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.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
GW did the right thing to strip the rules to the bone; WFB 8E needed it almost as much as 40k 7E needs it.

I believe it's the other way around... WHFB seemed *a lot* heavier than 40k.

 jreilly89 wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I probably would have liked Maw Krusha if it weren't for the wings.

It's not a typical dragon, but I actually like it more. It's more cumbersome, bulky, and gruff, all Orky things

I think I'd be happiest if it were just a ground pounder with no wings at all.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:GW are silly with their complexity these days, they either go stupid complex or stupid simple.

I don't think complexity is a good proxy for how good a game is, unless the complexity is the thing spoiling it. Say what you will about KoW, but it does demonstrate that you don't need complexity to have a good game with tactical depth, if anything limiting complexity is a good design policy. Not disagreeing, your comment just reminded me of this point.

JohnHwangDD wrote:I think we can all handle rules complexity, but why should we, when it's really just an exercise to shoot the gak, have a beer, eat some pretzels, and make "pew-pew" (or "FREEEEEM!") noises? 40k 7E's rules get in the way of that.

If AoS was designed to be a game like that (I'm quite sure it is) then it was designed well because it achieves that purpose. Whether you like that kind of game is another matter.

 DarkBlack wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:I think we can all handle rules complexity, but why should we, when it's really just an exercise to shoot the gak, have a beer, eat some pretzels, and make "pew-pew" (or "FREEEEEM!") noises? 40k 7E's rules get in the way of that.

If AoS was designed to be a game like that (I'm quite sure it is) then it was designed well because it achieves that purpose. Whether you like that kind of game is another matter.

I enjoy that sort of game far more than I enjoy playing "hunt the relevant paragraph, related to subsection b, series 2". 40k shouldn't be a game for paralegals.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
That's an ignorant thing to say when AoS clearly plays like 40k/WFB. Have you even played AoS?

Speaking for myself, I haven't played AoS, but I don't need to in order to see that the rules are closely related to 40K. It's an important reason I haven't been interested in AoS. Why bother when I already have large 40K armies that I don't use because 40K is a vomitous mass?

DarkBlack wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:GW are silly with their complexity these days, they either go stupid complex or stupid simple.

I don't think complexity is a good proxy for how good a game is, unless the complexity is the thing spoiling it. Say what you will about KoW, but it does demonstrate that you don't need complexity to have a good game with tactical depth, if anything limiting complexity is a good design policy. Not disagreeing, your comment just reminded me of this point.

JohnHwangDD wrote:I think we can all handle rules complexity, but why should we, when it's really just an exercise to shoot the gak, have a beer, eat some pretzels, and make "pew-pew" (or "FREEEEEM!") noises? 40k 7E's rules get in the way of that.

If AoS was designed to be a game like that (I'm quite sure it is) then it was designed well because it achieves that purpose. Whether you like that kind of game is another matter.

JohnHwangDD wrote:I enjoy that sort of game far more than I enjoy playing "hunt the relevant paragraph, related to subsection b, series 2". 40k shouldn't be a game for paralegals.

That's why I talked about GW going to absurd extremes of complexity.

Whether a game is 4 pages long like AoS or 10 pages long isn't going to have a huge effect on how long it takes you to learn it, so IMO you might as well just add the depth and make it 10 pages long.

On the other hand we have 40k, how long are the rules in that these days, 100 pages or something stupid like that?

It'd be nice if GW found a happy middle ground with one of their games.

Neither 40k nor WHFB nor AoS are role models for how to design a good game IMO.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

JohnHwangDD wrote:I enjoy that sort of game far more than I enjoy playing "hunt the relevant paragraph, related to subsection b, series 2". 40k shouldn't be a game for paralegals.

That's why I talked about GW going to absurd extremes of complexity.

Whether a game is 4 pages long like AoS or 10 pages long isn't going to have a huge effect on how long it takes you to learn it, so IMO you might as well just add the depth and make it 10 pages long.

On the other hand we have 40k, how long are the rules in that these days, 100 pages or something stupid like that?


Neither 40k nor WHFB nor AoS are role models for how to design a good game IMO.

Indeed. 4 pages vs 10 pages isn't that big of a difference. The non-free versions of AoS are more like 8 pages with art & graphics. 100+ page things like 40k7 / N3 / FoW are excessive and bloated. And that's just the "core", before you add all of the faction & unit & item rules.

When I got around to writing KOG light, I deliberately used AoS as the baseline for it's design. For an ultralight, minimalist beer-and-pretzels game, it's turned out quite well. Now, granted that I changed a lot of stuff in AoS, but that's where I started, and it was a far better start than if I had started with 40k7 / N3 / FoW instead.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
That's an ignorant thing to say when AoS clearly plays like 40k/WFB. Have you even played AoS?

That is an ignorant thing to say. Did you ever play WHFB?

AoS plays very, very little like WHFB - WHFB is a game of close unit maneuvering, while AoS is about a loose mob being moved in a general direction - AoS is a lot closer to 40K - but the feel that I actually got from the game was that it was similar to the combat portion of a badly written RTS computer game.

There are rules similarities between WHFB-WH40K-AoS but the play is very different indeed - and AoS is not at all what I want for the successor to WHFB.

WHFB was killed over the course of two editions - AoS was only the final nail in the coffin, by the time it came out, aside from a brief resurgence during the End Times, the line was dying - not because of inherent problem with the concept, but becaue GW was putting no real work into making a functional set of rules.

Telling people that it is the same does you little good - there are indeed very large differences in play, and those folks that enjoyed WHFB are not going to be at home to saying that there are the saame.

The Auld Grump


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DarkBlack wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:GW are silly with their complexity these days, they either go stupid complex or stupid simple.

I don't think complexity is a good proxy for how good a game is, unless the complexity is the thing spoiling it. Say what you will about KoW, but it does demonstrate that you don't need complexity to have a good game with tactical depth, if anything limiting complexity is a good design policy. Not disagreeing, your comment just reminded me of this point.

JohnHwangDD wrote:I think we can all handle rules complexity, but why should we, when it's really just an exercise to shoot the gak, have a beer, eat some pretzels, and make "pew-pew" (or "FREEEEEM!") noises? 40k 7E's rules get in the way of that.

If AoS was designed to be a game like that (I'm quite sure it is) then it was designed well because it achieves that purpose. Whether you like that kind of game is another matter.

Exactly - it is perfectly OK to enjoy AoS as a beer and pretzels tactical game - but some folks want a good deal more depth than it provides.

It is not a matter of rules complexity - as you say, KoW is deceptively simple. It is about how the game plays.

I honestly think that a new edition of WHFB completely separate from AoS would have done a much better job of keeping the existing audience - instead it was very much like getting slapped in the face, with the online battle scrolls for the older units being an added insult.

I have no urge to ever try AoS again - it was not an enjoyable game for me.

The Auld Grump

AllSeeingSkink wrote:Neither 40k nor WHFB nor AoS are role models for how to design a good game IMO.

That is so true. Thing is it's a good model to how to make millions of dollars for like 10+ years straight. I would say 30 years but I just remember from the year 2000 and up. So not sure if GW ever had a loss before year 2000. Big corperation or not, little company or not, making more than 4 million a year in profit for over a decade is pretty impressive. No mater what we say about the rules, GW found a formula how to get people to keep buying minis. After all Privateer Press seems to be following in Games Workshop foot prints in a few things they do now.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
That's an ignorant thing to say when AoS clearly plays like 40k/WFB. Have you even played AoS?

That is an ignorant thing to say. Did you ever play WHFB?

AoS plays very, very little like WHFB - WHFB is a game of close unit maneuvering,

The Auld Grump

Not even close. WFB is a game of monsters, shooting and devastating Magic. Maneuver has almost nothing to do with it.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
That's an ignorant thing to say when AoS clearly plays like 40k/WFB. Have you even played AoS?

That is an ignorant thing to say. Did you ever play WHFB?

AoS plays very, very little like WHFB - WHFB is a game of close unit maneuvering,

The Auld Grump

Not even close. WFB is a game of monsters, shooting and devastating Magic. Maneuver has almost nothing to do with it.

That is completely false, maneuver had EVERYTHING to do with it. You could still have a game without monsters, shooting, OR devastating magic and it would still play. Take out maneuvering and you essentially have Yahtzee while you show your models off.

You play your way, I'll play mine. Mine won me plenty enough games.

 Just Tony wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
That's an ignorant thing to say when AoS clearly plays like 40k/WFB. Have you even played AoS?

That is an ignorant thing to say. Did you ever play WHFB?

AoS plays very, very little like WHFB - WHFB is a game of close unit maneuvering,

The Auld Grump

Not even close. WFB is a game of monsters, shooting and devastating Magic. Maneuver has almost nothing to do with it.

That is completely false, maneuver had EVERYTHING to do with it. You could still have a game without monsters, shooting, OR devastating magic and it would still play. Take out maneuvering and you essentially have Yahtzee while you show your models off.

Someone got a misfire on their fringe roll?

Davor wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:Neither 40k nor WHFB nor AoS are role models for how to design a good game IMO.

That is so true. Thing is it's a good model to how to make millions of dollars for like 10+ years straight. I would say 30 years but I just remember from the year 2000 and up. So not sure if GW ever had a loss before year 2000. Big corperation or not, little company or not, making more than 4 million a year in profit for over a decade is pretty impressive. No mater what we say about the rules, GW found a formula how to get people to keep buying minis. After all Privateer Press seems to be following in Games Workshop foot prints in a few things they do now.

But GW's growth didn't have a whole lot to do with the rules. They were in the right place at the right time and marketed themselves in the right way at that time.

Also when WHFB and 40k saw their biggest growth was in a time where there weren't as many obvious competitors for sci fi and fantasy table top gaming, so poor rules was less of a problem. Now I walk in to a wargaming shop and have the owner tell me "Well 40k and Warhammer are a bit of a mess these days, but let me show you Infinity, Malifaux, X-Wing, Guild Ball, Kings of War, Bolt Action, Flames of War, etc". GW games no longer occupy most of the space in your average gaming shop like they did in the 90's and 00's.

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

Exactly - it is perfectly OK to enjoy AoS as a beer and pretzels tactical game - but some folks want a good deal more depth than it provides.

The Auld Grump

Sadly the answer has to be "them play something else", happily there is a game for pretty much however you want to play these days. Not that you can find opponents for all of them though.

Where I am AoS and KoW are coexisting quite well. The games don't really grow at expense of each other, it is easy enough for some players to do both and for the rest the two games appeal to entirely different people.

AoS falls down as a b&p game bexause the rules aren't actually that simple. Sure the core rules are 4 pages, but then you've got all the extra stuff like generals handbook and special rules. Then there's the cost of the minis.

Compare it to X-Wing or Tanks! You can get a good grqsp of the fules in a single read or played turn, they codt less than the pizza and have a surprisingly level if depth.

Herzlos wrote:
AoS falls down as a b&p game bexause the rules aren't actually that simple. Sure the core rules are 4 pages, but then you've got all the extra stuff like generals handbook and special rules. Then there's the cost of the minis.

Compare it to X-Wing or Tanks! You can get a good grqsp of the fules in a single read or played turn, they codt less than the pizza and have a surprisingly level if depth.

I've always interpreted "beer and pretzels" to mean "I don't actually care about the game I just want to line up my models and go pew pew pew".

That people tout 40k as a beer and pretzels game has made the term tantamount to a joke.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
That's an ignorant thing to say when AoS clearly plays like 40k/WFB. Have you even played AoS?

That is an ignorant thing to say. Did you ever play WHFB?

AoS plays very, very little like WHFB - WHFB is a game of close unit maneuvering,

The Auld Grump

Not even close. WFB is a game of monsters, shooting and devastating Magic. Maneuver has almost nothing to do with it.

Here is the exact moment in which I doubt that you ever played WHFB.

As a Freeguild/Empire player I have to do so much more manoeuvring in AoS compared to WHFB. The latter promoted gunlines for a shooty army whereas the 6 matched play scenarios are all based on board control (there is not a single kill point game). I need to get my army down the flanks, into the enemy deployment and react to them trying to do the same.

WHFB had wheeling, flank charges etc but as terrain could be such a hinderence to this (a complicated move would take almost the entire battle).

AoS has flank charges and so forth still. They are not built in as mechanics but the existing mechanics already provides benefits. For example being charged in the front and the flank would mean one could no longer pile in as once a unit is out of coherency the only moves allowed to be made are ones that bring it back into coherency (and being charged from two directions would make at impossible). You'll find you can interact with terrain much better, and moving through a narrow corridor and then fanning out on the other side need not take 3 turns to accomplish.

For me, AoS is an excellent tactical game. I find there is much tactics and strategy to be had than in old WHFB.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:

Davor wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:Neither 40k nor WHFB nor AoS are role models for how to design a good game IMO.

That is so true. Thing is it's a good model to how to make millions of dollars for like 10+ years straight. I would say 30 years but I just remember from the year 2000 and up. So not sure if GW ever had a loss before year 2000. Big corperation or not, little company or not, making more than 4 million a year in profit for over a decade is pretty impressive. No mater what we say about the rules, GW found a formula how to get people to keep buying minis. After all Privateer Press seems to be following in Games Workshop foot prints in a few things they do now.

But GW's growth didn't have a whole lot to do with the rules. They were in the right place at the right time and marketed themselves in the right way at that time.

Also when WHFB and 40k saw their biggest growth was in a time where there weren't as many obvious competitors for sci fi and fantasy table top gaming, so poor rules was less of a problem. Now I walk in to a wargaming shop and have the owner tell me "Well 40k and Warhammer are a bit of a mess these days, but let me show you Infinity, Malifaux, X-Wing, Guild Ball, Kings of War, Bolt Action, Flames of War, etc". GW games no longer occupy most of the space in your average gaming shop like they did in the 90's and 00's.

GW basically has been shrinking since WHFB 7th and 40K 6th came out. Actually, it started shrinking when the LoTR bubble burst about 11 years ago, but that was an exceptional case and probably could not have been avoided.

The shrinkage is due to various reasons, expense being one of them, but dissatisfaction with the rules is another. Lots of veterans hate the last two editions of both games and have given up.

If AoS presents a ruleset that appeals to a large number of new people, who aren't put off by the price of the models, then it can sell well. 40K seems to sell largely on the mega model kits that have been the main thrust of development since late 5th edition.

GW has been shrinking since 2004 when the lotr bubble burst and they cancelled specialist games they went from 36+ million profit each year down to less than half that more recently.

Kirbys poor management has seen the most popular games of the early 2000's become the most mocked.

Roundtree got handed a company in a very sorry state and has so far failed to make the crucial change needed to see it expand again.

While I'm pretty off-topic with this:

Frankly as a casual player who absolutely loves the Old World fluff, if there was any gaming scene at all around me I would have no problem at all playing games in the Old World with the AoS rules. I have played a great many rulesets over the last 20 years and they are far from the worst. I agree that without the death of the Old World, they would have less sourness attached.

Frankly, Kings of War is a bit bland rules-wise, but that lets it handle rank and file much better than the giant Warhammer 8th edition 'rules encyclopedia'. Regardless of how people say because of the wound mechanics that "units could just be represented by wooden blocks, not models", it still can look completely indistinguishable from WHFB on the table, but with a ruleset that's not mired in a past that was assisted by being the only big company around enabligh clunky rules to succeed.

At the very least Necromunda could be re-released with the old rules, as they aren't fighting a changed legacy/setting like Mordheim. They are as old as dirt, but they work just fine (yes, even close combat!), so far as I use the lack of unit coherency, down/out of action rules, and bottle tests to play great fun skirmish games of 40k 2nd Ed.

I wouldn't dare try to teach modern 40k to a newbie, even as a huge fan. It's a clunky mess.

 Kaiyanwang wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

 TheAuldGrump wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
That's an ignorant thing to say when AoS clearly plays like 40k/WFB. Have you even played AoS?

That is an ignorant thing to say. Did you ever play WHFB?

AoS plays very, very little like WHFB - WHFB is a game of close unit maneuvering,

The Auld Grump

Not even close. WFB is a game of monsters, shooting and devastating Magic. Maneuver has almost nothing to do with it.

Here is the exact moment in which I doubt that you ever played WHFB.

No, I just played a different army from you. Tell you what, we'll play under 6E rules, and I'll break out my Heavens Wizards, Empire Cannons, Crossbows, and DoW support and we'll see how much maneuver I need to beat you on a typical board with 6E levels of terrain... It won't be very much, I can tell you that. Note that 6E has no prohibitions against sniping, and I am *excellent* at "guessing" range.

The movement phase of WHF made or lost the game for people. To say that movement had nothing to do with it is one of the largest falsehoods I've ever seen.

WHF has more tactical depth in it's Index section than AOS has in its entirety.

Really? moving a bunch of round bases in any direction with almost no coherency is now considered tactical? Flank charges? Are you joking?

I am not denying that 8th edition didn't have its share of problems, but I've played enough games of Age of Sigmar that I can say the game feels incomplete with only four pages of rules.
Yes, Games Workshop needed to do something different because they doubled down on model count games and tactics. As a veteran player when I saw the 8th edition rules set I was
happy that I only needed to buy a few units; But for a new player.. they would need a house loan to cover a army purchase. Let alone the time needed to paint that many models.
Age of Sigmar was right in dropping model count, but GW could have done that without killing off the world and destroying all previous history with it.
Before 8th edition normal tournaments we would normally see 14 - 20 players average showing up.. with a larger amount of players in the community that didn't participate in the tournaments.
Now we have a slow building of local gamers that seem scared that GW will just abandon them like they did before to WFB players.. Just this month, more than a year after AoS release
a local store sponsored a tournament. .. 6 players showed up.. Most were new players, I guess GW got what they wanted.. A game to attract new gamers...

Have you guys played AoS with the GHB or just with the 4 pages of core rules? The GHB improved the game so so much. I recommend you give it another shot before dismissing it. The 4 pages serve as an introduction only in my opinion for younger wargamers.

I'm not very interested by the core rules and I am doubly not very interested by the idea of buying an expensive supplement that might or might not turn them into a set of rules I would be interested in playing.

It's a £15 book. Not expensive in my opinion, and definitely not expensive by GW standards.

Yeah, I'm no lover of AoS, but the Generals book is shockingly cheap for GW, when the army books are so expensive. Still not cheap enough to get into AoS in anything more than a skirmish capacity, though.

I can get behind a game that costs £0. I can get behind a game that costs £15. I can't get behind a game that costs £(15+x/0).