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.

Uh. Might as well combine AoS with 40K. If I wanted 40K, I would play 40K. I do like 40, but I liked Age of Sigmar because it was different. Now both games being the same, it will not feel like I am playing a different system then.

Go FULL Warmahordes. Might as well combine both systems to be interchangeable now. Yeah yeah I know, plasma greater than gun pellets but still. If Privateer Press can do it, GW can do it as well. At least with PP I am playing one game system. With GW, now it's two game systems that are almost the same and not different enough when you want something different.

At least if you are going to copy one of your gaming systems, copy the best system you ever made. Make Age of Sigmar more into Lord of the Rings, not 40K. Then people can have block combat with War of the Ring.

Tin foil hat on now. It just hit me, that GW is going after the 40K crowd instead of just new people who could be into 40K as well. This is just lazy writing and lazy work. Minimum work to get minimum people into the game. More smoke and mirrors and GW hasn't changed at all. More into selling models than having a great gaming system.

GW please make a great Fantasy game, not Space Marines in a supposed fantasy setting.

Tin foil hat off. Like others, too invested to just drop it, and since nobody else is really playing anything but GW, seems I am stuck for the mean time. Here is hoping putting on some salt and ketchup will make it more flavourable and palatable.

Still looks like fun, but always thinking "what could have been".

They are also targeting people who love their competitors (warmachine). A lot of these mechanics are straight up comparable to how warmachine both looks and feels. It feels very obvious to me that GW's new crop of young game developers all came up on games like Warmahordes and love that style of game play.

@auticus, yup, I don't think we're actually too far apart in thoughts here. I've mentioned before I don't do a lot of tourney type play, so my own experience of course has some impact, and I have no doubts yours does as well.

40k CP spam is definitely something I've heard a lot about, though, and this could shake out pretty similarly. Just how bad that winds up being is, for now, something that remains to be seen and may depend a lot on other changes we haven't seen yet.

Changes in a system are always a mixed bag. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it breaks more than it fixes. In a lot of ways, I'm kinda happy to at least see GW doing something for a change that at least feels like they're trying. Doesn't mean they're the greatest at it, and they definitely take more input from the tourney groups (casual players tend to not be as vocal either in person and especially on the intarwebz), so it's one of those "vocal minority" kinda situations I think.

 auticus wrote:

There is a reason why I don't like or play warmachine, and it really sticks in my craw that AOS is now what I'd consider a warmachine-lite with a lot of its mechanics and setups.

In what way is AoS mechanically like Warmachine? I'm not seeing it.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 auticus wrote:

There is a reason why I don't like or play warmachine, and it really sticks in my craw that AOS is now what I'd consider a warmachine-lite with a lot of its mechanics and setups.

In what way is AoS mechanically like Warmachine? I'm not seeing it.

It's not so much the mechanics, I think, as it is the CCG-like synergies and combos. WM/H is/was really big on pulling of crazy abilities through specific sequence of actions and combinations of special abilities, and I do see a lot of that in AOS now, too. Heck, I can even see a fairly easy comparison between the Focus/Fury mechanic and CPs now.

 Valander wrote:

Changes in a system are always a mixed bag. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it breaks more than it fixes. In a lot of ways, I'm kinda happy to at least see GW doing something for a change that at least feels like they're trying.

Not saying you are wrong, just had a chuckle with this comment. A lot of people have said Age of Sigmar was a lazy set written in a few hours. 4 pages of rules. I don't see GW trying to fix anything here. Again it seems GW of old, doing very little and hoping to bring in big influx of cash. To me it seems GW is not taking this very seriously. While the writers are hyping this up really good on Warhammer Community (great job there) I am not really seeing anything here that GW is trying. More like throwing stuff against the wall and see what sticks.

If GW was really trying Age of Sigmar would be it's own game not Fantasy 40K.

That said, it still looks like fun. Time will tell if more is broken than fixed. It will take a few days/weeks before the broken combinations are found.

 Sqorgar wrote:

 auticus wrote:

There is a reason why I don't like or play warmachine, and it really sticks in my craw that AOS is now what I'd consider a warmachine-lite with a lot of its mechanics and setups.

In what way is AoS mechanically like Warmachine? I'm not seeing it.

It plays very much like warmachine. Loose units. Super synergies akin to magic the gathering. Popping off command abilities (with the new rules even more so now since you spend command points to do so, similar to warmachine where you pop off your daily). Movement / maneuver not as important since you have high forgiveness in movement values plus the ability to move whatever direction you want.

Its vastly closer to warmachine and that style of play than it is to any game where movement and maneuver are primary keynotes like what whfb used to be.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Davor wrote:

 Valander wrote:

Changes in a system are always a mixed bag. Sometimes it's good, sometimes it breaks more than it fixes. In a lot of ways, I'm kinda happy to at least see GW doing something for a change that at least feels like they're trying.

Not saying you are wrong, just had a chuckle with this comment. A lot of people have said Age of Sigmar was a lazy set written in a few hours. 4 pages of rules. I don't see GW trying to fix anything here. Again it seems GW of old, doing very little and hoping to bring in big influx of cash. To me it seems GW is not taking this very seriously. While the writers are hyping this up really good on Warhammer Community (great job there) I am not really seeing anything here that GW is trying. More like throwing stuff against the wall and see what sticks.

If GW was really trying Age of Sigmar would be it's own game not Fantasy 40K.

That said, it still looks like fun. Time will tell if more is broken than fixed. It will take a few days/weeks before the broken combinations are found.

Having followed a few of the gw game devs on twitter, I think they take it very seriously. I just think that they are for the most part (with a few exceptions) very young, very green, and very influenced by games like warmachine and it shows in the rules they are producing now.

 Valander wrote:
It's not so much the mechanics, I think, as it is the CCG-like synergies and combos. WM/H is/was really big on pulling of crazy abilities through specific sequence of actions and combinations of special abilities, and I do see a lot of that in AOS now, too. Heck, I can even see a fairly easy comparison between the Focus/Fury mechanic and CPs now.

I'm still not seeing it. Here, basically, you have what you have always had. Your general can use one command ability per turn. You get one CP, can spend one CP. If you use that as the baseline for this change, not a whole lot actually has changed, truth be told.

What's changed is that you can save the CP between turns, get extra from battalions, and can use non-general command abilities on your heroes. It looks like some of the new command abilities don't need to be done in the hero phase now too.

- Can save CPs between turns - this means you can get an advantage later by forgoing one now. You could potentially stock up for 4 turns so that on the 5th you can do 5 command abilities, but then you'll have gone through 4 turns at a distinct disadvantage to your opponent who has been using them - especially since they are directly tied to specific hero models and the models that are near them. Can you say for certain that in turn 5 your Lord Celestant is still alive and within 9" of STORMCAST models that can benefit from adding 1 to their hit rolls?

- Get extra CPs from battalions - Without seeing how this plays out in practice, I can't say whether this is a good or bad thing. My guess is that the point cost for battalions will go up to compensate for the extra advantage it gives you. How much is a CP worth? Dunno. It's also possible that battalion abilities will be linked to CPs, meaning that your have less reason to stockpile. I'll reserve judgment until I have more details and experience.

- Use non-general command abilities - Generally speaking, this would be the same as choosing one ability or another, but not both (at the rate of 1 CP per turn). It's more like choosing which command ability to use on each turn. With stockpiling, it gets slightly more complicated. Looking through the Stormcast Battletome, I count a total of 4 command abilities, so unless they end up adding a bunch of non-unit specific command abilities in future battletomes, I don't think it will get that bad. Even then, as long as the command abilities are tied to specific models, your opponent will have a way to stop you from using them.

Whichever way the new rules go, I doubt I'll be able to play my Tomb Kings anymore xD

I have a lot of faith in GW. If nothing else, than because of the new Beta Rules they put out for Shadespire. Obviously, they're trying to be better about balance, even if it's directed at the competitive scene.

Plus I've lived through 3 editions of 40k (tail of 5th, 6th, 7th, and beginning of 8th) that nothing could really surprise me anymore. 6th edition TauDar and 7th edition Summoning shenanigans made sure of that.

 auticus wrote:
https://www.warhammer-community.com/2018/05/18/18th-may-rules-preview-command-abilities-and-command-pointsgw-homepage-post-2/

Looks like command points are just like in 40k. Tied to batallion spamming.

Definitely not a fan of the gw devs pushing even more into the listbuilding min/max realm. For baby sigmar's sake, there are a lot of tactical ways to give command points such as introducing a mechanism that rewards you for accomplishing objectives and rewards more battleline heavy armies over their min/max counterparts than just saying "ok if you want to max the command points, please min/max your batallions even more like we do in 40k!"

Until there's an overhaul of battalions, you never would realistically see them being maxed out.

Not sure why you're griping about "rewarding battleline heavy armies" when those armies are the ones likely to have spammable battalions.

Davor wrote:If GW was really trying Age of Sigmar would be it's own game not Fantasy 40K.

Technically, AoS pioneered this system, so it is more like 40k is a Scifi AoS.

 Sqorgar wrote:

- Get extra CPs from battalions - Without seeing how this plays out in practice, I can't say whether this is a good or bad thing. My guess is that the point cost for battalions will go up to compensate for the extra advantage it gives you. How much is a CP worth? Dunno. It's also possible that battalion abilities will be linked to CPs, meaning that your have less reason to stockpile. I'll reserve judgment until I have more details and experience.

They bumped the WB prices up last year, citing that it was because of playtesting going on about the game in general. I'm thinking this is why.

Realistically, the Battalion abilities tend towards being 'passive' stuff so I can't imagine a world where them being CP related is anything but feedback from people who want to keep broken units broken.

- Use non-general command abilities - Generally speaking, this would be the same as choosing one ability or another, but not both (at the rate of 1 CP per turn). It's more like choosing which command ability to use on each turn. With stockpiling, it gets slightly more complicated. Looking through the Stormcast Battletome, I count a total of 4 command abilities, so unless they end up adding a bunch of non-unit specific command abilities in future battletomes, I don't think it will get that bad. Even then, as long as the command abilities are tied to specific models, your opponent will have a way to stop you from using them.

I think it's important to remember that there are quite a few Heroes out there that have no Command Abilities currently, or very specialized ones. Akhelian Kings, for example, can only grant their bonus during High Tide.

Really not liking this change. My fears are definitely in line with Auticus'. The last thing AoS needs to do is inherit the mistakes of 40k.

I think it's fair enough to say to we really don't know that much about the new edition to make reliable claims. We're speculating, and I'm totally fine with that. Bear in mind, though, that we don't know the game will be a disaster, or spectacular, until we get our hands on it, or when we get text on how the rules function and how units may change.

Darsath wrote:
I think it's fair enough to say to we really don't know that much about the new edition to make reliable claims. We're speculating, and I'm totally fine with that. Bear in mind, though, that we don't know the game will be a disaster, or spectacular, until we get our hands on it, or when we get text on how the rules function and how units may change.

But what is Dakka Dakka for, if not for crying about the end of days and the massive salt distributions? I remember when 6th was the end of 40K, and then 7th, and then 8th, but nothing rivals the great outcry that was the End Times of WFHB/birth of AoS. The best was the guy who torched his army on Youtube.

 jreilly89 wrote:

Darsath wrote:
I think it's fair enough to say to we really don't know that much about the new edition to make reliable claims. We're speculating, and I'm totally fine with that. Bear in mind, though, that we don't know the game will be a disaster, or spectacular, until we get our hands on it, or when we get text on how the rules function and how units may change.

But what is Dakka Dakka for, if not for crying about the end of days and the massive salt distributions? I remember when 6th was the end of 40K, and then 7th, and then 8th, but nothing rivals the great outcry that was the End Times of WFHB/birth of AoS. The best was the guy who torched his army on Youtube.

I think you mis-read what I was saying. I didn't say the game was going to be good, nor that we shouldn't be doing what we're doing. We should merely keep an open mind that rules can work differently than we think they will, or work differently that we think in context of everything else around it. Again though, it could also be a dumpster fire.

Its a discussion forum. All they give us are tidbits until they drop the whole thing on us eventually. All we can do is discuss what we know and in the context of what we know.

 auticus wrote:
Its a discussion forum. All they give us are tidbits until they drop the whole thing on us eventually. All we can do is discuss what we know and in the context of what we know.

Yeah that's fair. It's also good to know what everyone's hopes and concerns are around the launch of a new edition. For me, I'm hoping they don't try and squat any armies out of the setting like they did with my Tomb Kings.

 auticus wrote:
Its a discussion forum. All they give us are tidbits until they drop the whole thing on us eventually. All we can do is discuss what we know and in the context of what we know.

Like your most recent post:

Definitely not a fan of the gw devs pushing even more into the listbuilding min/max realm. For baby sigmar's sake, there are a lot of tactical ways to give command points such as introducing a mechanism that rewards you for accomplishing objectives and rewards more battleline heavy armies over their min/max counterparts than just saying "ok if you want to max the command points, please min/max your batallions even more like we do in 40k!"

Yes, it is a discussion forum, but there's also sky falling. Based on GW's past history FAQs and Erratas, yeah, I think there will still be strong lists and crazy combos, but I don't think it will be the end all min/max things you're claiming it is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Darsath wrote:

 jreilly89 wrote:

Darsath wrote:
I think it's fair enough to say to we really don't know that much about the new edition to make reliable claims. We're speculating, and I'm totally fine with that. Bear in mind, though, that we don't know the game will be a disaster, or spectacular, until we get our hands on it, or when we get text on how the rules function and how units may change.

But what is Dakka Dakka for, if not for crying about the end of days and the massive salt distributions? I remember when 6th was the end of 40K, and then 7th, and then 8th, but nothing rivals the great outcry that was the End Times of WFHB/birth of AoS. The best was the guy who torched his army on Youtube.

I think you mis-read what I was saying. I didn't say the game was going to be good, nor that we shouldn't be doing what we're doing. We should merely keep an open mind that rules can work differently than we think they will, or work differently that we think in context of everything else around it. Again though, it could also be a dumpster fire.

Nah, that wasn't really directed at you, just that people making wild speculations and criticisms is nothing new.

Thats hardly "the sky is falling". Thats me expressing my opinion on the direction that the game is headed based on the tidbits released combined with what I had hoped was a better alternative.

Additionally if I had a nickel for every dakka poster that has jumped on me and claimed what I thought was going to happen was nowhere near what was going to happen, and it turned out that way anyway... I'd be a wealthy man lol.

From the standpoint of trying to promote casual campaign play, this direction is the opposite of what I'm trying to accomplish. All this does is make me have to houserule campaigns to curb the CP spamming, just like we have to do with 40k (which in the 40k forums I also had this same discussion and was told it wouldn't be that bad, and here we are today with it being that bad)

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are it is a duck.

Your mileage may vary on whatt you feel is the boundary for acceptable min/maxing as well as your own goals for your community.

Everytime my community loses another casual player because they get tired of having to deal with the power listing imbalances, it hurts us a lot because its a hard community tto build up in the first place.

If you're trying to promote "casual campaign play" then actively promote casual campaign play.

Do things like having people write a 10k list, Heroes and Units/Monsters having to be named and Wounds tracked from game to game. The list that people take for each game is valid for that day and that day only, with those units being unable to participate in the next campaign event. Have a map setup. Do things to actually create a fricking campaign.

Your complaints are consistently that people are doing netlists or things to make it "unfun" for casual players when realistically you're just doing Open Play--but with points!

Aos cp is really not anywhere near 40 cp.

In 40k you get CPs by dint of making a battleforged list. You literally have 3 out the gate and then you get an additional 1-12 for using a detachment. Aos you get 0 for playing matched and then an additional 0 for bringing the minimum leaders and battleline. Instead, you need to spend 100-200 points to get 1 and then gain 1 per turn, which is often getting spent on the same command ability you were using all the time anyways.

In 40k, theres no penalty for spamming battalions since chaf rules the day there anyway. Imperials and chaos can get 5 cp for like 180. These are usually spent en masse for combos, constant rerolls, deepstriking, etc. In aos you pay points for a battalion, which also forces you to take certain models as a further tax in some cases. And you get 1 cp as a result.

 Kanluwen wrote:
If you're trying to promote "casual campaign play" then actively promote casual campaign play.

Do things like having people write a 10k list, Heroes and Units/Monsters having to be named and Wounds tracked from game to game. The list that people take for each game is valid for that day and that day only, with those units being unable to participate in the next campaign event. Have a map setup. Do things to actually create a fricking campaign.

Your complaints are consistently that people are doing netlists or things to make it "unfun" for casual players when realistically you're just doing Open Play--but with points!

But that would assume that you know how our campaigns have worked before (all of which have done the things you have said)

Casual play is a lot of things. What its not is taking a tournament list. Really thats all there is to it in that context. If you hear casual play and you show up with your adepticon list, thats not casual play.

So I do actively promote casual play by announcing well ahead of time that its a casual game and don't bring your power list to the event. It is always ignored by a few people who feel that there should only ever be one way to play - by whatever means the rules allow.

 auticus wrote:
Thats hardly "the sky is falling". Thats me expressing my opinion on the direction that the game is headed based on the tidbits released combined with what I had hoped was a better alternative.

Additionally if I had a nickel for every dakka poster that has jumped on me and claimed what I thought was going to happen was nowhere near what was going to happen, and it turned out that way anyway... I'd be a wealthy man lol.

Then go buy a lottery ticket? If I had a nickel for the amount of times I heard "This is going to kill off the community!" I could buy out GW.

From the standpoint of trying to promote casual campaign play, this direction is the opposite of what I'm trying to accomplish. All this does is make me have to houserule campaigns to curb the CP spamming, just like we have to do with 40k (which in the 40k forums I also had this same discussion and was told it wouldn't be that bad, and here we are today with it being that bad)

If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, chances are it is a duck.

Your mileage may vary on whatt you feel is the boundary for acceptable min/maxing as well as your own goals for your community.

Everytime my community loses another casual player because they get tired of having to deal with the power listing imbalances, it hurts us a lot because its a hard community tto build up in the first place.

Then it sounds like you need a new game. You've already admonished GW is trying to get the competitive player's money (a thing they've been doing since 6th edition 40k), so why stay? Does it suck? Sure, but I also feel like A) GW does enough for their casual players with things like custom missions, Narrative Play, Open play, and all the splat style books 40k had. If you wanted to play casually or make a story, you could. But the competitive players should get what they want too.

And I still really don't see how this is new or unfair. This is just GW moving the competitive goal posts to get people to sell their old armies and buy the new hotness and I think that's well within their right to do so.

In regards to your community, it should stay relatively unaffected, as it sounds like you house rule a ton of gak anyways.

In aos you pay points for a battalion, which also forces you to take certain models as a further tax in some cases. And you get 1 cp as a result.

part in bold, "in some cases", is the key. Some battalions certainly aren't worth taking, others you're stupid to not take them.

Thats really a large crux of the issue tying CP to battalions. Armies that don't ahve those "you're dumb not to take it" battallions are at a sizeable disadvantage. Armies that already have battalions they are dumb not to take will be getting even more benefits now.

Why tie CP to battalions in the firstt place?

If I had a nickel for the amount of times I heard "This is going to kill off the community!" I could buy out GW.

Except I never said this will kill off the community.

You're now taking the conversation into personal territory and making it nasty so we'll conclude here. I'm not interested in an internet chest-beating exercise.

 auticus wrote:


So I do actively promote casual play by announcing well ahead of time that its a casual game and don't bring your power list to the event. It is always ignored by a few people who feel that there should only ever be one way to play - by whatever means the rules allow.

Welcome to every game that has ever been created, forever. D&D has this exact same problem, and it's an RPG.

 auticus wrote:

In aos you pay points for a battalion, which also forces you to take certain models as a further tax in some cases. And you get 1 cp as a result.

part in bold, "in some cases", is the key. Some battalions certainly aren't worth taking, others you're stupid to not take them.

Thats really a large crux of the issue tying CP to battalions. Armies that don't ahve those "you're dumb not to take it" battallions are at a sizeable disadvantage. Armies that already have battalions they are dumb not to take will be getting even more benefits now.

Why tie CP to battalions in the firstt place?

I was talking about how CP in 40k are very different from CP in AoS for all of those that seem to think that "we 40k now".

Depends what we're talking about in terms of "sizable disadvantage". Top tier tournaments? Normal play?

As an example, Sylvaneth have a bunch of battalions, and usually take a minimum of two; they'd have a "sizable advantage". Except they have one command ability outside of allariel's once per game one. The generic ones are situationally useful, but not in the sense of Settra letting every tomb king hero do their thing type of advantage

The user that lamented AoS isn’t a maneuver based game like WHFB anymore made me lol. WHFB didn’t sell, and was killed off for a good financial reason. Maybe GW is copying some aspects of Warmahordes because that system is actually selling and entertaining.

Also, nobody ever said you couldn’t use heritage rules to play old WHFB. Try doing that instead of constantly moaning about a game system you clearly don’t like before it’s full rules are even out yet.

USNCenturion wrote:
The user that lamented AoS isn’t a maneuver based game like WHFB anymore made me lol. WHFB didn’t sell, and was killed off for a good financial reason. Maybe GW is copying some aspects of Warmahordes because that system is actually selling and entertaining.

Also, nobody ever said you couldn’t use heritage rules to play old WHFB. Try doing that instead of constantly morning about a game system you clearly don’t like before it’s full rules are even out yet.

Okay. Take AOS, cut all support, leave it for years and then see how well it performs. WHFB was killed off due to atrocious management.