the warscrolls.

This is what I'm expecting. A separate document with Points values and tournament rules, while the Campaign books will remain as they are now.

And I think the local GW store is doing an AoS legaue/campaign sometime... damn it, now I have to really consider picking something up. I really like how the Stormcasts look, I mean really like them.