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.

You clearly didn't understand what I meant. Some people are just playing for the fun of it. Not necessarily to win or even achieve prescribed victory conditions. They play historicals to reenact the fight, regardless of the imbalance. It doesn't matter to them.

You're looking at historicals from a competitive-everyone-gets-a-fair-shot-at-victory point of view, which is fine, but it's not the only view of things. A lot of historical players just downright don't care that they have a smaller chance of victory in a given scenario - they just want to play it for the sake of the narrative.

You need to change the paradigm there.

Edit: For example, as a diehard HE player I would have no issue whatsoever reenacting the battle for the Isle of the Dead in which the Old world Vortex was created. The HE player would be massively outnumbered and the demon player would have endless units popping out. I'd just want to see for how long I could hold on, even if I had low chances of achieving the necessary winc onditions

Is it fair for the HE player? Surely not, but that's not the point.

Well, with "3 ways to play" ideally those who are attracted to that type of scenario play (or Narrative) can have more support for it, while others who want roughly similar forces can also do so (Matched). Finally, with "Open" gaming could continue just as it is now.

I'm very interested in what their next release is... overall, I'm more impressed by the Ironjawz release than anything else for AoS to date. Strong aesthetic, lots of choices, all plastic! I doubt most of the races will get this comprehensive of a release, but anything close would be awesome

 RiTides wrote:
Well, with "3 ways to play" ideally those who are attracted to that type of scenario play (or Narrative) can have more support for it, while others who want roughly similar forces can also do so (Matched). Finally, with "Open" gaming could continue just as it is now.

I'm very interested in what their next release is... overall, I'm more impressed by the Ironjawz release than anything else for AoS to date. Strong aesthetic, lots of choices, all plastic! I doubt most of the races will get this comprehensive of a release, but anything close would be awesome

Fingers crossed for an Elf dragon that rivals that Maw Krusha in awesomeness

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

Edit: For example, as a diehard HE player I would have no issue whatsoever reenacting the battle for the Isle of the Dead in which the Old world Vortex was created. The HE player would be massively outnumbered and the demon player would have endless units popping out. I'd just want to see for how long I could hold on, even if I had low chances of achieving the necessary winc onditions

Is it fair for the HE player? Surely not, but that's not the point.

So telling me that I did not understand you but give an example were you added special victoriy conditions for the HE Player (see how long he hold on)?

No matter what, you always add something to game that people have a reason to try hard. If you "win" because you hold your HE hold more than 3 turns against the demons or the enemy could not achieve a break through until round 4 doesn't matter.
But no one ever says "no matter what you do, I win

So....

 Manchu wrote:
Nothing about regular old "narrative gaming" (just adopting GW's marketing jargon here) requires the opposing forces to have a fair shot at victory.

And here I was thinking that we were talking about both sides having a fair shot at victory not being a necessity for a narrative game... The victory condition's there, but it's not necessarily fair and balanced for both sides.

In my opinion the best narrative scenarios still have a near equal chance of players winning - although what it means 'to win' should vary for each side.

For example the 'Last Stand' scenario from 8th was good because although one side was doomed narratively, they still had an objective of holding out for a certain number of turns to achieve victory for the player.

Or the 'Blood of the Primarch' mission from HH2 where the attacker has way more points but the defender's only victory condition is to keep their Primarch alive.

I really hope that the zombies are going to be a second AoS models that I like, first being the main khorne guy from starter. The orks are somehow kinda ok-ish but the armour plates remind me of first phase of my nurgle marines conversions when I just cut off bits of space marines.

On the other hand it might be hilarious seeing GW manage to ruin zombis design, AoS style. We'll see.

 Ashiraya wrote:
Or the 'Blood of the Primarch' mission from HH2 where the attacker has way more points but the defender's only victory condition is to keep their Primarch alive.

There are quite a few AoS scenarios that play around with that idea already.

The Narrative play already exists with AoS. Out of three the only new one is Matched Play; and this could very well be a living community-driven SCGT document (but rebranded).

What I do want to see added to the Narrative play in summer is a DIY campaign book. Template warscrolls, ideas for character generation, some XP mechanic, various different scenario types to link games together. To some degree parts of this already exists in AoS. I'd like to see them explore it further.

The problem with three ways to play is most communities (I'm going out on a limb here and assuming most communities are a lot like mine) are going to pick one of those ways to play and if you don't like that way to play and like one of the other two, you are going to be playing with yourself in your garage.

That said - options are good - and if you have a community open to more than just one way to play this is a good thing.

 ShaneTB wrote:

What I do want to see added to the Narrative play in summer is a DIY campaign book. Template warscrolls, ideas for character generation, some XP mechanic, various different scenario types to link games together. To some degree parts of this already exists in AoS. I'd like to see them explore it further.

I would buy this in a heartbeat. That would be an amazing release for AoS, I feel.

 ShaneTB wrote:

 Ashiraya wrote:
Or the 'Blood of the Primarch' mission from HH2 where the attacker has way more points but the defender's only victory condition is to keep their Primarch alive.

There are quite a few AoS scenarios that play around with that idea already.

The Narrative play already exists with AoS. Out of three the only new one is Matched Play; and this could very well be a living community-driven SCGT document (but rebranded).

What I do want to see added to the Narrative play in summer is a DIY campaign book. Template warscrolls, ideas for character generation, some XP mechanic, various different scenario types to link games together. To some degree parts of this already exists in AoS. I'd like to see them explore it further.

This is what I'm most excited about. I'm hoping it's like an expanded Path to Glory, big document, all sorts of campaign options.

So they are revising the game, providing 3 types of ways to play, and people are complaining because their preferred type is now one of 3 instead of sole or non-existent...

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
So they are revising the game, providing 3 types of ways to play, and people are complaining because their preferred type is now one of 3 instead of sole or non-existent...

People are concerned that the introduction of 'points' will become the defacto way to play, even though it is listed third on the announcement poster.

I've not come to a full opinion on it yet but that's likely because I rarely play outside of a group of friends (once in 10+ years if I recall correctly).

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
So they are revising the game, providing 3 types of ways to play, and people are complaining because their preferred type is now one of 3 instead of sole or non-existent...

Jervis is going to show up and force them to play pointed games.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 MeanGreenStompa wrote:
So they are revising the game, providing 3 types of ways to play, and people are complaining because their preferred type is now one of 3 instead of sole or non-existent...

Jervis is going to show up and force them to play pointed games.

And the world would implode right after that.

 auticus wrote:
The problem with three ways to play is most communities (I'm going out on a limb here and assuming most communities are a lot like mine) are going to pick one of those ways to play and if you don't like that way to play and like one of the other two, you are going to be playing with yourself in your garage.

That said - options are good - and if you have a community open to more than just one way to play this is a good thing.

Regarding the "garage" line - so about like it is now, right

It seems like folks who want to play in bigger settings (like the SCGT) were already implementing systems like this all over the world. It makes sense for GW to pick from the best of that (and base theirs on the most popular) and provide that structure for folks who want to game that way. Gaming in the garage should be unaffected

Note I'm joking here / making light of it, but I know it matters... but I think groups that established a way of playing AoS without any of the above systems already, should be able to readily adopt GW's "Narrative" option and improve their gameplay with more campaign elements - or even keep on gaming using the "Open" option - without being forced into the "Matched" option. There are 3 for a reason, let's see what GW implements before we declare any of them defunct

10 more pages of rules debates. Cant we take that to another thread?

I like the new look of the Orruks and looking forward to the next release.

Just putting together my Stardrake and I have to say it's a really good kit. Easy to fit together and lots of options.

So, it's ok to continue the rules debate as long as you finish with " I like the new Orruks and looking forward to the next release" to cunningly appear on topic?

 Uriels_Flame wrote:
10 more pages of rules debates. Cant we take that to another thread?

I like the new look of the Orruks and looking forwars to the next release.

Just putting together my Stardrake and I have to say it's a really good kit. Easy to fit together and lots of options.

Considering the news in this thread (the new ways to play AoS) are what's being discussed...

Not really. Seems more like 10 pages of GW bashing but I'm not a MOD so...

Trolls are going to troll I suppose.

 Uriels_Flame wrote:
Not really. Seems more like 10 pages of GW bashing but I'm not a MOD so...

What thread are you reading? Most people are happy with these changes.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Uriels_Flame wrote:
Not really. Seems more like 10 pages of GW bashing but I'm not a MOD so...

What thread are you reading? Most people are happy with these changes.

Considering I'm usually one of the GW bashers and I'm happy with this...

Yeah this whole thing was pretty smart on the part of GW. I'm actually thinking of picking up a starter set which is definitely not something I was planning to do.

Just a quick clarification since it came up above:

Discussing the rules is OK, although at this point we have almost no details! So, in-depth "general" discussion of possible rules mechanics can become OT - and we'll prompt you if things have gone a bit too far off the rails. Basically ask yourself - does this relate to the current news we have? Is it succinct enough to discuss here or does it deserve its own thread? If it passes those two tests, feel free to post here otherwise, please see further in-depth discussion in the AoS boards here:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/688693.page

Certainly, getting some new release pics to talk about in this thread would be welcome and it sounds like those will be coming soon.

That new teaser is definitely executioners with Sisters of Slaughter heads. It doesn't make immediate sense with the associated blurb... Are they even linked to each other? Haven't scoped WD in a while...

Yeah, I think the two things are unrelated, RZ - Atia said as much after posting the pic. I'll add her clarification to the OP:

 Atia wrote:
Guys ....

The pic above is a converted unit. The text is the hint.

Wouldn't be surprised to see them finally release their multipart Khorgorath ...^^

Note that last line is just speculation I think, not a rumor (correct me if wrong anyone!).

 Red_Zeke wrote:
That new teaser is definitely executioners with Sisters of Slaughter heads. It doesn't make immediate sense with the associated blurb... Are they even linked to each other? Haven't scoped WD in a while...

Nah, the last picture is just 'regiments of renown' or something, and the teaser for next week is separate.

 Lithlandis Stormcrow wrote:

You clearly didn't understand what I meant. Some people are just playing for the fun of it. Not necessarily to win or even achieve prescribed victory conditions. They play historicals to reenact the fight, regardless of the imbalance. It doesn't matter to them.

You're looking at historicals from a competitive-everyone-gets-a-fair-shot-at-victory point of view, which is fine, but it's not the only view of things. A lot of historical players just downright don't care that they have a smaller chance of victory in a given scenario - they just want to play it for the sake of the narrative.

This. We just come up with a scenario or idea, then put down enough models to make it feel right. No points, no army lists, no "limit" to the size of the forces, nor real planning of "equal" sides. Just what seems about right for facilitating the game.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Jervis is going to show up and force them to play pointed games.

Although he no doubt could, he won't need to. Points seem to hold this irresistible fascination for gamers interested in fictional settings.