Subscribe Us

header ads

Age of Sigmar- No Big Rulebook, Build Your Army By Scenarios



So building your list by scenario for balance? That seems to be the case this time for Age of Sigmar. Stephen who is over at Forgeworld Open Day is speaking to reps about the game, and this is their answer. Definitely Interesting.


Thank you Stephen!
via stephen taylor in the comment section of Faeit 212

Just thought you guys would like this info. 
I am currently at forge world open day in nottingham. And have been speaking to the reps about age of Sigmar. A lot of my fears have been laid to rest.

BIG NEWS: There is not going to be a big rule book. However, there is already in the worls a set of rules for competetive and tournament play. 

Points dont matter so much, because everything will be based on scenarios. There will be - his words - literally hundreds. You will never need to play the same scenario twice. 

Added to this there are dozens of campaigns in the works, all of which will expand on the rules and warscrolls available.

Additionally, the 'silly' special rules already seen in the warscroll releases have been done as a homage to older characters and units. These are not due to continue going forward.

So - no BRB, but there will be rules for competition. Oh, and list building is now avcomplished througj working out the sinergy between wars rolls. As you dont have to pay for equiptment anymore, and optimizing is therefore out the window, getting units to work more efficiently is all accomplished through which warscrolls you choose and how they can make the units around them better.



Also a review of the game by Game Informer that is superb.
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/features/archive/2015/07/04/games-workshop-reinvents-warhammer.aspx
its a great review of the game, here is a look at just one paragraph of it regarding point values.

Finally, the base rules are now much more freeform in regards to balance. No point buy system governs what units you can deploy. Instead, players are meant to decide as they play how they want to set up their game, with guidance from the rules that suggest potentially exciting scenarios that players could try out. Out of the box, I’m told that Age of Sigmar is not built as a head-to-head tournament style game, in part because Games Workshop believes that players will create their own rules to govern how those more competitive scenes unfold. Instead, the developers have opted for a philosophy that gives more control to players; let them opt into additional restrictions, rather than being forced to opt out of hard-and-fast rules for how any given game should function. As such, the new Warhammer is built to encourage more cooperative conversation, narrative-driven experiences, and social oriented interactions.

Post a Comment

263 Comments

  1. I was at WHW yesterday and they said there wont be tournament rules, they will be 'event' rules, and something about the winner being voted best opponent over the course by the participants. Oh and you and your opponent would agree on units before the games.
    kinda got bored listening to be honest though

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Boring indeed. Let's vote who had a better game.... Lame. But maybe aos is targeted at <12 y/o. The kids who have rents paint and build for them so they can just enjoy a story book unfold infront of them and we can teach them winning and losing are the same thing.

      Delete
    2. In other words, sportmanship and army composition scores are what tournaments will be based on, not winning at all costs.

      Delete
    3. It is how they run their tournaments at Warhammer World these days anyway.

      Delete
    4. This is how throne of skulls works right now for 40k

      Delete
    5. I get the feeling that the people making the <12 year old comments are the <30 year olds who must validate themselves through competition.

      Delete
    6. to be fair if there is no competition, discard dice. then play as normal, whenever you need to roll a dice yell out i am a winner instead...at the end of the game vote who won....i guess that will be fun

      Delete
    7. I'll play a few games with buds but I'm not excited about playing it competively and in pick up matches. The no points make set up a hastle, particularly if you just want to play an even pick up match. Also GW could have made their games more balanced by doing 'updates' via white dwarf or online instead of lazily saying "take whatever you want", which could have made the point system more viable. Also they should've hired a statician to come up with a fair point cost system (including stats/special rules). Video games are always tweeked post release to ensure better balance, and idk why they didn't do it with 40 k and fantasy. It'd probably increase white dwarf sales slightly if they had the updates in white dwarf and if would make the game more balanced and fun.

      On another note they could have made this an introduction to a broader game and not just an unbound game. Honestly they should have done a similar game to kill team for fantasy and of course support kill team officially for 40 k. It really helps players ease into 40 k, and a similar fantasy game would have the same result.

      Delete
  2. "Free Rules! No expensive and cumbersome BRB anymore that had to be purchased every 3/4 years! Free Rules! Now you just have to purchase these quarterly 20/30/40£ A5 sized 50 pages Scenario books! FREE RULES!"

    >_> Hm...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ^this! But, don't post anything negative or the GW spies will rebuke you. Yesterday at my local GW, not a single person was playing AoS despite the set-up on the first table in the store. Everone including the store manager was playing 8th. Not a single person was playing AoS...because you can't! I might as well just take the Screaming Bell and Kiros Fateweaver and turn one choose a 13 on the Bell's chart and auto win turn one. As sad as it is, I had a good laugh yesterday when I realized that GW really WAS a model company and not a rules company. I was using my GW models to play Kings of War! What a turn around that was!

      Delete
    2. Well you don't need the scenario books though...
      the game is very much playable with the free rules and some brain cells.

      Delete
    3. Sorry to burst your bubble mate but when - most - people think"Free Rules" it usually includes SOMETHING of balancing system along with a few scenarios like... say... the previous Warhammer editions? Or are you saying that battle scenarios and a balancing system are merely addendums? If so... god damn all those tabletop gaming companies sure go out of their way to give us extraneous and irrelevant rules!! Wait, even GW themselves in their previous games? What is this, madness? Or money grabbing?

      O_o

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. Also, as a little sidenote - if you have any brain cells you won't touch this system - that way you do not need to bother yourself and your opponent before each game to decide which of the "hundreds of scenarios" you should play, and THEN build an army on. the. spot to match that scenario.

      What is it you say? You can do that easily through the internet/ cellphone days before the game? Well surely but... what about tournaments? Hm...

      Delete
    6. "I might as well just take the Screaming Bell and Kiros Fateweaver and turn one choose a 13 on the Bell's chart and auto win turn one."

      Well if you must win with plastic toy soldiers, then do so. Be TFG. Other people will just have fun.

      Not everything is a competition. Some people just like to play and have fun. If GW doesn't make competitive games, and you want to play a competitive game, then leave and go else where, don't ruin it or sour it for other people who want this.

      Not for you, fine, just don't ruin it for those who it is fine.

      Delete
    7. Anyone who thinks any GW game was ever balanced, is fooling themselves. The point system worked fine when Warhammer (for example) was more simple. As time went on it broke in many places, as different army book authors pushed their own ideas of "balance" on everyone without considering the overall effects.

      I for one appreciate that GW isn't treating us like screaming children who can't balance their own games. It should have been our responsibility all along. Depending on Games Workshop to set fair point values on everything never worked and never will.

      Delete
    8. A game, by definition, is a test or competition of skill, undertaken for the enjoyment of the participants. This "you don't need competition, just enjoy the game" attitude is asinine.

      Delete
    9. Infinity has rules that are completely free. I would say they are far from light or slim on rules as well, and while not everybody likes it (I can understand why people get frustrated with the ARO mechanic), it's a good example of a company who makes a skirmish game with very in-depth rules that don't ever cost you money if you don't want it to.

      Delete
    10. "Sorry to burst your bubble mate but when - most - people think"Free Rules" it usually includes SOMETHING of balancing system along with a few scenarios like... say... the previous Warhammer editions?"

      Wow.. talk about being an entitled brat!?
      They could have charged you money for ALL OF IT and they didn't they gave us everything we need to play. If you are not intelligent enough to figure out a way to balance the game yourself then you are the problem, not GW.
      40ks point system is anything but balanced, besides many posters on this site has given plenty of suggestions on how we can balance the game.
      As I have said many times, we as players have always added our own balancing factors on the core rules of the games we play.
      Most Tournaments restrict the numbers of detachments you can have, or restrict you to CAD (Which actually shifts the balance, since some armies rely on the formations and codex FOCs a lot more than others.)
      From what I read on the internet very few players ban Unbound (even though its a legitimate rule in the core rules), because they think it's not balanced.
      So we are clearly capable of indipendent thought, so why is it so hard to agree on some way to balance the game? Personally I don't think it seem as unbalanced as you and others do, in fact the system (with player made limitations) actually seem more balanced than 40k.
      But you all just brushed it off because there aren't arbitrary numbers attached to units.

      Seriously mate, I know you and a selection of other posters really hate this game, but why spend so much time complaining about it? Why are you still caring after several weeks of rumors?
      The game is out, it's not a game you like, so what the hell is in it for you?

      Sorry that I am insulting you guys, but honestly at this point you come off as entitled children with no imagination.

      Delete
    11. Entitled =/= expecting something decent.

      Also, please don't try to shut us up by insulting our opinions. You only degrade yourself.

      "40ks point system is anything but balanced, besides many posters on this site has given plenty of suggestions on how we can balance the game." -> Better than no points system.

      And praytell how will you balance a system that pretty much says "Take all you own to battle"...?

      So naive...

      Delete
    12. So what? Complain until the end time? At some point we got it and I would prefer to read game report than endless discution on point system

      Delete
    13. @Yojiro:
      You obviously stop reading when people are not harping on the game don't you? If you read further down here you will see I have come up with suggestions. I have done this in many threads actually.

      And yes you are acting entitled because you demand shit. The game is okay, but you wanted more, and complain that you didn't get more, well guess what that is acing entitled.

      And your "I have an opinion" argument is getting very very old. We got that you and others hate this game several weeks ago, at this point hearing you complain is like hearing someone stating the sky is green. Yes, sometimes the sky can be green, but I don't need to hear it every single day.

      And I love how you guys think we are trying to shut you up, like you are some sort of oppressed minority. All we are doing is saying that you have made your point, maybe it's time to leave. And yes we become insulting when you continue to act all high and mighty and entitled.
      Besides, I am arguing against your opinion and insulting you ;) Not the other way around :P

      Delete
    14. Good night, and people wonder why the world is in such a sick state. People fighting about rules and refusing to stop until all who challenge them either change their minds or shuts up.

      For some reason we need to win a non existent argument. Who cares whether people like our don't like the game. I hate watching soccer (football). But I'm not going to disparage those who love it.

      It's like watching children squabble over whose the best dad. If you don't like it, say so, but don't disparage those who do. I get the feeling that when someone tries to come up with an idea to help balance, you call then an idiot.

      For those who like the direction, understand that a lot of people find creativity when they are given boundaries, and this system will be very hard for them to use.

      This is a great opportunity for the community to come together.

      I've never met Reece from front line gaming, but i can see him and crew creating a balanced system for competitive rules balance based on this system. It would be far more balanced then anything GW could ever produce.

      You could compare it to American Arena Football and the NFL. Same core rules, but played differently.

      Delete
    15. So they couldn't have just given us a way to play with points and force organisation, then add alternative way to play 'wacky fun' use anything you like system they've given us. How many people would honestly play without points if they did this?

      Delete
    16. Not that it seems to matter as the discussion has moved on now but that Screaming bell/Fateweaver thing doesn't work. No matter what result you pick for one of the dice involved you can roll a 13 on 2D6...

      Delete
    17. Also it states in on the rules for the screaming bell that you can't modify the roll in any way.
      The whole point of the rule is that it should never happen, and that if you manage to make it happen you could only do it through cheating.
      (Although I can think of one way of making it happen... but I doubt anyone would:
      Use Greasus Goldtooth, and bribe your opponent with: "I'll let you automatically roll a 13 on your Scraming Bell next turn")

      Delete
    18. yes because everyone is entitled if they dislike something.....that seems /seriousfacepalm

      Delete
    19. What I think we should all do is make a custom 9th edition update ourselves lol. I will admit I got into fantasy just this past year and I loved the lizardmen so much, the way I'm treating AoS is that it is it's own game, most of the ppl at my store played both AoS and 8th this weekend. I think they balanced it by making it like both players get 50 wounds total and 1 hero included in that. I think as we get used to the system we will organise the armies into something like a CAD and try to find something a bit more balanced than using wounds, looking at the horde style armies which would have a rough time with equal bodies. But then again my buddies and I are trying to make our own game so don't know how often we will play AoS in general.

      Delete
    20. TheAurglemir saying people have no brain cells because they have issue with the way a game plays makes you come across like an arrogant a-hole... unless of course you are one?.. If that is the case I don't need a reply.

      Delete
    21. I'm liking AoS. It's very straightforward and fun, and not all of us want a complicated game. It's nice being able to just pick a few scrolls, set up your table and minis and go nuts. Sure not everyone is going to like it, but you can't please everyone and that's just the way it is I'm afraid.

      Delete
    22. Free rules have no value when you cant play a serious game.

      I bet they will releas pointcosts & rules in 2 diffrent Books and double profits

      Delete
    23. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    24. I have to say I like the new system. I think the rules are a little simplistic, but I also think that is ok for a short or pick-up game. I also like GW's recommendation that you talk to your opponent to balance your games based on mutual agreement. God forbid we actually talk to our opponents before butt-raping them with some horrible death star combo.

      Call me a Mary or a GW fanboy or whatever, but I like what I see so far. GW was smart to make a game that was easier for new (and yes, younger) players to get started with lower barriers to entry than the two similar, overly complicated and expensive games (40k and whf).

      We are having a comparable problem with my RC airplane club where the average age of our members is 50. GW needs younger players to stay alive. Half-hour ork movement phases are not always appealing to young players, so the game needed to change. Great strategy for GW, even if the neck beards scream to high heaven. (They were going to do that anyway)

      Also, don't get irritated with the nay-Sayers, they aren't evil, just lonely. Notice it's always the same ones? That should say it all.

      Delete
    25. @TheAurgelmir

      Look kid, I am sure that in your la-la land of ultimate friendliness and happyness everyone is supposed to agree with you. I get that, ok? I really do. I got that a week ago when you began campaigning against anyone who dared raise a voice against AoS.

      However, please DO understand that in real life this doesn't happen. And in real life you have to deal with other people's opinions, not yell "LALALALA OMG I'M SO TIRED OF HEARING OTHERS WHO DON'T AGREE WITH ME WHY DON'T YOU SHUT THE FUCK UP SO I CAN DO SOME MORE METH!?"

      And please...Arguing against my opinion? Where? All I hear is the deranged mumbling of a fanboy. Your point is summed up as "You should deal with it because the almighty gods at GW decided to grace this AMAZING game upon us, praise be the lords at GW forever and ever until the end of time"

      No. I am not going to deal with it. The ruling system for any game worth the term (and let's assume - which I don't - that we agree that a game needs a -> full <- structure by definition or else it is not the fun test of player skills that it is meant to be) needs to encompass a base balancing system, be it points based, or FoC, or whatever.

      Games Workshop has done it before in countless games. Hell I am an avid Mordheim player and that has one of the loosest "rule set" ever. But it still exists! It's all there!

      I am not even going to get into other things that peeve me off (like the way they are so lovingly removing interaction from the game by not even taking into consideration the target you are shooting/hitting with a stick at, amongst others) my main annoyance is the clear money grabbing that this "Free Rules! But you want the structure required to balance these "Free Rules"? BUY THE SCENARIO BOOKS" It's not " Hey here are these simplified Free Rules that you can use for a completely structured game, including a rudimentar balance and organized play system - We're sorry we've dumbed it down a bit but hey, it's free! - GW"

      How hard is it for YOU to grasp this so very basic initial point?

      You start Chess/Draughts/Go/any-tactical-game-in-the-history-of-the-world with a clearly defined battlefield and balance between the opposing teams as stated in the BASE RULES. It's not "look let's sit here for an hour or so while I try to dupe you into letting me bring my strongest units by passing them as cannon fodder and vice-versa."

      The lack of a balancing system is a clear symptom of how little thought GW has given to AoS since, as I said, even their smaller, goofier games have had - some kind - of balancing system.

      You like the new system? Fine. I couldn't care less if you like it. I don't care if people eat shit for lunch if they enjoy it. Don't dare insult others who don't without providing any other reasoning other than "lulz like, deal with it."

      Delete
  3. I'm finding myself pretty bored already. I am sick of reading the posts, threads, comments, ect when I find nothing to be excited about or even mildly interested in.

    This is how it begins and eventually you just drift away.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed. Where's my 40k lol

      Delete
    2. Ahhh sorry, your 40k is in the past, spread out over the last five months

      Delete
    3. For someone who is pretty bored, they are sure sticking around where ever AoS is being talked about.

      If you are sick of reading the posts, then stop reading the posts. I can see if you get tired of reading the posts you will eventually just drift away but to be sick of reading the posts, wow you are really torturing yourself now eh?

      Delete
    4. AoS is just the new shiny object for the crows to fight over. Next they will be stressed out over Tau.

      Delete
  4. I dont see how scenarios will replace points. If they are predetermined such as ' x number of models with one HERO ' or ' x number of wounds ' then the warscrolls are still unbalanced.

    To say that optimizing is out the window because no more buying equipment is borderline idiotic. Now we just optimize the best units that already have the best gear. Why take 20 Clanrats when you can take 20 stormvermin? Boom, optimized.

    If the 'silly' rules are just an homage to older rules, then it seems that they were a joke. If they will be replaced when an updated warscroll comes out, why even put the joke in there, especially when certain joke rules give great bonuses.

    AoS, as well as this post by Stephen, has not come off as a great ruleset nor as a great game. There still is no balance and now we have to wait for GW to tell us what armies we can use in what scenarios. Free form army balance is non existant and we shouldnt be forced to make our own rules because GW couldnt be bothered to balance their own game.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. That review is mostly someone speaking out of its arse - One wouldn't and couldn't even guess that anything could have been slipped under the table by GW to guarantee good reviews to a "game" that mostly screams "Look at the pretty Fantasy Miniatures, 40k players!!" now, could we?

      Delete
    3. Oh yes of course they couldn't possibly like it right? Its not like other people have different opinions. Must be speaking out their bum cause they like it.

      Delete
    4. Just drop the whole idea of balance already. Was Germany's invasion of Poland balanced? Was the Invasion of Normandy balanced? Warriors fight no matter what the odds are.

      Delete
    5. Star child, this is a game, not real life. Balance matters In games. No one balanced Normandy because it wasnt wasn't meant to be fun.

      Delete
    6. Because the charcters with silly rules may not get updated at all... Most of them died.

      Delete
    7. @nagash42 Of course they could! I just find it extremely hard to believe. But hey, there apparently seem to exist people who laud this game.

      also... @Starchild... Are you serious? REALLY?

      Delete
    8. Sweet WW2 analogy, spot on bro.
      If any other company released a game with this ruleset, no one would touch it. Nor would they be defending with the vitriol and anger some are. Hidden costs (if you want to play the game as its intended?) look to be the latest joke in this games troubled release.
      Pretty sure if they released a box of spiders with 'free' rules printed on the skin of dead puppies - some if you would be in here angrily defending it.

      Delete
    9. Better yet, stop thinking of balance in terms of points or wounds, think of balance in terms of what units can do.

      Delete
    10. @Slite: Have you ever played Squad Leader? None of the scenarios (based on real battles) were balanced in the slightest

      Yet playing the Russians was a blast. Why? It challenges your tactical thinking. You have to think of ways to minimize the effects of concentrated machine gun fire. You have to weigh the risks of storming buildings with assault engineers. I could go on and on. And what happens when you win using the less favoured side? You get serious bragging rights with your pub mates and family, and the great satisfaction of a game well played.

      The point is, just because a game may or may not be balanced, in no way means it isn't fun. What breaks games for me is silly rules that bog down the action and waste time for no reason (such as, 8th edition Warhammer).

      Delete
    11. I agree with you that streamlined rules are a good thing. But balance and a lightweight ruleset arent mutually exclusive.
      I think a lot of the irritation with and mocking of AoS's rules stems from the absurd imbalance in 40k. There are a lot of people who believe the imbalance is intentional, and used as a tool to drive sales. So when a brand new, rules light game us released - and it openly shuns balance for some vague system that may offer benefits related to how many campaign books you buy.. People are going to point and laugh. And deservedly so. GW made their bed, they have to lie in it.
      Criticism comes with the territory when you choose that path.

      Delete
    12. @Starchild
      Have you played a game yet? I've played several.
      You spend more time trying to figure out what armies to take so that it's fun than you do actually playing the game.
      The game itself is enjoyable but it's a chore to play....
      And the whole "agree to play two certain lists" is actually against the rules anyway because you're just supposed to keep deploying stuff till you've had enough.

      It's not really that the current systems is bad... some like it, some don't. The problem is that it's cumbersome and annoying. The game itself is actually pretty enjoyable and I see the potential. But without some sort of guidelines, the set up is flat out annoying.
      So for, the sudden death rules are too easily broken or nearly impossible to achieve if you're severely outnumbered.

      Delete
    13. Squad Leader's rules are also more than 4 pages long. There are tons of modifiers, special rules for weapons, lots of terrain features. The game's rules are very complex and can handle being outnumbered on the board.

      Squad Leader is also a box set. So of course it will be balanced out. I'm sure AoS's box set is balanced.

      Thats just one set though and doesn't take place for all the other armies. And yeah, I've played games where I was purposfully unbalanced, both on the OP and UP side. We used terrain to modify the balance though, setting up more defense on the outnumbered side, or putting in rivers nearing the OP side.

      But in games like those, I knew I was unbalanced because of the point system. A player won't know he/she is playing with an unbalanced army until the middle of the game, or after the game. There won't be a consistant list anymore.

      I can no longer bring 1500 points of Skaven to a store and know that I can fight anyone who also brought 1500 points. Now I have to look at their army, and pick more or less models in mine to match theirs (or the other way around).

      Delete
    14. Little johnny likes skaven and goblins, he doesn't make a unified army, his new mate Jimmy says he can't mix the units together, to this Little Jonny gives up......this is more or less the scenario many <12 YO's will face.....i am sure it would be fun.

      Delete
    15. I believe this has to have been play tested, focus groups, and sold to whomever ok this massive amount of cash investment... But if starter is suppose to be balanced game we could be in trouble... If GW decides balance I would expect starter to show it, I don't see balance nor do reviews state there is any, just don't see howi as a show up randomly at my local store I get in a game and show off new editions to my armies kinda player will enjoy this style, And the play a unsupported game or get out arguments don't stomach well. I want AoS to be great new fluff, and new models with supporting my existing armies GW only needed to put up a little, I was ok with moving towards a lord of ring rule set but everything I hear doesn't sense something is missing....

      Delete
    16. Actually 20 stormvermin are not significantly better than 20 clanrats. And, if you want to field a Verminus Clawpack battalion you have to field 3 units of clanrats. Stormvermin in a Verminus Clawpack are better than those that are not. The Skaven Warlord in the Clawpack is better than one that is not. The weapons teams are better in the Clawpack than one that is not. The clanrat units in a clawpack, 30 strong and with the warlord giving them a buff rather than a unit only buff will actually outperform a similarly sized unit of storm vermin.

      I think it is clear that the example is false - stormvermin are not some kind of auto choice compared to the clanrats. They are a better choice sometimes, and sometimes the clanrats are a better choice. Have you read the war scrolls?

      Delete
    17. @The Horned God
      Have YOU read the warscrolls?
      Storm vermin are better than clanrats in every single way outside the formation. And even then... the ONLY single benefit of clanrats is weapon team protection.

      How can you possibly say clanrats are better??? WHEN?
      They get less attacks, hit on worse, wound on worse. They get better when there's more than 30 but that still doesn't equal stormvermin who get better if they outnumber the enemy.

      Storm vermin get better saves, rend, more attacks, all at range 2" and hit and wound better. And have 1 more bravery...
      Please do explain... I'd love to hear it.

      Delete
  5. Is anyone worried that this might happen to 40k?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sure, but in the end you can always play an edition or by house rules.

      Delete
    2. Too bad for the vets that play mostly in store. But I love the idea of spending all my codex money on models.

      Delete
    3. 40k is very very popular, so there is no need to change the game in any major factor.
      They don't need two "hard core" games, nor do they need two "casual" games.
      If Fantasy was as popular as 40k it would not have been changed into AoS, plain and simple.
      If Aos becomes 75% of the sales, then yeah I think 40k might change to this, but I highly doubt that will happen based on how many nay sayers are on here :)

      Delete
    4. Not worried at all. This was an effort to clear out languishing stock of WFB merchandise.

      40K sales are steady so there is no need for the bean counters to mess with it.

      Their balance sheet will take less of a hit on this than the conversion from lead to pewter, or from pewter to finecast did.

      GW's only loss is the damage done to FLGS stuck with useless product and even more previously loyal veteran hobbyists estranged from the company and jumping ship to Privateer, Infiniti, Malifaux and Bolt Action.

      In their opinion they can always just recruit new hobbyists (despite the fact that this has reduced to a trickle thanks to one-man shops).

      Fiscal year end financial report should be out soon...so we'll see.

      Delete
    5. Ha ha You don't get off THAT easily Waynus. Your codex money will have to go to scenario books to get your balance from. Oh, and as stated, there will be HUNDREDS of scenario books to give you all sorts of buffs that you can't really say are broken...because with no points system, how will you ever know if they're broken?

      Delete
    6. Of course we don't need two "hardcore" games! How dare gamers expect GW to put out the same amount of quality rules-wise for ALL THEIR brands? Of course not, what utter nonsense!

      I love it how some people seem to associate Hardcore with a decently structured rules system. Uno is clearly HARDCORE!

      Delete
    7. @Ceel86 "How can you unbalance or break something that had no balance"

      "There is no spoon!"

      Delete
    8. Ah, man, I remember some of my days as a hardcore Uno player. Those were intense times man, real WAAC, table-flipping shit.

      Delete
    9. ^LOL^

      But seriously, it took 6 hours to do a 2000 point game, and we were all out focussed on the task at hand yesterday. I'm not saying scale back the rules to 4 pages, but we're kidding ourselves if we don't think that 40k isn't a stupidly cumbersome game. A little streamlining could really help.

      Delete
    10. This is a toss up. 40k with just warscrolls or dataslate breaks the game the same way, no points is like 10 units of centurions vs 2 units of kroot. We are supposed to agree exactly what we bring I guess takes a lot of the fun out of it for me.

      Delete
    11. Just an arms race anyways. Except instead of over a game a new unit is added it's more of an arms race while you build your list and once you run out of one-up units you lose before the game starts? Someone explain lol

      Delete
    12. "no points is like 10 units of centurions vs 2 units of kroot. "

      Oh look a strawman argument.
      First of all who has only two kroot? They come in boxes of what 16 models?
      So the minimum size of a Kroot squad would probably be 10.
      Sure the centurions would have a min size of 3, and neither would have a max limit.
      But if all I had was 16 kroot, and a guy with 10 centurions wanted to play with me I would probably ask him to only place 3 down.
      (and remember the strength of units in AoR is extreamly different from what they were in WHFB).
      The game would be boring because all we had was those models, but we could make it work.

      If I had 10 different units, and he had 7 we could agree that we played 7 units at minimum size. If he had a very strong monster maybe I was allowed one unit at a higher strength.
      I would still have an advantage that I had three more units to choose from during deployment, so I had more options to counter him.

      Is this concept really so hard to wrap your brain around?
      Every game don't need to be waac, and it's not really hard to create somewhat even games.
      And no points arent even either. Neither is FOC slots like troops and heavy support... it creates arbitrary power levels because GW never had a standard system for putting point values on things. Everyone can see that a Wrairh Knight is a lot more then 20 points better than Logan Grimmnar on his Chariot (and Logan is pretty good in his chariot), and yet here we have the points.

      Also AoS units seem to be a lot more balanced, everything can wound everything, and exceptionally powerful units will lose power as they are wounded.

      Delete
    13. No waac just for fun where is the element of surprise meng

      Delete
    14. I'm not expressing myself literally ever. It's the Internet I'm just giving a basic example of where things get more like a cut and paste and let me look at your list so I can build mine type of thing. I like the games I play, I think it just needs some structure that I have not been educated in.

      Delete
    15. I would be worried if they made space marines same size sigmarine. I would not be able to choose :-)
      But for the rules not really i would really like if they came with a new take on 40k

      Delete
    16. They've already done it. In the Core Rule Book they state that the points are a suggestion. IF AOS is successful enough, then they will do it for 40k because it is more in line with how they think of who they are. They do a really poor job assigning points to their models. I think they do it grudgingly. And is because they don't care. AOS is probably the most honest rules release they've every come out with.

      Delete
    17. If they took points out of 40K then the Lord of Skulls would finally be playable!

      Delete
    18. Well, as a guy who plays 1 or 2 ITC Tournaments a month in 40K I actually think that 7th Edition is pretty balanced. ITC has made a few adjustments to the game but not many (similar to what is being suggested for players to 'balance' AoS), most people have no problem with the changes although a few do rail against them.
      Contrary to what I think is popular belief, we are seeing different armies win virtually every tournament. A lot of the guys I play against each tournament don't vary much, so the army make up stays pretty steady. Of course all the releases the past 6 months have contributed a bit to the variation in winners, but most players stick to whatever army they prefer for months if not years.
      This AoS thing may work or it may not, I am really not a fan of the rules as they stand right now but I'm willing to wait awhile and see what they do with the scenarios and new product before I make up my mind.

      Delete
    19. Aurgelmir needs his eyes checked out and fast.....didn't you see "two units of kroot".....goes off on irrelevant tangent.......yep good old Aurgelmir.

      Delete
    20. If it does happen i just hope forgeworld is finished with their horus heresy rules so i could play them.

      Delete
    21. 40k 5th was the most succesfull Edition finnacialy for GW in their history.

      But as soon as sales went down a little they went overboard and gave us 6th & soon after 7th to fix 6th.
      Now their profits are down 6Mio to about half what it was in 5th.

      Dont tell me they "fixed" WFB caus profits were down.
      They pump out new editions for sake of greed.
      This game didnt need round bases. Its Not even skirmish.
      Its a free for all bring everything dice roll fest.

      Delete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Well I'm only in it for the models... And since that's all GW are charging me for, they aren't losing out!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm nearly in the same boat. I'm mostly a fan of GW because I love their models and I find painting and building to be most of the fun for me. the way I see it i'm basically getting a free game when I start buying the new AoS miniatures to paint lol

      Delete
    2. I just can't get over how perfect the Eternals are for making Custodes!

      I have decided upon this:

      "After 10,000 years of self imposed exile we return to continue our fathers work. The corrupt shall be purged! The heretic shall be eradicated. This Galaxy shall belong to the imperium, and all those who stand against us shall feel the might of the God Emperor!"

      Just trying to work in those bow and arrows... Maybe have the arrows contain some form of volatile energy that explodes on impact...

      Arrows of the Emperor:

      Range -24"
      Strength -5
      AP-4
      Type- assault 1, Blast

      Yay or nay?

      Delete
    3. Except of course FW will do them eventually.

      Delete
    4. 24" seems a bit far when that's the range of a rocket-propelled bolter round. And I wouldn't think bows and arrows make the best assault weapons.

      Maybe 18" rapid fire?

      Delete
    5. Bows would proably go further than a bolter.

      Bolter rounds are the size of a pop can weight and wind resistance will be hell on a round that big

      Also bows work more like artillery with an arc of fire

      Delete
    6. Thanks for the feedback chaps! It's very early WIP stuff anyway, literally took me around 30 seconds to think up. I think Blast is a must do though because otherwise it's pointless compared to a Bolter. Besides its not like massed Blast Templates on a troop choice is unfair *looks at Kataphrons*

      Delete
    7. Many of the bow ranges on the warscrolls are 18". The longbows get the 24" range.

      Delete
    8. Damo you could even try different ammo types like the specialist bolted rounds, throw in some Poison or Amourbane stuff just for fun ;)

      Delete
    9. @Stephen Jackson- Oooh! I like that idea!

      Delete
  8. Meanwhile Im the only one enjoying AoS lol.

    Will continue to play 8th as well as AoS, as me and my friends still love 8th but we find AoS to be a blast as well. Yes the game is super simplistic but for me thats great because I had loads of other friends that were always interested in playing table tops with us but they tried learning the rules and just gave up because it was too hard for them. At least this way I can include all my friends in a nice casual game.
    I understand though this does not apply to a lot of other people though, as most fantasy players did NOT want simple.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're not, despite my negativity at first I enjoy it too!!

      Delete
    2. Here here I'm all for this new game looks fun. I like the zombie rules of a horde charging in and on 6s turning people into more zombies.

      Delete
    3. I'm still trying to figure out how I build a list to compete with my friend who builds a list. When we get to the table there is an unbalanced game infront of us. If I select 5-10 units how do I know he's not going to take 15-20? Or how many heroes or HQ. What about the strengths of units, how do we rate what to select if we wanted to build armies on secret before hand... It's all very confusing for me

      Delete
    4. I've been loving it! It's really good fun, and that whole "Kairos and a Screaming Bell" argument is a wad of crap. You can't make a the dice roll result of 2 dice equal 13 regardless of if you try to choose it or not... you can only get 2-12 as results, so 13 is out of the question.

      Some people are just bad at reading jokes I guess.

      Delete
    5. Hey I am a big fan already too. I even dug around in my attic to find some old Dwarf models so that I can add more guys to my Army of Order. (and to my surprise I found Josef Bugman hiding there as well! Did you know his cast was copy written in 1993?)

      @pain ted: Firstly if you read the rules you see that you don't write lists, but rather you build your army as you go from the collection you brought with you.

      I suggest you and your friends look at what everyone brought and decide on a limit on how many warscrolls to use.
      If one of you have huge units, maybe ask him to split them up into two smaller units.
      Most infantry units have a specified minimum size, where powerful things like ogres have a minimum of 3 where Dark Elf Spearmen have a minumum of 10. This should give you some indication of their power level. So you can say any unit must be their minimum size.
      Some units have "no limit" so I would say they are min sized 1 (but that's boring), so maybe the units are the size of the what you got in the box? (the box had 3 dudes, then thats the unit size).

      Heroes and such are just warscrolls, some are rather powerful, but not immortal, while other heroes are actually rather weak and bring buffs to the table. So you have to choose during deployment what to place:
      My opponent just placed a unit of Elf Spearmen (min sized squad), so should I place a Dwarf Engineer ti buff my cannons? Or add some Warriors to even out my lack of infantry.

      Also keep in mind that units have a range on all their attacks, so a big unit of guys might actually survive a lot, but won't always get to hit as much due to them not having range. This also balance out the unlimited sizes to some extent.

      Really though setting limitations like I suggested is just like agreeing on a point level and if unbound and formations etc are allowed.

      Delete
    6. It should ago be considered, the winning conditions help with the balance add well. Once an army reaches 1/4 the size of the other army, they can choose an auto win objective. So, when playing with reasonable players, even if you find yourself outnumbered, with the right strategy, and a little luck, you can still win.

      Delete
    7. That makes more sense when in a situation like that I like waiting until deployment so you still have a competitive edge. It wouldn't feel so pressed

      Delete
    8. Where in the hell are you guys?
      I haven't had a chance to bring it up at a FLGS, but I was in the other week and heard the Oldhammer guys there throwing a raging tantrum about AoS prior to release.

      I went out looking for a WD today, failed, and picked up a little box of the 3 push-fit Warriors of Chaos.

      Had a ton of fun painting the little guy up.
      I enjoy painting fantasy over 40k, but had to sell my Fantasy stuff when it became impossible to find games at anything lower than 2000k points.

      If AoS catches on, I could see myself going back to painting Vampires and Orcs, but right now Chaos is hitting that sweet spot.

      Oh, and has anyone tried the Formations at the bottom of the warscrolls to see how they stack vs. one another? That Chaos Warband one seems like a fun goal for me to aim for if I find players.

      Delete
    9. The White Dwarf with the free model SOLD OUT on the day!!! D:

      Glad I bought 5 copies! I guess people really like the models.

      Delete
  9. It's doing my head in!!!!!! Why do people keep banging on about Fateweaver and the Screaming Bell. Get a grip and stop moaning. Nobody will do that and if they do they are a prick and won't get any games.

    It says in the various rulebooks about the spirit of the game. The spirit is to have fun and not to be a win at all costs powergaming jebend.

    STOP MOANING. Play it or shut the hell up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No. Stop telling people they aren't allowed to be critical. People besides you are allowed an opinion.

      Delete
    2. Have an opinion that's fine. But then let it go. It gets boring all this Gamesworkshop are stupid and font listen to the fan base.

      If you like Warhammer, fantastic, you have 8 editions of it to play with.

      Sure it's unbalanced, sure it will have faults. All the GW hate is getting boring tho. I would love to know how many people who clearly hate AOS have tried it.

      Delete
    3. Mr. Gardiner's chips are thoroughly salted, I don't think he'll be letting anything go for some time ;P

      Delete
    4. There's a different between posting something that contributes to the discussion, and just plain old complaining. You said you were done with this weeks ago. Piss off and let us game in peace you bloody troll.

      Delete
    5. @Ian "If you like Warhammer, fantastic, you have 8 editions of it to play with."

      I've seen a lot of people say this and it really is a poor argument. No doubt rules for 8th and earlier still exist. The issue is without official support those games die out. It's like saying if you like Mordheim still, go and play. How many games of Mordheim can you find out there? Sure, you'll find a few at random FLGS here and there, but by and large your opportunity to play the game you love is greatly diminished.

      It's like the equivalent of turning off the servers for a popular multiplayer 1st person shooter and the argument is you can still play the game if you want using peer to peer. It's totally not the same experience.

      Delete
    6. That is fair comment and I do understand this. However at my local club we have a few guys that occasionally play 2nd ed 40k. It sounds like all the warhammer toys will exist in the Sigma setting. 

      I agree it must be crap if you play fantasy but you can still play. You also have Sigma to have a bash at. I have a 40k Daemon army and am pleased i can try use it in a fantasy setting also.

      Delete
    7. @Harrower: It is a fair point indeed. I still have my 2nd Edition Eldar codex, but I don't exactly play 2nd edition :P

      But a lot of people state this because they are becoming tired of people claiming their "opinion" needs to be stated every second paragraph of every rumor about AoR, and honestly that is fine too... but:
      If that opinion is "AoR sucks, GW sucks, they should cater more to me! Everyone that likes AoR are fan boys and hate us that don't like AoR" it gets a bit old.

      If that is all you have to add to the discussion do you really need to say it in every rumor? All you are doing is trolling to get people upset. Heck some of the posters at this site has even admitted that they enjoy riling people up (I don't know if it was a joke or not, but the way that person acts it doesn't matter, because it's inflammatory)

      From what I know though there have been games that have "survived" in later editions, I think DnD 3.5 is still very popular?
      With wargaming it just comes down to how close knit your community is. I play with close friends as well as part of several looser comunities, so with my friends I have more leeway in what game we play. Then when I go to the clubs to play I have to adapt to whatever houserules they have established. So it is for 8th edition VS AoS.
      And with the amount of people saying they won't play AoS, it seems there should still be a lot of clubs playing 8th.

      Delete
    8. It was already all but dead... Local stores will hardly touch WFB here without special order.

      Delete
    9. Awww, you want a kissy wissy, Ungor? Methinks somebody needs to turn that frown upside-down!

      C'mon, let's hug it out, brah.

      Delete
    10. @Ian Broadbent “...at my local club we have a few guys that occasionally play 2nd ed 40k.”

      That’s great, at YOUR local club. I was involved with a club of almost 50 people and we couldn’t enough interest to get Mordheim started. Even with the super cheap buy in and the fact that most of the people played fantasy and already owned most of the models needed to play.

      It’s not just having people that are willing to play, it’s having the rules readily available, having the miniatures available, having a game that’s supported, and making the entire game easily accessible. Fact is unsupported games die out. I’m not saying there aren’t pin points of light that still play and love those old games/systems, but that’s the exception not the norm.

      GW already pulled all of the Army Books and End Times Books. A lot of rumors are already saying none of the old stuff will be available. The corpse isn’t even cold and GW already moved on and this just after they had a bunch of releases that were reinvigorating the old game and making people play more. I definitely understand why so many people are pissed.

      @TheAurgelmir “From what I know though there have been games that have "survived" in later editions, I think DnD 3.5 is still very popular?”

      The only reason 3.5 is still really popular is because Paizo released Pathfinder at a time when 4th edition was perceived as vastly different from 3.5 and people didn’t want to change and migrated to Pathfinder. It was huge for Paizo too. The market for Pathfinder is arguably bigger than D&D now.

      We could have something similar happen here, but the difference is if the old pre-8th edition player base latches onto something else it won’t really be the same game. Kings of War is probably the most similar alternative (that I know of), but it really is a different game. Pathfinder is basically 3.5 with a few additions and you are essentially playing the same game.

      It'll be interesting to see how all this plays out.

      Delete
  10. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    6. This author has been removed by the comment.

      Delete
  11. Oh please guys come on, all GW have done is given you an amazing opportunity to interact with one another in brief they they have put the FUN back into gaming.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, because dividing the community into people who are ardent fans and people who utterly despise one of their flagship products is a great way to introduce fun and social interaction into the game!

      Delete
    2. Nope. The idea that there are only two possible reactions to the games is fallacious. There are no absolutes in this, just personal opinion on what the game means to each player alone and all of the opinions reached are, ultimately, equally valid.

      Delete
    3. ^thank you. GW isn't dividing the community, we are because gamers want everyone to play the same way they play. If we just allowed people to have their opinions, and play the way they want to play, we'd be a much happier community.

      Delete
    4. Yeah, and this isnt a table top only thing. The Diablo 3 hate is a perfect example (even if diable 2 is still supported).

      nostalgia is a powerful thing for some people

      For others its just not quite what it used to be ;)

      Delete
    5. yet Diablo II is still superior in every way....funny how 8th edition was the same as Diablo II.....i pre-ordered D3, clocked it in a day, returned it and forgot about it until now.

      Delete
    6. guess what? i plan on doing the same with AoS. buy it, then wait a day then return it.....for the lulz..

      Delete
    7. Thanks Dark for comimg in and proving my point

      Delete
    8. No they're just making us look like little children playing a tabletop game. Its just insulting to the part o the community who played whfb for its strategy.

      Delete
  12. I am really liking the direction this has taken. The points value thing made me laugh to start with but then I thought 'how many times have I used a unit and thought they were over or under costed'. I have formed that opinion through experience in 40k and I know my units limitations as well as my opponents. This is clearly designed as a game directed at friends and not for people who are purely in it to win it. It may be positive and it may not. I am thoroughly liking the look of it and I really hope it is successful. Do I think they should have gone a different route? Absolutely. In my opinion a game set during the Time of Legends wood have been better, with Sigmar uniting the human communities. Still, with the obviously scalable level of this game and the free rules I could see it as a game of low cost, nice models and with a moderate amount of intelligence, a balanced and enjoyable experience with friends. Real war has no point limits, if your friend comes along with a billion models and you take 10 then it's probably best to find someone else to play. Just let the person with the smallest force announce their army first and then the opponent can pick an army that he thinks will give it a fun game. If it's a whitewash then you know for next time. As for the rules; they are fairly standard for wargames really...they are solid but not without fault. I could easily level as many criticisms against any wargames out there. Let's stop dumping on it though. It's 2 days in to a massive undertaking. GW have made it cheap and accessible and we don't know what is coming. It may just be what a supposedly under performing product needed. If not, keep playing 8th :)

    No drama peeps!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And you know one thing I like is that with the free rules, and no restriction on what can fight along side what (Unless you agree on it of course) gives you the opportunity to buy models you like, based on rules and look.
      Which means I have an excuse to get Nagash, even though I don't really want to play Undead.
      But at the same time, the more of one faction you play the more synergy you get, awarding you for sticking to your Exiles (That's apparently the Dark Elves now).

      This is both nice for collectors/players, but it's also smart for GW since it means they have a lower barrier for selling models.
      and in the end of the day we really need that at least some of us (actually most of us) buy models, or else Fantasy changing to AoS will be the least of out problems.

      Delete
    2. @ Khall

      The fact that you thought a certain unit was over or under priced is the exact point of the whole argument. How will you react when you field a unit of "overpriced" models that your opponent thinks are "Underpriced"

      What if you thought that a space marine should be worth 10 points instead of 13. So you brought a unit of 13 marines. Now, your opponent thinks that at 13 points, they are perfectly priced. He sees your unit of 13 and says that unit has too many models to be balanced against his unit of 10 marines.

      Who's right, what do you do? Its a very basic example, but I feel that it gets the message across about the point system. The reason for a point system is to negate the complications of people's opinions on a model. It doesn't matter if you think it is over or under priced, its priced at what it is, no matter what you or your opponent thinks.

      Delete
    3. yet it isn't really a lowered entry bar.....the scenario books will be priced similar as old army books and you can expect to see them limited as well, and costing the same as limited....so really there won't be a lower cost of entry....marketing is great....shift prices around and the consumers will think they are getting a good/better deal, when in reality they will pay more than what they were buying at.

      doubt me now but i will be the one laughing last.

      (how often are my predictions wrong.....not often)

      Delete
    4. @Dark Apostle Bellendo

      How dare you say that of the mighty lords at GW??? Why are you telling us that, blind sheep that we are? I am so glad you did not also imply that we will definitely NOT see a steep price increase on the AoS boxes. No Siree.

      Delete
  13. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  14. So, fanboys have set up a dedicated page to mock and insult people who don't like Age of Sigmar. And yet negative people are called trolls? Pull the other one. Anyone wanna explain to me how the behaviour of the GW fanboys is even remotely acceptable? Stooping to insults and aggression because people don't like their toys?

    https://www.facebook.com/ragequithobbyist?fref=nf

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Um, both sides in any given argument are typically unreasonable. This is the internet after all. That being said, this page is hilarious. Thanks for the link.

      Delete
    2. I must say, that Hitler Video is a very good representation of how I view the "other side" :P

      Delete
    3. Thomas, your blaming the actions of a few on an entire group. Your either very passionate about disliking GW or like to troll. Either way, i don't understand it. Get thicker skin man and ignore them; and please let those who are happy be happy. Not everyone wants to be angry.

      Delete
    4. https://www.facebook.com/pages/Waaah-Stop-Criticizing-my-Games/1631806543730887?skip_nax_wizard=true&ref_type=bookmark

      "Waaah Stop Criticizing my Games"

      yeah it seems even those whom make stupid comments of "waah your criticizing my fun, your so entitled, your wrong, your opinion needs disrespect"......i dedicate this page to people like that.

      Delete
  15. "the new Warhammer is built to encourage more cooperative conversation, narrative-driven experiences, and social oriented interactions"

    I think this is whats causing all the ruckus... You have to socialize... how dare GW make a game where you have to talk to people, you mean we can't just turn up with our well thought out death star list and act like a Gollum while wiping every one.
    :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Narrative driven experiances? In what narrative does an army consist of 5 Chaos Knights, 30 Clan rats, a Dark Elf lord on a Dragon, and an Empire Hellblaster? Because in the new rules, thats a legit army.

      Also, using what I belive to be Ad Hominem falacies to make us seem like anti-social idiots doesn't defend your point, just makes you look like a jerk.

      Delete
    2. Haha!
      Thank you for clearing that up, now go and be happy.
      :)

      Delete
    3. I already had a load of fun playing Warhammer FB or 40k for these past few decades... so? I don't know in what land people can be so gullible as to believe that "the new Warhammer is built to encourage more cooperative conversation, narrative-driven experiences, and social oriented interactions" can be used to sustain these changes.

      Oh noes, someone social that dislikes the rules!

      Delete
  16. I say we put it to a good natured vote!

    If you like AoS, leave a +1 here

    ReplyDelete
  17. If you don't like AoS, leave a +1 here

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. +1, first impressions of Age of Sigmar... Its bloody terrible

      Delete
    2. Need you even ask, my lad? =P

      Delete
    3. Have you guys played it?

      Delete
    4. +1
      Lots of potential but it just feels unfinished. Like an early access game on steam or a beta.

      Delete
    5. +1 I'm with Inquisitor.

      I hope that the game develops, then I may pick it up, but until then, my money is going towards Xwing and Malifaux with 40k purchases occasionally thrown in to the mix. Sadly my Lizzies and Dwarves will have to languish and collect dust for the near future.

      Delete
    6. +1 I dont like the small set of rules, I dont like the lack of focus on the army lists, and I dont like the new backstory.

      Delete
    7. Ok. Have you played it?

      It's like saying I hate apples because I ate a pear once and it was crap. Yes it's not WFB. Yes it's different. Yes no points costs seems odd.

      How can there be so much hate for it when I would bet my left bollocks 3 quarters of you haven't played it.

      By the way WFB was shit and they did right to bin. I never played it but it didn't have any numbers in the name so it's wank. (This is sarcasm)

      Delete
    8. So just using fallacies is the name of the game, Ian? Your apples vs pears analogy is odd because you don't say if we have information regarding the apples. Do we have any info about the apple, or are we just saying "Whats that? I hate it!"

      What we are doing is using the information we have to determine if we like a product. I have read through the rules, I have math-hammered it out, I have even done a small proxy game. The rules are way too simplistic, they lack depth and strategy. This is a successor to WFB, not some other game. We have the right to complain about the things we like, just like you have the right to compliment the things you like about the game.

      By the way, have YOU played it?

      Delete
    9. Can we keep it to +1's please. Debating wether or not people have played it can be done elsewhere.

      Thank you ;)

      Delete
  18. If you like the AoS models but are indifferent/undecided about the rules, leave a +1 here

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. +1.

      Like the idea of fantasy but didn't want to invest too much in another game system. I can now play smaller skirmish battles with my 40k daemons.

      Will decide if I like it when I have played. Fantastic that the free rule set means I can try before I buy.

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  19. this may get lost in the comments, but here goes!

    Age of Sigmar Battle Report

    Played a small game of AoS today at my local gw. I was heavily outnumbered, which allowed me to choose a Sudden Death objective for the game. I chose to go with Seize Ground, and selected to capture a terrain piece furthest from my opponent’s army (but still in their deployment zone).

    WARRIORS OF CHAOS
    6x Chaos Knights
    1x Chaos Chariot
    1x Khorne Lord on Juggernaut

    NIGHT GOBLINS
    1x Night Goblin Warboss
    1x Night Goblin Shaman
    25x Night Goblin Archers
    30x Night Goblin Spearmen
    2x Night Goblin Fanatics
    1x Doom Diver Catapult

    ROUND 1

    Night Goblins First

    Shaman buffs Spearmen’s Saving throw
    Spearmen move forward
    Archers out of range to fire
    Doom Diver fires but causes no damage

    Warriors Second

    All Units move forward Maximum Speed
    Chariot successfully charged Spearmen, only kills 1 Night Goblin, takes 1 wound in return
    No models flee in Battleshock

    ROUND 2

    Warriors First

    All Units move forward full speed
    Knights charge Archers, kill 11 goblins, take 2 wounds in return
    Chariot makes no kills, takes 2 more wounds
    9 archers flee in Battleshock

    Night Goblins Second

    Shaman Buffs Spearmen again
    Doom Diver fires again but still fails to cause damage
    Fanatics are unleashed, charging the Lord on Juggernaut, killing it with their attacks
    Chariot kills 1 Spearman, takes 1 more wound
    Knights take 2 more wounds, wipe out remaining Archers
    No models flee in Battleshock

    ROUND 3

    Night Goblins First

    Shaman fires spell at Knights, fails to damage them
    Fanatics move towards Knights
    Doom Diver fires at Knights, no damage
    Fanatics Charge Knights, doing 3 Wounds, are wiped out in return
    Spearmen finally kill Chariot
    No models flee in Battleshock

    Warriors Second

    Knights Run into range of Seize Ground objective

    Round 4

    Warriors First

    No actions

    Goblins Second

    Shaman fires spell at knights, fails
    Spearmen move towards Knights
    Doom Diver fires at Knights, no damage
    Spearmen out of range to assault Knights

    End of Round 4, Seize Ground Objective successfully captured,
    Warriors of Chaos win

    Final Thoughts

    Fast-paced and a lot of fun, we both enjoyed ourselves very much, and several spectators had a good time as well. Goblins en masse are a lot scarier than they used to be, as are Fanatics (D6 attacks each, -2 Rend, D3 damage is pretty powerful). The piling in and unit-by-unit combat order I feel works very nicely. Individual Doom Divers and Chariots are not that great, but I think both could be quite strong when multiple are taken. Can’t wait to play again.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's an good sounding game. a) How long did it last and b) what would you have done/selected differently now that you've given it a run through?

      Delete
    2. it lasted about 80 minutes, although about 70% of that time was large globs of goblins moving around

      as for different, i would either have made my chariot a unit of 3, or swapped it out for another unit knights. I would have also kept my general a bit further back to keep him from being charged, as his death was rather surprising, as he hadn't done anything yet outside of giving his battle orders.

      Delete
    3. Thank you Adam for taking the time to put all this stuff down, It's a real shame that something that is supposed to bring people together and inspire them to have a great time has caused such friction. The only problem I can see with AoS is people failing to understand the golden rule.
      Be excellent to each other. And play Age of Sigmar dudes!

      Delete
    4. This sounds pretty fun to me!

      Delete
    5. I'm glad you didn't play it to the silly points = wounds house rule some gamers are trying to implement as gospel. Just goes to show such a system does not equal balance in slightest.

      Delete
    6. I foind the same thing with my war machines in games. They need to be changed a bit. I think they really should consider putting the templates back in. I had 2 hell cannons that did a single wound all game. I almost wanted to just charge forward with it. Which isnt an option with most war machines.

      On the other hand the repeater bolt throwers and ratling guns seem to do very well.

      Delete
    7. Chaos should have gone first as they would have finished deploying first. Or did you choose to go second?

      Most importantly... how did you choose armies? Random guess, did you work out some balancing mechanic?

      The fact that 60 models couldn't kill 8 shows how hard this game is to balance.
      The doom diver not killing anything all game is also very improbable. On average 2 fanatics should kill 2 knights.

      Everyone who keeps saying "take fair armies and don't be a prick" doesn't realize how hard it is to make that guess... I've played a few games over the weekend and while fairly fun, it's equally frustrating to try to make the game fair.That's made even harder by sudden death rules which are much harder to account for.
      Following the rules the chaos player could have had 12 more chariots or 12 more knights and still qualify for sudden death.

      If you like unfair games... more power to you. But I find unfair just not fun and frustrating. The design simply promotes abuse even though it's supposed to promote friendliness. Even the best of friends still try to win, because it's a game...That's it's purpose. It's not roleplay, it's not cooperative.
      Warhammer just isn't suited to being a party game like cards against humanity or warewolves, where everyone gets involved, has some quick fun, and it doesn't matter who wins.

      There's too much time and money invested in this hobby to not care about it this much.
      If the models were cheap and game pre-painted then yes sure, we could have Warhammer: Risk and roll some dice over a beer.
      That's just not warhammer... not in the old versions, not in this one.

      AOS has some great rules and loads of potential, but it just trips over it's own shoelaces. It's incomplete. It feels like a beta or early access game.

      Delete
    8. Also knight charges for any of the races are vicious....

      I charged a unit of Dragon Princes into a unit of 20 chosen and the unit was just erased... Doesnt even need to be a large unit of heavy cavalry to really put the hurt on something.

      Delete
    9. Ive played 4 games abd balanced it based on number of models. Equal number of special heros equal number of monsters equal number of warmachines and equal infantry/calvary

      Every game has come down to a very close one or 2 models left alive type game.

      1 game came down to Archaon down to 1 wound killing the last elf lord on griffon...

      These games have ALL been closer to my latest 40k games and it has points...

      Play a necron vs Csm or Ork game lately?

      Delete
    10. @ Arbaal

      What were the forces consisting of? How did you determine they were balanced before your first game? How did you determine they were balanced after the game?

      Delete
    11. At the start it was balanced based on number of models. 1st sentence.

      At the end it was balanced as it came down to the same number of models left (about 1-2)

      Delete
  20. what if this was the rumored 30k box set that was coming out this summer, like some one saw the models and was like oh look Space Marines in gold wielding hammers, could be custodes or 30k sanguinary guard.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Same thing happened with the Skitarii. Someone saw early CAD designs and thought they were Imperial Guard in greatcoats.

      Delete
  21. That's an good sounding game. a) How long did it last and b) what would you have done/selected differently now that you've given it a run through?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Welp.. I guess GW really did throw out the baby with the bath water. Not sure what they've stuck in the cradle instead, but it isn't pretty.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Visit my FLGS: Whats this AoS shit? GW needs to just get back to 40k.

    Visit my GW: Whats this AoS thing? This is dumb, more 40k.

    Ask a friend if he'll go halves on AoS: Only for the Stormcast for 40k, AoS is dumb. They should of just killed fantasy and focused on 40k.

    Really? Has the 40k player base really become spoiled brats? I guess months of 40k does that.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Good article. Also PHWOAR those AoS minis look good! Even if you don'tl like the ascetic of the MC Hammerers, those chaos minis are hot Damn .

    I can't wait to see what army emerges from the realm of fire

    ReplyDelete
  25. You're all heretics we must remain loyal to whfb 8th edition and destroy the heresy. Now who is with me!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Thats ok, 40k is going to a 4 page rulebook and dataslates (warscrolls) next.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Here's my problem: I don't have friends that play warhammer. If I want a game, I go on the local GWs Facebook page, and post "hey, who wants to play tomorrow at open? 2000 points (or whatever)". I have no time or inclination to engage Ina conversation and forge a narrative, I'm 42 years old, I have a wife and family. I want to show up at the store and play a game against a similar sized force as what I have. I have 2-3 hours to do this. I know at my store WHFB was usuall 2500 point games and 40k is usually 1750, so I know how big an army I need to maintain to get games in.

    I have no fucking idea how many guys I need to buy and paint to play AoS. Do I need to wait until they release these scenarios, and then go out and buy the complete set? What if no one at my shop has the opposing army for that particular scenario?

    I sold my FW heavy empire army two months ago, and it feels like the best decision I've made all year.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Jim, you are spot on. This is another reason why points are necesary. If you bring 1000, 1500, or 2000 points to a store, and someone says "Lets do 1750" it will be a lot easier to add on the extra points than to have to go up against their list and say "Ok, whats balance against this person?"

      I'm a big Skaven player, and they have very underwhelming units and very overwhelming units. I like my Hellpit Abomination, I painted it up quite well (For my skill). I like using it because it looks nasty and performs nasty. Can I even use it anymore? What if no one wants me to use it?

      The lack of points means that game setup now takes a LOT longer than it did. No more quick games against random opponents, at least thats how I see it.

      Delete
  28. Wounds = Points

    Some models are better than others. I.e Stormvermin better than Slaves, Phoenix Guard better than Swordmasters.
    Some models are more saturated in the market than others, and won't sell; read the sentence above this one.

    People who play MTG are used to different rarities/availability of cards; it's like this- as GW needs to target selling some models.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But with perfect availability, the better models will sell better now. There is no longer a point in NOT taking Stormvermin over Skaven Slaves. You just go out and buy the box. Also, MTG cards have summoning points, such as 3 Green or 3 Red. You need those colors to use the card. So, a 3 Green card is 3 points.

      Balanced by a point system, its just called something else.

      Wounds are not a good "points" system as wounds don't take into account anything but the number of hits a model can take before it dies. Simple as that, a Clanrat will get wrecked by a Phoenix Guard.

      Now, if you're talking about availability, then Points = Price of Box. But that is also silly, as certain models just aren't worth their price-of-box. So, those models, based on availability would be theoretically more points than something cheaper, dollar wise.

      Delete