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 sympathise but at the same time... if the argument is "I don't like them adding structure, because people want to play that way and are less likely to play the way I want if it's available"... isn't that a bit unreasonable?

Davor wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
As people have been repeatedly telling you Kan, you don't have to play this way. You can continue playing the kids plastic army men equivalent of Warhammer where you just bring whatever and smash 'em together whilst making gun noises. You can keep that 'spirit'.

But not everyone is you, some people want a little structure in their game. This new system allows both.

Deal. With. It.

Just like how people want to play Unbound in 40K, and can't because people refuse to play that? Same thing can happen with points in Age of Sigmar now. You can't get a game in unless it's with points. And also look how well not playing Unbound worked. You got more cheese playing with a bound (or what ever it's called) army than an unbound army. So people are afraid this will happen in AoS.

You don't have to be so rude about it.

You're making claims without evidence to back your claims up. I see people play unbound all the time.
It just so happens to be the younger kids that do so. And it works fine for them.
And this isn't like 40k at all. The clearly established 'official' play system is no wounds. There are people who play without any kind of balancing metric, despite there existing 4 point systems. Add a new '5th system' isn't going to suddenly convert all those players into playing with points.
When 6th edition dropped, the established medium was points and force orgs.
When Age of Sigmar dropped, the established medium became, and has been, no points.
So comparing 40k's unbound popularity to Age of Sigmar’s open play system is a fairly flawed comparison.

And when I see someone crying over spilt milk rather than being an adult and just pouring themselves another glass, I think a little bluntness is called for. Does the soul good.

Let me know when this crap stops and I can check these threads again for N&R stuff, thx.

 Kanluwen wrote:
It's "one mode of playing" that is going to, likely, be the promoted avenue for tournaments--which means here in the US, it's going to be "the" go to mode for players who think they're tournament gamers where they'll try to get gaming groups to accept just those rules.

I doubt people who "think they're tournament gamers" are playing AoS now, anyway. Unless maybe they are playing with one of the current fan point systems in which case they are not playing your version of AoS already.

Do you really think that you're going to see "Narrative Gaming Days" anywhere but a GW shop? Or "Campaign Leagues" anywhere but a GW shop?

If there is actual interest in Narrative Gaming, yes. As far as Campaign Leagues I've played such for years with the old WFB system, points and all so I don't see any problem. I don't give a damn about "tournament play" I just want to be able to walk into a store and play a pick-up game without spending an hour negotiating both army lists so I welcome a points system.

 Kanluwen wrote:
Do you really think that you're going to see "Narrative Gaming Days" anywhere but a GW shop? Or "Campaign Leagues" anywhere but a GW shop?

If players really want it...Yes. If not then loss of it isn't issue since it wasn't wanted in the first place.

People play how they want. If something isn't played then guess what? It means people prefer to play otherwise.

While there is wisdom in that, it does not reveal the whole story.

People tend to migrate to where the majority of players are.

Based on several polls conducted, roughly 3 in 5 want and require points and competitive environments.

The majority will often get their way in terms of what store events are run.

For the 2 in 5 that want narrative gaming days, they are up that creek without a paddle in many instances. Its not a gross imbalance... 3 in 5 is pretty close in terms of a split... but its enough that doing the 2 in 5 events won't be seen as worth the trouble by a lot of event coordinators.

If you are in the 2 in 5 you are going to have to set up these events yourself if you want to see them done.

Davor wrote:
Just like how people want to play Unbound in 40K, and can't because people refuse to play that? Same thing can happen with points in Age of Sigmar now. You can't get a game in unless it's with points. And also look how well not playing Unbound worked. You got more cheese playing with a bound (or what ever it's called) army than an unbound army. So people are afraid this will happen in AoS.

I can see why this analogy gets brought up, but it isn't a good one. Unbound was a force organization option introduced into a game with already established points and force organization. AoS is getting a points and force organization option introduced when it does not have any; it's the opposite of unbound in how it's being introduced.On top of that this pointed option is coming in alongside two others, and is being introduced to the community of AoS which has a different mix of mindsets towards structure than 40k or WHFB. While I don't see people's fears being unfounded, I also think the level of concern is too high given the situation we have.

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Davor wrote:
Just like how people want to play Unbound in 40K, and can't because people refuse to play that? Same thing can happen with points in Age of Sigmar now. You can't get a game in unless it's with points. And also look how well not playing Unbound worked. You got more cheese playing with a bound (or what ever it's called) army than an unbound army. So people are afraid this will happen in AoS.

I can see why this analogy gets brought up, but it isn't a good one. Unbound was a force organization option introduced into a game with already established points and force organization. AoS is getting a points and force organization option introduced when it does not have any; it's the opposite of unbound in how it's being introduced.On top of that this pointed option is coming in alongside two others, and is being introduced to the community of AoS which has a different mix of mindsets towards structure than 40k or WHFB. While I don't see people's fears being unfounded, I also think the level of concern is too high given the situation we have.

I know it's not a good one, but all I ment is a lot of 40K players will shun anyone who brings an unbound army, even today. So if someone wants a Bring What you want Game, people will shun the because they are not using points. That is what I ment. Even when GW makes the rules OFFICIAL people still ignore them.

@auticus, if 3 out of 5 want to play competitive play and 2 out of 5 want to play narrative play, surely the 2 players who like narrative play can play each other :p

Jokes aside, I do understand your point of view. I honestly think a fluffly narrative game with fully painted armies on amazing terrain is the pinnacle of the hobby. But it does take a lot of work to get there and having it as the default game mode for pick up play isn't great imo. I never feel all that motivated to come up with the story if the opponent's army is all grey plastic - and I don't feel like PUGs are a great place to think up a narrative on the spot. I would love to do a full campaign, but realistically as I play all my AoS in a PUG environment I am going to have lots more fun playing competitive and tactical games where the fun isn't too affected by unpainted armies or not having a backstory to it.

 auticus wrote:
While there is wisdom in that, it does not reveal the whole story.

People tend to migrate to where the majority of players are.
[...]

While I agree with your point, I think there is a stronger pull - People tend to migrate to where path of least resistance - And having to come to an agreement with your fellow player, before you can start a game takes effort. Setting up a narrative event, or just a narrative game, takes more effort than a "pick-up game with a random scenario or maelstrom-type missions & objectives".
So the path of least resistance favours points, and since people do tend to gravitate to what others are doing, as you said, could lead to a case where non-narrative, pick-up games with points will become the norm.

Now whether not that is a bad idea depends on your taste, but personally I think it's good with a super easy way to get a game going. But I really, really hope that GW continues to heavily support the narrative-driven game-types, more than any other type, but I don't have my hopes up too high. Still a lot of positive surprises have come from GW lately, so anything can happen.

but realistically as I play all my AoS in a PUG environment I am going to have lots more fun playing competitive and tactical games where the fun isn't too affected by unpainted armies or not having a backstory to it

Which is sadly why narrative style games will never be a popular thing, because it takes a lot more work to get them to succeed as the default environments I find are as you described.

last week leaked WD on thursday .

This week that is interesting, we will have to wait more days :(

Davor wrote:

 NinthMusketeer wrote:

Davor wrote:
Just like how people want to play Unbound in 40K, and can't because people refuse to play that? Same thing can happen with points in Age of Sigmar now. You can't get a game in unless it's with points. And also look how well not playing Unbound worked. You got more cheese playing with a bound (or what ever it's called) army than an unbound army. So people are afraid this will happen in AoS.

I can see why this analogy gets brought up, but it isn't a good one. Unbound was a force organization option introduced into a game with already established points and force organization. AoS is getting a points and force organization option introduced when it does not have any; it's the opposite of unbound in how it's being introduced.On top of that this pointed option is coming in alongside two others, and is being introduced to the community of AoS which has a different mix of mindsets towards structure than 40k or WHFB. While I don't see people's fears being unfounded, I also think the level of concern is too high given the situation we have.

I know it's not a good one, but all I ment is a lot of 40K players will shun anyone who brings an unbound army, even today. So if someone wants a Bring What you want Game, people will shun the because they are not using points. That is what I ment. Even when GW makes the rules OFFICIAL people still ignore them.

Why are you, if I may ask, even one of the loudest voices not letting this discussion die down? You've admitted openly all over the AoS forums that you hate the fluff, think its stupid, don't want to learn correct facts when people tried explaining elements of the lore to you, etc...

I feel like we've moved this topic beyond and sensible debate, and we just have a couple folks being really adversarial and just getting off on keeping unnecessary fighting going. A couple of the "points or bust" folks can be a little intense, and a couple of the "points are for imbeciles and I wish death on them" folks are comically over-the-top... and the result is just a toxic discussion when people should be more excited about a game which was struggled by a lot of metrics, suddenly having a lot more potentially interested eyes on it, and a company magic an effort to support said game, and grow its community.

There is a net win here if people will allow it... but instead poisoning the well just ensures people will keep saying away from AoS... points or no.

Wasn't replying to you NTN there. You are the one who is bringing it up now. I can't reply to someone who has quoted me? I wasn't even arguing with Ninthmusketeer. I thought we were having a good discussion between us.

Davor wrote:
Wasn't replying to you NTN there. You are the one who is bringing it up now. I can't reply to someone who has quoted me? I wasn't even arguing with Ninthmusketeer. I thought we were having a good discussion between us.

Place for that is here http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/forums/show/32.page

Lets try and stick to news

If it makes you people who hate the intro of points feel better. Most of us who want points would rather play whfb. We are just trying to polish the turd that is sigmar. You hate points we hate sigmar together we hate everything.

On topic sigmars groupies will win cause they cost so damn mich and gw will want sigmarines to be the poster boys kids love op super heroes. Hell chaos and ork arnt even a threat in sifi fantasy warhammer anymore they are just place holders for how bad ass sigmarines are.

OgreChubbs wrote:
If it makes you people who hate the intro of points feel better. Most of us who want points would rather play whfb. We are just trying to polish the turd that is sigmar. You hate points we hate sigmar together we hate everything.

On topic sigmars groupies will win cause they cost so damn mich and gw will want sigmarines to be the poster boys kids love op super heroes. Hell chaos and ork arnt even a threat in sifi fantasy warhammer anymore they are just place holders for how bad ass sigmarines are.

Probably shouldn't speak for everyone wth comments like 'most of us would rather play whfb'.

Ey yall got any more of dem Sylvaneth leaks?

I wasn't aware of when "most" equaled "all".

Overall still excited for points. I'm pumped to get to pull out fantasy models again. And 4 pages of rules with a couple of data sheets is my friend!

OgreChubbs wrote:
If it makes you people who hate the intro of points feel better. Most of us who want points would rather play whfb. We are just trying to polish the turd that is sigmar. You hate points we hate sigmar together we hate everything.

On topic sigmars groupies will win cause they cost so damn mich and gw will want sigmarines to be the poster boys kids love op super heroes. Hell chaos and ork arnt even a threat in sifi fantasy warhammer anymore they are just place holders for how bad ass sigmarines are.

Then play WHFB. Points in AoS are for people who wanted to play AoS but were put off by a lack of a balancing mechanism. I swear, half of what you say doesn't make any sense.

 Hulksmash wrote:
I wasn't aware of when "most" equaled "all".

Overall still excited for points. I'm pumped to get to pull out fantasy models again. And 4 pages of rules with a couple of data sheets is my friend!

It will be interesting to see what they add in the general's handbook.

New picture found it on grand alliance community.




Now this text is rumors from /tg take it with a grain of salt but the image is real. From grand alliance. Props to Bass924.


In addition to the above pic, here are the rest of the rumors so far courtesy of /tg/:

"All units have an assigned role.
Leader, Battleline, Behemoth, Artillery, no role.
Depending on points you play you are required/limited on number of units of each type you can take. Lets say we play 1000pts battle.
In that case you are required to take
2+ Battleline units
1-4 Leaders
0-2 Behemoths
0-2 Artillery
Any number of no role units

Some units have both types so they take up both slots at once.
Some units can become battleline if you take specific leader



Somehow I missed the part about summoning while taking photos but as far as I remember it works along the lines:
We play 1000 pts battle
You can decide to spent any of those points on summoning. So lets say you take 700 points on field and 300 points are "held in reserve: as summoning.
You summon any unit within said 300 points limit later in game. Points are used for summon so no recycling.



Armies build entirely of one Alliance are given extra rule. Generals can take 1 extra ability out of 6 predefined ones. Also there are 6 artefacts that can be taken by heroes at no additional cost.



Each alliance has its own set of
1 Battle Trait
6 Command Traits for your general
6 Artefacts that "any (non-unique) hero can be given one..."

Battle traits are
Death: For each wount or mortal wound suffered by DEATH unit within your army that is within 10" of your General or another Hero from your army, roll a die. On a 6 or more the wound is negated.
Destruction: Roll a dice in your hero phase for each unit from your army that is within 6" of General or another Hero from your army. The unit can move a number of inches equal to the dice roll, as if it were movement phase, but cannot run. This does not affect their ability to move again later in the turn.

Chaos: Roll a dice when you pick a Chaos unit to attack in combat that is within 8" of general or other your hero. On a roll of 6 you can add 1 to all hit rolls for the unit in that phase.
Order: You can re-roll battleshock tests (in battleshock phase) for friendly Order units that are within 12" of general or other hero in your army.



(order artifacts. chose one, no roll)

1. Attack in combat before anyone else (one use potion)
2. Improve Rend by 1, not for mounts
3. +1 Damage for one weapon
4. -1 to To Hit for enemies you wounded (for rest of battle)
5. Once per battle -1 to Hit for all enemies agains model with this artefact
6. Heal 1 wound in each of your hero phases. "


Points costs getting leaked:

" Prime 360
Judicators 160pts per 5
Liberators 100pts per 5
vexillor 200pts
heraldor 120pts
venator 120pts
Celestant /on dracoth 100/220
Prosecutors hammers/javelins 100/80pts per 3models
Retributors 220 per 5
Stardrake 500/600pts
Drake cav 240pts per 2 models with concussors as exception at 280

Nagash is 900
Archaon is 700

Arielle is 620

New unit names are Tree Revenants and one other type of Revenants 100 pts/5 both
and Kurnoth Hunters (or something like that) 180pts/3

Kairos 300
Lord of Change 260
Great Unclean 240
Skarbrand 400
Bloodthirsters 280-360 depending on version
Verminlord 300
Keeper of Secrets 280"

NO POINTS or battlefield roles for any forge world units in the book.

Plus ironjaws pic attatched got posted.




End of post.

Now take some of this info with a GRAIN OF SALT. I think the images are true for sure though.

It really looks like they are giving very rough points totals - a unit of 5 Brutes is the same as a unit of 20 - which I think is excellent. It preserves the negotiating factor of AoS and makes it harder for WAAC to 'hide behind the points' as well as gives GW a margin of error. Also rules of 1 kill most of the game-breakers. Sucks for summoning players though, its basically an alternate deployment that you have to roll for now :/

 NinthMusketeer wrote:
It really looks like they are giving very rough points totals - a unit of 5 Brutes is the same as a unit of 20 - which I think is excellent. It preserves the negotiating factor of AoS and makes it harder for WAAC to 'hide behind the points' as well as gives GW a margin of error. Also rules of 1 kill most of the game-breakers. Sucks for summoning players though, its basically an alternate deployment that you have to roll for now :/

That assumes the points are not for each set of min unit size taken. I'd assume that is the case if judicators and the like are x points per 5.

It simply balances the most powerful and annoying summons: weaker troops as skeletons and zombies (the ones actually needing summoning or methods to remain on the field) can still double up their number with some lucky summon rolls, and I don't think non-spell abilities toat summon creatures are included. Surely it stops the chain-resummoning from Slanns, and the most annoying demon/death summoning shenanigans.

I think we are going to incorporate the three rules of one into our games at our GW store for sure. I really like them

And of course, Tzeentch gets punished again for being Tzeentch. TWO entire warscroll battalions are now useless thanks that first Rule of One (Fatesworn Warband, in which all heroes can cast Arcane Bolt; and the Chaos Warband, in which units who wipe out an enemy unit can cast Arcane Bolt).

I thought Tzeentch was getting some love this summer, but evidently GW is still dumping on them.

I'm intrigued by the mention of the "Kurnoth Hunters". That seems like we're going to see something ala Kurnous' followers...a whole unit of Orions would be pretty great.

OgreChubbs wrote:If it makes you people who hate the intro of points feel better. Most of us who want points would rather play whfb. We are just trying to polish the turd that is sigmar. You hate points we hate sigmar together we hate everything.

On topic sigmars groupies will win cause they cost so damn mich and gw will want sigmarines to be the poster boys kids love op super heroes. Hell chaos and ork arnt even a threat in sifi fantasy warhammer anymore they are just place holders for how bad ass sigmarines are.

Ironically I love points. Never once did I say I dont like points but how the only way to play would be with points and for people who like the way it is now will not be able to do it.

Every bit of those rules has me excited and feels like exactly what I wanted... my only thought being, for tournament/competitive games we'll need to clarify the unit min/max for x points rule.

I think the intent is for it to mean, a min unit of these costs "x" and you may buy that many increments of said unit up to a max? Without playing it though I can't be sure.

Otherwise, who wouldn't always take max units?