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.

 auticus wrote:
Why would people stall in a game where there was no time limit? Stalling is only a thing in tournament games where you have a time limit. I was discussing campaign day games where there was no time limit.

Yes most casual non-tournament players had a hard time memorizing the rules bible that was whfb. As such, most casual players I have ever encountered in the decades of playing WHFB often had to reference the rules bible many times during the game, and as such, the average game of 2500 points with casual non-tournment players took 4-5 hours.

Our campaign day started at noon and often wrapped up around 6:00 - 7:00. The extra time in there not part of the 4-5 hours of the game were set up, etc and tear down.

You have to realize that the number of people that memorized the rules and were super fast were not the normal player. It may seem that they were if you are a tournament player surrounded by tournament players, but tournament players are not in my experience the norm.

In comparison, we can chit chat and goof off and still get a game of xwing in under an hour. The only games of whfb that I ever played in that were under three hours were tournament games. Most people I know have never done even one tournament though.

Those must be very one-sided games because tournament x-wing games run for 75 minutes and more often than not there are ships still on the mat at the end of the game.

WHFB was not more rules intensive than, say, Infinity or Flames of War, all of which could wrap a game in 2-2:30h. If your group couldn't (or wouldn't) do it that's ok, but any group that played with relative frequency had no problem doing so. Personally even if there's no time limit I'd rather play two 2:30 games than a 5h one unless we're talking silly one-offs like a 30K game, a 3v3v3 or a siege with narrative rules (which did take one or two full days to play)

Nope they weren't very one sided. Just stating that there are groups out there where the game didn't last two and a half hours.

My group isn't weird or strange, there have been dozens of polls on this topic that showed similar data.

We have guys here that are also like you that won't play games that last longer than a couple hours, and they didn't play in our campaign games for that reason, so the stance is understood.

From trying to catch up on the thread, i see we came across the topic of Synergy within an army. I can see the pros and cons of it, where it does provide a nice strategy for combinations, but on the other hand, it leaves open the door that takes you down the path of, if you are not running X combo for Y army you are doing it wrong.

IE just doing some napkin math and light reading, its possible in a Chaos army that you can get a single unit of 20 guys to pump out 80+ attacks with rerollable to hits or wound.

But still interesting to see the thread going and points to be made.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
From trying to catch up on the thread, i see we came across the topic of Synergy within an army. I can see the pros and cons of it, where it does provide a nice strategy for combinations, but on the other hand, it leaves open the door that takes you down the path of, if you are not running X combo for Y army you are doing it wrong.

IE just doing some napkin math and light reading, its possible in a Chaos army that you can get a single unit of 20 guys to pump out 80+ attacks with rerollable to hits or wound.

But still interesting to see the thread going and points to be made.

You know, one of the things I absolutely adored about 6th Ed. was the fact that you didn't have double digits worth of wounds being doled out on average. Everything was a psychological press without some blender unit wiping everything out to a man in one combat round. Back in 3rd Ed. 40K I ran a Veteran Space Marine squad with Terminator Honors that threw a brick of normal attacks and 4 Power Fist attacks, and I thought that was a touch egregious. AOS taught me that the unit was simply ahead of its time.

 Just Tony wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
From trying to catch up on the thread, i see we came across the topic of Synergy within an army. I can see the pros and cons of it, where it does provide a nice strategy for combinations, but on the other hand, it leaves open the door that takes you down the path of, if you are not running X combo for Y army you are doing it wrong.

IE just doing some napkin math and light reading, its possible in a Chaos army that you can get a single unit of 20 guys to pump out 80+ attacks with rerollable to hits or wound.

But still interesting to see the thread going and points to be made.

You know, one of the things I absolutely adored about 6th Ed. was the fact that you didn't have double digits worth of wounds being doled out on average. Everything was a psychological press without some blender unit wiping everything out to a man in one combat round. Back in 3rd Ed. 40K I ran a Veteran Space Marine squad with Terminator Honors that threw a brick of normal attacks and 4 Power Fist attacks, and I thought that was a touch egregious. AOS taught me that the unit was simply ahead of its time.

Well one thing i think everyone agrees on, AoS is not really a strategy game, its a pile in, hack and slasher. Its almost akin to something like a dynasty warrior game, mindless, senseless fun. No that said, I would understand why some, hell a large amount of people dont like that. I dont think the making of the AoS game was bad, i think shelving the rank and file system was a dumb idea.

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
From trying to catch up on the thread, i see we came across the topic of Synergy within an army. I can see the pros and cons of it, where it does provide a nice strategy for combinations, but on the other hand, it leaves open the door that takes you down the path of, if you are not running X combo for Y army you are doing it wrong.

IE just doing some napkin math and light reading, its possible in a Chaos army that you can get a single unit of 20 guys to pump out 80+ attacks with rerollable to hits or wound.

But still interesting to see the thread going and points to be made.

You know, one of the things I absolutely adored about 6th Ed. was the fact that you didn't have double digits worth of wounds being doled out on average. Everything was a psychological press without some blender unit wiping everything out to a man in one combat round. Back in 3rd Ed. 40K I ran a Veteran Space Marine squad with Terminator Honors that threw a brick of normal attacks and 4 Power Fist attacks, and I thought that was a touch egregious. AOS taught me that the unit was simply ahead of its time.

Well one thing i think everyone agrees on, AoS is not really a strategy game, its a pile in, hack and slasher. Its almost akin to something like a dynasty warrior game, mindless, senseless fun. No that said, I would understand why some, hell a large amount of people dont like that. I dont think the making of the AoS game was bad, i think shelving the rank and file system was a dumb idea.

Yeah, good luck doing that, just push the models up the table and just try to kill things, see how far that gets you.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
From trying to catch up on the thread, i see we came across the topic of Synergy within an army. I can see the pros and cons of it, where it does provide a nice strategy for combinations, but on the other hand, it leaves open the door that takes you down the path of, if you are not running X combo for Y army you are doing it wrong.

IE just doing some napkin math and light reading, its possible in a Chaos army that you can get a single unit of 20 guys to pump out 80+ attacks with rerollable to hits or wound.

But still interesting to see the thread going and points to be made.

You know, one of the things I absolutely adored about 6th Ed. was the fact that you didn't have double digits worth of wounds being doled out on average. Everything was a psychological press without some blender unit wiping everything out to a man in one combat round. Back in 3rd Ed. 40K I ran a Veteran Space Marine squad with Terminator Honors that threw a brick of normal attacks and 4 Power Fist attacks, and I thought that was a touch egregious. AOS taught me that the unit was simply ahead of its time.

Well one thing i think everyone agrees on, AoS is not really a strategy game, its a pile in, hack and slasher. Its almost akin to something like a dynasty warrior game, mindless, senseless fun. No that said, I would understand why some, hell a large amount of people dont like that. I dont think the making of the AoS game was bad, i think shelving the rank and file system was a dumb idea.

Yeah, good luck doing that, just push the models up the table and just try to kill things, see how far that gets you.

Well compared with WFB its a hack and slash game.

"Well compared with WFB".

After going as far as saying everyone agrees that there's no strategy, you can mindlessly shove units up the field and win by reaching CC. (Sounds like 7th edition DE/VC/DOC! ) It's kind of hard to try and play that off after insulting everyone right there.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
"Well compared with WFB".

After going as far as saying everyone agrees that there's no strategy, you can mindlessly shove units up the field and win by reaching CC. (Sounds like 7th edition DE/VC/DOC! ) It's kind of hard to try and play that off after insulting everyone right there.

How did i insult everyone?

All i said was to me it looks like WFB was more strategic then AoS is, If you mean by saying the everyone agrees AoS is not strategic if that came off as an insult my bad? Only strategy I have seen thus far is piling in combo units, i guess you could say activating this unit before that unit is strategic.

jouso wrote:

WHFB was not more rules intensive than, say, Infinity or Flames of War, all of which could wrap a game in 2-2:30h. If your group couldn't (or wouldn't) do it that's ok, but any group that played with relative frequency had no problem doing so. Personally even if there's no time limit I'd rather play two 2:30 games than a 5h one unless we're talking silly one-offs like a 30K game, a 3v3v3 or a siege with narrative rules (which did take one or two full days to play)

I've never really got the argument that WFB was too complicated and became bloated. Even back in 3rd/4th/5th edition there were plenty of rules that came up infrequently or slowed the game down so Empire War Wagon attacks where everybody had a different weapon, lapping round and even multiple types of psychology tests like cool, willpower rather than just leadership. I therefore think that this argument is looked at from the wrong perspective. It's not about that WFB has become more or less rule based I think it's societies approach to the world that has changed. There was less technology then, less distractions - you could spend hours reading and learning rules, there were no mobile phones, computers and so on to distract us. Computer games were basic and during my time with BBC machine could take two or three hours to load up. Compare that today when pretty much what you want for entertainment you can get instantly at the touch of the button. A rule book that takes several hours just to read through the core rules is no longer what many people will want to do. From this perspective AOS answers this with a very quick, less war gaming, but more casual computer game style of play.

As for which is selling better than another I don't really put truck in either argument, the sales strategy for both is different and comparing a game coming to the end of its life to a new one is just a bit silly. A better comparison would be how it's doing with the release of previous editions of WFB but were never likely to see this information.

I think the real weakness for AoS is the aesthetic and background which is both epic awsemoness all the time and lacking any character development, WFB was unique in its historical wacky style, to the point that Warcraft copied it initially. Now GW are copying WOW with the rather OTT style. However my hunch is that this style is going to be coming to the end of its cycle eventually and then GW will be stuck.

As for whether WFB will come back, well the appetite currently is for more instant gratification games for this part of the market GW are aiming for. However with IOB there is obviously appetite for older style miniatures - and I don't agree the inclusion of square bases is just about clearing stock as otherwise it would just be sold out when they got rid of the old bases. It's possible they may reintroduce a Warhammer Classic and run them concurrently. One is likely to fade away over time and if that was AOS then that may result in the reintroduction of WFB. However prices for r&f models would also have to drop,dramatically.

 Whirlwind wrote:

jouso wrote:

WHFB was not more rules intensive than, say, Infinity or Flames of War, all of which could wrap a game in 2-2:30h. If your group couldn't (or wouldn't) do it that's ok, but any group that played with relative frequency had no problem doing so. Personally even if there's no time limit I'd rather play two 2:30 games than a 5h one unless we're talking silly one-offs like a 30K game, a 3v3v3 or a siege with narrative rules (which did take one or two full days to play)

I've never really got the argument that WFB was too complicated and became bloated. Even back in 3rd/4th/5th edition there were plenty of rules that came up infrequently or slowed the game down so Empire War Wagon attacks where everybody had a different weapon, lapping round and even multiple types of psychology tests like cool, willpower rather than just leadership. I therefore think that this argument is looked at from the wrong perspective. It's not about that WFB has become more or less rule based I think it's societies approach to the world that has changed. There was less technology then, less distractions - you could spend hours reading and learning rules, there were no mobile phones, computers and so on to distract us. Computer games were basic and during my time with BBC machine could take two or three hours to load up. Compare that today when pretty much what you want for entertainment you can get instantly at the touch of the button. A rule book that takes several hours just to read through the core rules is no longer what many people will want to do. From this perspective AOS answers this with a very quick, less war gaming, but more casual computer game style of play.

As for which is selling better than another I don't really put truck in either argument, the sales strategy for both is different and comparing a game coming to the end of its life to a new one is just a bit silly. A better comparison would be how it's doing with the release of previous editions of WFB but were never likely to see this information.

I think the real weakness for AoS is the aesthetic and background which is both epic awsemoness all the time and lacking any character development, WFB was unique in its historical wacky style, to the point that Warcraft copied it initially. Now GW are copying WOW with the rather OTT style. However my hunch is that this style is going to be coming to the end of its cycle eventually and then GW will be stuck.

As for whether WFB will come back, well the appetite currently is for more instant gratification games for this part of the market GW are aiming for. However with IOB there is obviously appetite for older style miniatures - and I don't agree the inclusion of square bases is just about clearing stock as otherwise it would just be sold out when they got rid of the old bases. It's possible they may reintroduce a Warhammer Classic and run them concurrently. One is likely to fade away over time and if that was AOS then that may result in the reintroduction of WFB. However prices for r&f models would also have to drop,dramatically.

Off topic, but I think it would be great if GW added 2 versions of AoS, similar to how you have 40k and apoc, which albeit have morphed into one, where you have AoS pitched battles. But then an alternative call it, idk, grand battles they seem to like that word grand this go around, where its all rank and file with the new AoS units.

 auticus wrote:
Nope they weren't very one sided. Just stating that there are groups out there where the game didn't last two and a half hours.

My group isn't weird or strange, there have been dozens of polls on this topic that showed similar data.

We have guys here that are also like you that won't play games that last longer than a couple hours, and they didn't play in our campaign games for that reason, so the stance is understood.

Then it is a choice by your group to take the scenic route.

If after, say, 10 games of 8th edition it still took you 5h to complete a 2K game you can't blame it on rule-heaviness. It's a deliberate way to play the game.

(If you read my post well, the one sided part referred to Xwing, if you wrap a game in under 1h someone was baby-seal-clobbered, most tournaments play 75 minute games and a good deal of them end with both players still having ships on the mat)

 Just Tony wrote:
I moved away from there over a decade ago, and I think the Phoenix was gone sometime around 2005-2006. Do you remember that guy that part timed on Wednesdays over there that had the Crimson Fists army?

no, I never saw it :(


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
From trying to catch up on the thread, i see we came across the topic of Synergy within an army. I can see the pros and cons of it, where it does provide a nice strategy for combinations, but on the other hand, it leaves open the door that takes you down the path of, if you are not running X combo for Y army you are doing it wrong.

IE just doing some napkin math and light reading, its possible in a Chaos army that you can get a single unit of 20 guys to pump out 80+ attacks with rerollable to hits or wound.

But still interesting to see the thread going and points to be made.

You know, one of the things I absolutely adored about 6th Ed. was the fact that you didn't have double digits worth of wounds being doled out on average. Everything was a psychological press without some blender unit wiping everything out to a man in one combat round. Back in 3rd Ed. 40K I ran a Veteran Space Marine squad with Terminator Honors that threw a brick of normal attacks and 4 Power Fist attacks, and I thought that was a touch egregious. AOS taught me that the unit was simply ahead of its time.

Well one thing i think everyone agrees on, AoS is not really a strategy game, its a pile in, hack and slasher. Its almost akin to something like a dynasty warrior game, mindless, senseless fun. No that said, I would understand why some, hell a large amount of people dont like that. I dont think the making of the AoS game was bad, i think shelving the rank and file system was a dumb idea.

Yeah, good luck doing that, just push the models up the table and just try to kill things, see how far that gets you.

so far that has gotten my duardin a 5-0 record. AXES OF THE DUARDIN MOFOS!!!

As for my personal observation of the limited games I have gotten recently, these armies in AoS are every bit as large if not larger than warhammer and the games are certainly no faster, my last fight (another duardin win (( cause if it aint got a beard, its skite!)) 7 warscrolls per side, my duardin army is larger than any I fielded in warhammer.

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
I moved away from there over a decade ago, and I think the Phoenix was gone sometime around 2005-2006. Do you remember that guy that part timed on Wednesdays over there that had the Crimson Fists army?

no, I never saw it :(

Yeah, I started going there around the absolute late 90's, and was part timing when 6th WFB kicked off. Was a pretty fun time, and I was the resident CF player. I'm also the guy that dropped the LOD army on Miller's cheesy Biel Tan army, which earned me the recognition of him never playing agaist that army again.



Okay, WAY back on topic: The best way to look at the OT is to ask "Has GW brought back any older versions of games, or older games that were cancelled?" The answer is definitely yes to the latter, but they have yet to bring back an older version of a game that's already out. So I guess the more accurate question would be to ask "Does GW consider WFB dead, or is AOS simply the newest version of the same game. THAT would tell you what your chances of any "backpedaling" would be.

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
I moved away from there over a decade ago, and I think the Phoenix was gone sometime around 2005-2006. Do you remember that guy that part timed on Wednesdays over there that had the Crimson Fists army?

no, I never saw it :(


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
From trying to catch up on the thread, i see we came across the topic of Synergy within an army. I can see the pros and cons of it, where it does provide a nice strategy for combinations, but on the other hand, it leaves open the door that takes you down the path of, if you are not running X combo for Y army you are doing it wrong.

IE just doing some napkin math and light reading, its possible in a Chaos army that you can get a single unit of 20 guys to pump out 80+ attacks with rerollable to hits or wound.

But still interesting to see the thread going and points to be made.

You know, one of the things I absolutely adored about 6th Ed. was the fact that you didn't have double digits worth of wounds being doled out on average. Everything was a psychological press without some blender unit wiping everything out to a man in one combat round. Back in 3rd Ed. 40K I ran a Veteran Space Marine squad with Terminator Honors that threw a brick of normal attacks and 4 Power Fist attacks, and I thought that was a touch egregious. AOS taught me that the unit was simply ahead of its time.

Well one thing i think everyone agrees on, AoS is not really a strategy game, its a pile in, hack and slasher. Its almost akin to something like a dynasty warrior game, mindless, senseless fun. No that said, I would understand why some, hell a large amount of people dont like that. I dont think the making of the AoS game was bad, i think shelving the rank and file system was a dumb idea.

Yeah, good luck doing that, just push the models up the table and just try to kill things, see how far that gets you.

so far that has gotten my duardin a 5-0 record. AXES OF THE DUARDIN MOFOS!!!

As for my personal observation of the limited games I have gotten recently, these armies in AoS are every bit as large if not larger than warhammer and the games are certainly no faster, my last fight (another duardin win (( cause if it aint got a beard, its skite!)) 7 warscrolls per side, my duardin army is larger than any I fielded in warhammer.

Im looking to try blood reavers and a blood secator, a 160 point unit getting 82 attacks on a 4/4 -1 rend is very appealing :3

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
I moved away from there over a decade ago, and I think the Phoenix was gone sometime around 2005-2006. Do you remember that guy that part timed on Wednesdays over there that had the Crimson Fists army?

no, I never saw it :(


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
From trying to catch up on the thread, i see we came across the topic of Synergy within an army. I can see the pros and cons of it, where it does provide a nice strategy for combinations, but on the other hand, it leaves open the door that takes you down the path of, if you are not running X combo for Y army you are doing it wrong.

IE just doing some napkin math and light reading, its possible in a Chaos army that you can get a single unit of 20 guys to pump out 80+ attacks with rerollable to hits or wound.

But still interesting to see the thread going and points to be made.

You know, one of the things I absolutely adored about 6th Ed. was the fact that you didn't have double digits worth of wounds being doled out on average. Everything was a psychological press without some blender unit wiping everything out to a man in one combat round. Back in 3rd Ed. 40K I ran a Veteran Space Marine squad with Terminator Honors that threw a brick of normal attacks and 4 Power Fist attacks, and I thought that was a touch egregious. AOS taught me that the unit was simply ahead of its time.

Well one thing i think everyone agrees on, AoS is not really a strategy game, its a pile in, hack and slasher. Its almost akin to something like a dynasty warrior game, mindless, senseless fun. No that said, I would understand why some, hell a large amount of people dont like that. I dont think the making of the AoS game was bad, i think shelving the rank and file system was a dumb idea.

Yeah, good luck doing that, just push the models up the table and just try to kill things, see how far that gets you.

so far that has gotten my duardin a 5-0 record. AXES OF THE DUARDIN MOFOS!!!

As for my personal observation of the limited games I have gotten recently, these armies in AoS are every bit as large if not larger than warhammer and the games are certainly no faster, my last fight (another duardin win (( cause if it aint got a beard, its skite!)) 7 warscrolls per side, my duardin army is larger than any I fielded in warhammer.

Going for the kill works fine for non-matched play scenarios. For the latter, though, I've seen that armies that just wanna hurry for the kill get systematically trampled by more tactically designed armies.

I agree that at some point strategy is going to out play sheer brute force, but I suppose that strategy in a table top game runs a very fine line between being a good tactition and list tailoring.

Suppose you are fighting zombie army with just bookoo zombies on the field, would you call your self a tactition for bringing like 4 hell canons? Or list tailoring because you know you are going to get the bonus to hit on a 2 up and more then likely be dealing 2d6 mortal wounds with each cannon?

Just devils advocate :p

I will say the strategy I have seen this far in the game is knowing how and what to combo, and knowing which unit to activate when, which kinda just boils down to well if I don't attack with this, these guys will and I loose attacks there so.

I think it sells great, but it's like E.T. for the Atari 2600, sure they BOUGHT it, but there's nobody PLAYING it, and those that do, know it truly SUCKS. It's a garbage skirmish game sitting on the corpse of a rank and file control of mighty armies, where strategy and maneuvering actually mattered.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
I agree that at some point strategy is going to out play sheer brute force, but I suppose that strategy in a table top game runs a very fine line between being a good tactition and list tailoring.

Suppose you are fighting zombie army with just bookoo zombies on the field, would you call your self a tactition for bringing like 4 hell canons? Or list tailoring because you know you are going to get the bonus to hit on a 2 up and more then likely be dealing 2d6 mortal wounds with each cannon?

Just devils advocate :p

I will say the strategy I have seen this far in the game is knowing how and what to combo, and knowing which unit to activate when, which kinda just boils down to well if I don't attack with this, these guys will and I loose attacks there so.

And you could do that just fine with 40k, infinity, fantasy,etc.. Bringing the hard counter to a certain list/build/style is something that is done on ANY type of competitive game, from fighter games to card games, covering tt too.
That isn't playing devil's advocate, it's stating the obvious.

I can't see them backpedalling at all if I'm honest, AoS is doing really well here and if anything the release of the General's Handbook indicates that GW are becoming more and more invested in developing it as a game system, rather than moving onto the next money-spinning fad.

I do hope they do a rank and file alternative game system or at the very least expansion, similar to what War of the Ring was to LotR Strategy Battle Game. All it would take is for GW to add in some extra rules, produce some movement trays or dig out the WotR ones (or even just leave people to create their own rules) then they could sell the book for £15-30, the movement trays for something silly and bring a whole load of old WHFB players back into the fold. It makes sense to me, and so I'm quietly confident GW will make this happen at some point.

Lord Kragan wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:
I moved away from there over a decade ago, and I think the Phoenix was gone sometime around 2005-2006. Do you remember that guy that part timed on Wednesdays over there that had the Crimson Fists army?

no, I never saw it :(


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Backspacehacker wrote:
From trying to catch up on the thread, i see we came across the topic of Synergy within an army. I can see the pros and cons of it, where it does provide a nice strategy for combinations, but on the other hand, it leaves open the door that takes you down the path of, if you are not running X combo for Y army you are doing it wrong.

IE just doing some napkin math and light reading, its possible in a Chaos army that you can get a single unit of 20 guys to pump out 80+ attacks with rerollable to hits or wound.

But still interesting to see the thread going and points to be made.

You know, one of the things I absolutely adored about 6th Ed. was the fact that you didn't have double digits worth of wounds being doled out on average. Everything was a psychological press without some blender unit wiping everything out to a man in one combat round. Back in 3rd Ed. 40K I ran a Veteran Space Marine squad with Terminator Honors that threw a brick of normal attacks and 4 Power Fist attacks, and I thought that was a touch egregious. AOS taught me that the unit was simply ahead of its time.

Well one thing i think everyone agrees on, AoS is not really a strategy game, its a pile in, hack and slasher. Its almost akin to something like a dynasty warrior game, mindless, senseless fun. No that said, I would understand why some, hell a large amount of people dont like that. I dont think the making of the AoS game was bad, i think shelving the rank and file system was a dumb idea.

Yeah, good luck doing that, just push the models up the table and just try to kill things, see how far that gets you.

so far that has gotten my duardin a 5-0 record. AXES OF THE DUARDIN MOFOS!!!

As for my personal observation of the limited games I have gotten recently, these armies in AoS are every bit as large if not larger than warhammer and the games are certainly no faster, my last fight (another duardin win (( cause if it aint got a beard, its skite!)) 7 warscrolls per side, my duardin army is larger than any I fielded in warhammer.

Going for the kill works fine for non-matched play scenarios. For the latter, though, I've seen that armies that just wanna hurry for the kill get systematically trampled by more tactically designed armies.

my main strength is exactly my resilience and killing power, once you are in melee there is no such thing as "tactics" its a brawl and the GBT excel at brawling. Heavy with the ironbreakers. I dont play matched so no idea, but the rules of the game really arent that complicated.

 NH Gunsmith wrote:

 Brutus_Apex wrote:

No I don't think the rules are going back to the prior's bloated mess.

You mean a complex and engaging rules set that allows for tactics, strategy and manoeuvring?

What are the options in AOS again? Do I hit on 4's and wound on 3's or hit on 3's and wound on 4's.

Tough decisions.

Yeah, a strategy so complex that you spend half the game looking through your rulebook. And tactics so deep that they contradict each other in the rulebook so hard that finding a game was near impossible for years.

Don't get me wrong, I love the Old World, and I loved Fantasy. But, the last couple editions before it got canned weren't even fun for me to play. And a group (other than basement groups who don't generally invite new people) was so hard to find that most of my stuff had sat in a basement while I moved onto 40k so I could reliably get games in. Since the release of the General's Handbook, there have actually been people playing it in my local store, and groups sprouting up in other places locally. There has been enough activity for the game that I have broken all my stuff out and have been furiously rebasing and prepping my models for the table once again.

I had some serious doubts about it at first, but I don't remember the last time I have been this excited about my High Elves in a long time.

So does 40k currently. I realize Fantasy was too complicated but they didn't need to turn it into AoS. The main issue was the prices and some of the models for AoS look like crap. Some are decent looking but others aren't. The old rules for AoS were an awful drinking game and insulting if you spent over a thousand US dollars to get into. The cost of entry into the game was the bigger problem and the rules were a bit bloated but they changed far too much. Even a more gutted version of Fantasy (which should've happened) would've blushed at what AoS did to Fantasy.

As for fans at the GW store i'm at i've seen newer faces in AoS and some 40k players try it out and eventually stop playing. The issue being there's never enough AoS people there with armies to play the game which i find interesting despite all the mounds of evidence you guys seem to have. GW's insistence that AoS is doing really well (not accounting numbers for last chance to buy, killing off 2 main armies in Fantasy, the need for a General's Handbook and the re-vamped IoB seeming to show otherwise). I also find it funny regardless of the lower model count that they instead make super huge kits on the scale of stormsurge and garbage like that where monsters in fantasy generally wouldn't be bigger than average 40k monsters. Oh and hey apparently it must be balanced which is why Death does so well and Nagash just wrecks face. Even a guy with a necron army in 40k that often lost with it generally beats people in AoS with Nagash. Interesting. Guess it must be balanced . Also interesting to see people getting more interested in End Times than AoS lore but i suppose End Times is akin to Horus Heresy for AoS now.

I also find it interesting how people seem to lack the ability to comprehend simple things about why Fantasy was great. It didn't have Sigmarines. It was about joe schmoe farmer man of the empire defending his family from unthinkable horrors rather than some faceless, thoughtless, emotionless space marine that is even stronger and better than said unimaginable horror (it's about the good guy being the underdog for christ's sake). The numbers per army were limited and the bad guys were winning hardcore unlike the endless stalemate for 10,000 years of 40k. Also unlike 40k the numbers being finite it meant more seemed at risk. After the elf civil war in End Times there was supposedly only a few thousands of elves left and when the Empire loses a few provinces they have 12 total. I can't tell you how many times the Empire almost got wiped out.

The tactics in Fantasy also seem to confuse 40k fans and AoS fans. When i tell them charging an enemy and getting them to flee and then charging some other dudes at said fleeing unit to force it in front of an enemy unit that would charge you next turn and do a whole lot of damage to you was the greatest feeling they look confused. It wasn't a game of checkers but hey i guess chess is unpopular so lets kill it off and make a game more simple than checkers.

I just can't stand how AoS players mostly never truly played Fantasy and let the game and players intimidate them despite constant cases at my store where a 40k player referred to Fantasy players as 'Squares' and saying he'd never play Fantasy and Fantasy players like me telling him 'He should try it. He'd have fun.' I suppose the only explanation of poor sales isn't poor business practices and the fact that Fantasy must be unpopular and Space Marines and massive dumbing down is the only answer. God i hate AoS. GW could've handled it better too. Allow both AoS and Fantasy to be played whereas now it's the only GW game system you can't play in their stores. GW deserves to lose the market for that. The previous head of GW should've been castrated. At least the new guy is fixing things but i dunno if it's enough.

You know what the bitter irony of it all it? AoSing WFB only ended up making it more popular and with the release of their IP from THQ the swath of WFB games have only driven more interest in WFB, it's a shame when a new guy comes into the store after playing total warhammer looking to make a empire army only to find out, oh yeah they are all dead, BUT SIGMARINES!

So to the aspect of nuking lore it was dumb, the game itself is it or miss, as I once heard it described, it's more of a beer and pretzel game now, be WFB which seems to be more like total war but turn based.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
You know what the bitter irony of it all it? AoSing WFB only ended up making it more popular and with the release of their IP from THQ the swath of WFB games have only driven more interest in WFB, it's a shame when a new guy comes into the store after playing total warhammer looking to make a empire army only to find out, oh yeah they are all dead, BUT SIGMARINES!

So to the aspect of nuking lore it was dumb, the game itself is it or miss, as I once heard it described, it's more of a beer and pretzel game now, be WFB which seems to be more like total war but turn based.

The sad bit is the Total War game could've saved it. There's no doubt in my mind considering how popular it is. It's like people saying LotR is unpopular just because GW's version is about 3% of sales even though they won't can that game for some stupid reason. The point is if you make good games and get good video games and other media to support your tabletop game then you will succeed. I mean if i never played DoW 1 i never would've gotten into any GW game and i hear DoW 2 was the same way for other players. However GW being the constantly out of the loop village idiot seem to not understand the popularity and power of things like video games. These days you need good video games to support the tabletop games or else it'll do poorly.

WHFB is resurrectable, the interest is there.

AoS can be the mainstay for fantasy on an economic level, and it has the advantage that its a simple system so it gets younger people into the hobby, notably at an age before wargaming becomes a sad hobby only no-hope nerds play according to the mainstream child's opinion.

WHFB can be supported by mail order with a 9th edition rulebook and a second large hardback Ravening Hordes containing every list in detail That would be enough.

Handling it this way would help as WHFB would not be available through resellers as GW would sell it exclusively and they can manufacture the sprues in batches as need and dispense with all packaging. This will make it cheap to produce and thus profitable.

9th edition can easily be fixed as a rules system by stealing back the best parts of 9th Age, adding those things missing from unloved races and then just letting the whole game remain static as a legacy product,

 Orlanth wrote:
WHFB is resurrectable, the interest is there.

AoS can be the mainstay for fantasy on an economic level, and it has the advantage that its a simple system so it gets younger people into the hobby, notably at an age before wargaming becomes a sad hobby only no-hope nerds play according to the mainstream child's opinion.

WHFB can be supported by mail order with a 9th edition rulebook and a second large hardback Ravening Hordes containing every list in detail That would be enough.

Handling it this way would help as WHFB would not be available through resellers as GW would sell it exclusively and they can manufacture the sprues in batches as need and dispense with all packaging. This will make it cheap to produce and thus profitable.

9th edition can easily be fixed as a rules system by stealing back the best parts of 9th Age, adding those things missing from unloved races and then just letting the whole game remain static as a legacy product,

To be completely honest i wouldn't mind Fantasy being dead as much if GW policy wasn't a massive '**** YOU!' to fantasy players. I didn't spend 1,000 US dollars to be treated that way. My boss or supervisor at work can get away with it if they desire because i'm getting paid by them at the end of the day. I don't have to put up with that **** from people i pay a thousand US dollars to. If anything they should prostrate themselves to me and kiss the dirt off my boots. That's much more acceptable of a customer and business relationship or at least on the surface.

So yeah my point being if they allowed Fantasy to be played in their stores even as a dead game i would totally give less crap to GW for it. Course despite new head guy fixing things he hasn't turned everything around. The prices are still obscene and Fantasy players are still treated like garbage. I mean even speaking of 9th Age in the store is not allowed. That should tell you something about how little GW thinks of its previous Fantasy players (even if you buy their models, their rulebooks, supplements and garbage from their store you can't play Fantasy in their store). Keep in mind if this is what they do to fans of their First popular main game that lasted almost as many years as i am alive then think of how they'd treat AoS players if it didn't sell as well as they planned. I want you guys to think about that for a second before you wish to insult Fantasy players. GW treats (or at least treated) their customer base as disposable money bags and had no issue screwing over whole fan bases for factions or even Fantasy players just to sell what they thought was popular (which often only was so because it was OP). I can also imagine Space Marines did well because of their eventual Family Friendly approach and kids love those stupid idiotic marines with the super powers.

my dwarf army cost about $400, with army book, for warhammer. my grudgebound throng, yeah it cost $400 with grand order alliance,. it was not cheaper either way.

 thekingofkings wrote:
my dwarf army cost about $400, with army book, for warhammer. my grudgebound throng, yeah it cost $400 with grand order alliance,. it was not cheaper either way.

Just saying though that prices like that prevent people from entering the game. Look at how popular Total War: Warhammer is. Sure people complain but it's infinitely cheaper than Fantasy or Age of Sigmar is and **** it is it ever popular even with the negative reviews based around DLC prices. I doubt strategy or some complication takes away much from the game so much as sheer price and absolute **** treatment of the player base. I mean they even listen to their fans. They extend chaos warriors DLC to up to the first week, they have FreeLC and they allow much more than GW ever has. Keep in mind AoS as it is now with the more intelligent new head of the GW company vs when the previous company head that was the village idiot killed Fantasy off is much different. A better comparison would be how Kirby handled Fantasy and AoS and the answer to both is poorly just as he poorly handled the company. If the new head of GW management handled Fantasy there's a good chance he would've made a smart decision that wouldn't screw over the fans which is why Sisters are getting released to a degree and more factions are getting love in 40k.

 Orlanth wrote:
WHFB is resurrectable, the interest is there.

AoS can be the mainstay for fantasy on an economic level, and it has the advantage that its a simple system so it gets younger people into the hobby, notably at an age before wargaming becomes a sad hobby only no-hope nerds play according to the mainstream child's opinion.

WHFB can be supported by mail order with a 9th edition rulebook and a second large hardback Ravening Hordes containing every list in detail That would be enough.

Handling it this way would help as WHFB would not be available through resellers as GW would sell it exclusively and they can manufacture the sprues in batches as need and dispense with all packaging. This will make it cheap to produce and thus profitable.

9th edition can easily be fixed as a rules system by stealing back the best parts of 9th Age, adding those things missing from unloved races and then just letting the whole game remain static as a legacy product,

Replace 9th age (ehhhhhhhh) with 6th Ed. and I'd be on board in a heartbeat, as well as several people in my area.

 flamingkillamajig wrote:

 thekingofkings wrote:
my dwarf army cost about $400, with army book, for warhammer. my grudgebound throng, yeah it cost $400 with grand order alliance,. it was not cheaper either way.

Just saying though that prices like that prevent people from entering the game. Look at how popular Total War: Warhammer is. Sure people complain but it's infinitely cheaper than Fantasy or Age of Sigmar is and **** it is it ever popular even with the negative reviews based around DLC prices. I doubt strategy or some complication takes away much from the game so much as sheer price and absolute **** treatment of the player base. I mean they even listen to their fans. They extend chaos warriors DLC to up to the first week, they have FreeLC and they allow much more than GW ever has. Keep in mind AoS as it is now with the more intelligent new head of the GW company vs when the previous company head that was the village idiot killed Fantasy off is much different. A better comparison would be how Kirby handled Fantasy and AoS and the answer to both is poorly just as he poorly handled the company. If the new head of GW management handled Fantasy there's a good chance he would've made a smart decision that wouldn't screw over the fans which is why Sisters are getting released to a degree and more factions are getting love in 40k.

pretty much my point, the argument that AoS is cheaper just has not proven true to me. just to build my one battallion costs the same as my 2,000 point army was.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Just Tony wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
WHFB is resurrectable, the interest is there.

AoS can be the mainstay for fantasy on an economic level, and it has the advantage that its a simple system so it gets younger people into the hobby, notably at an age before wargaming becomes a sad hobby only no-hope nerds play according to the mainstream child's opinion.

WHFB can be supported by mail order with a 9th edition rulebook and a second large hardback Ravening Hordes containing every list in detail That would be enough.

Handling it this way would help as WHFB would not be available through resellers as GW would sell it exclusively and they can manufacture the sprues in batches as need and dispense with all packaging. This will make it cheap to produce and thus profitable.

9th edition can easily be fixed as a rules system by stealing back the best parts of 9th Age, adding those things missing from unloved races and then just letting the whole game remain static as a legacy product,

Replace 9th age (ehhhhhhhh) with 6th Ed. and I'd be on board in a heartbeat, as well as several people in my area.

which one was 6th? that the empire vs orcs box?