PDA

View Full Version : Will you play Age of Sigmar?



MiyamatoMusashi
04-07-2015, 02:15
We've seen the rules. We've seen the warscrolls. We've seen the models. No more "wait and see".

Obviously, I guess a lot of people will play at least a game or two to see what they think of it; let's take that for granted, and ask the really meaningful question:

Do you expect to play Age of Sigmar? More than once, as part of your ongoing wargaming hobby into the future.

Shandor
04-07-2015, 02:17
Well how? Its not even a Game. Its just Comedy. Its like: Lets play chess without Rules.. just place your Figures somewhere and do what you want.

brotherAkkyshan
04-07-2015, 02:18
I can imagine nothing worse than to find myself stood across a 6'x4' table from someone hopping up and down, pretending they're riding a horse. I'm afraid it's a no from me. I'm out.

Izzinatah
04-07-2015, 02:26
For a bit I was willing to give it a try. But no.

Djekar
04-07-2015, 02:31
It sounds fun to me. The "lite" rules and quirky humor in some of the war scrolls seems like something a few friends and I can enjoy. There are (and truthfully were already) better systems for competitive play.

DeathGlam
04-07-2015, 02:32
I don't even think i want to try it once, i already did not like the 4 page rule idea, add the complete lack of balance and silly bonus rules mean i just can't see why i want to put the effort into getting involved with this game on top of all the other games im currently playing.

Shame as i liked the new miniatures and the sound of some of the new background material but think im out, purely old versions of Fantasy as we have known it for me.

Drakkar du Chaos
04-07-2015, 02:32
These rules are garbage.

HopeAndDespair
04-07-2015, 02:34
Since I have the models already Im willing to give it a try. Theres nothing too crazy in the chaos or skaven warscrolls, oddly enough. The lack of definite framework for building armies has me worried. The sudden death mechanic doesnt seem enough and penalizes horde armies too much at least at first glance.

duffybear1988
04-07-2015, 02:37
I was willing to try it, but not now. It's back to Warmachine and Oldhammer for me. If they do the same with 40k/30k I'm finished with GW for good.

NecronBob
04-07-2015, 02:39
I've gone back and forth on this. At first, I saw the lack of ranks and the round bases and despaired. Then, I saw the rules and felt like there was a chance this could work. Now, I've seen the war scrolls, and I know I'm out. I'll pick up kings of war when it releases.

I'd like something with a strong tournament scene, but I don't like Warmachine. Maybe Malifaux can work?

I've easily spent 15 grand on models, supplies, and travel over the last six years. I'm feeling down right now.

Voss
04-07-2015, 02:40
Oh, I'll take a case of models and the rules into the LGS on Monday. And if anyone interested I'll batter how horrible this in into them through a game or two. But no, long term, playing for real? This game longs for the fire.

Scribe of Khorne
04-07-2015, 02:45
8th for me. Will I try it? I dont even know if I could. I sure wont pay for it, GW has indicated its value already ($0).

EDIT: Could, or would GW do this to 40K/30K? I just cannot fathom my despair. I really feel for the guys in my group who are hardcore fantasy players.

mdauben
04-07-2015, 02:46
Honestly until and unless a more complete set of rules are released, I can't see bothering with AoS.

KoW2 here I come.

From a Galaxy far, far away...

Venthrac
04-07-2015, 02:48
Sure i'll play it, it's free. I'll also still play WFB 8th ed. Just depends on whether I want a longer/more complex or shorter/simpler game.

Voss
04-07-2015, 02:48
8th for me. Will I try it? I dont even know if I could. I sure wont pay for it, GW has indicated its value already ($0).

EDIT: Could, or would GW do this to 40K/30K? I just cannot fathom my despair. I really feel for the guys in my group who are hardcore fantasy players.

40k, 8th edition, next year. Age of Roboute or something similar. I'm super serious, and completely expecting it.

MiyamatoMusashi
04-07-2015, 02:52
EDIT: Could, or would GW do this to 40K/30K?

You could practically do it for 40K now. Just need the warscrolls. The rules would "work" (in the sense that they can be said to work at all) as well for 40K as for Warhammer.

Will they do it? I have to assume Warhammer: AoS is a trial run. If (by some terrifying combination of circumstances) it becomes wildly successful, they'll move 40K over to this system faster than you can say "Rick Priestley's ghost". If, on the other hand, it crashes and burns, well, they might have lost Warhammer but (from GW's point of view) who cares about Warhammer anyway, right? It didn't make any money in the first place, and 40K's still here...

Noodle!
04-07-2015, 02:55
Will I try it? Yes.
Will I keep playing it? Almost 100% no. Testing will decide.

Zywus
04-07-2015, 02:56
Oh, I'll take a case of models and the rules into the LGS on Monday. And if anyone interested I'll batter how horrible this in into them through a game or two.
Don't forget to bring your chalice and that invisible horse:D

Voss
04-07-2015, 03:04
Don't forget to bring your chalice and that invisible horse:D

Happily, my most painted army is beastmen, and they're already in foam trays from when I stopped playing back in 7th. Very happily, nothing from the background of the 7th edition book survived, so I don't have to throw my own poo at people for my models to work.
Sadly*, I feel genuine relief at that, since reading other armies' warscrolls, that could have happened.

*because it speaks so much to the state of this game


When did brets and vamps become the joke armies?

ShruikhanTK
04-07-2015, 03:28
The single coolest thing I found just now was how a carnosaur can grab onto its prey and bite down like an apex predator boss. Other than that I really dig the fluffy little special rules and synergy going on with some of the models. However the over all structure looks horrid...I just don't think I can play this out. I really just wanted a new setting and a restart on the world where the good guys gave it back as good as they got in the end times so we entered this all factions are dead locked sorta deal, even order against order factions like empire and elves...eh Im ranting, I was let down over all.

Tupinamba
04-07-2015, 03:33
Despite my anger/sadness at the destruction of classic Warhammer I was actually willing to give the AoS rules a try as a skirmish game. Some of the things in the battlescrolls even seemed interesting, like the streamlining of the fight mechanic and the special abilities of the units.

But I must say that I´m even more disappointed with it than I thought. The lack of army structure and the excessive simplicity just looks to be boring. I´ve watched a youtube BR and couldn´t keep my attention. GW really believes its target audience to be kids. AoS is not what people want for their skirmish fix. Just compare it to Warmahordes, Saga, Infinity and even LOTR.

Buddy Bear
04-07-2015, 03:43
I'll try a handful of games here and there, but permanently playing it is out of the question. I don't see having any fun with it past two or three games. I'm sticking with 8th.

ColShaw
04-07-2015, 03:44
This isn't a wargame. I can get better tactical depth out of the box from something like Forbidden Stars. I'm out.

MiyamatoMusashi
04-07-2015, 03:46
This isn't a wargame. I can get better tactical depth out of the box from something like Forbidden Stars.

Dude, you can get better tactical depth out of the box from a packet of Kleenex.

mbh1127
04-07-2015, 03:57
smell you later age of sigmar.

hello oldhammer

Soundwave
04-07-2015, 04:10
What a mess! What a missed opportunity! No way at the moment. ..
I have seen a couple of "reports" and it looks boring and untidy.
Who the hell would find this fun? Designed for 100 models to move in one phase than another in skirmish whilst they "twerk" in the centre of the board to be with in 1inch of an exposed sword tip.
Would be easier to leave the models on trays place them in the middle and just have a long boring roll off.
Sigmar better wield some god like magic soon or no one will play.

MagicAngle
04-07-2015, 04:12
Nope. Might play a quick one-off game for lulz, but frankly this is a **** sandwich.

Sexiest_hero
04-07-2015, 04:14
And this is how I'm repaid for defending the great 8th edition. All treachery and no triumph.

Soundwave
04-07-2015, 04:25
It looks like it will turn out to be a better shooting game than 40k.

Okuto
04-07-2015, 04:31
MEh....why not I'll try it but I don't expect I'll be staying....

Moment I get the box, I'm converting those models into my 40k army, unless I actually have a good time

wyvirn
04-07-2015, 04:34
It seems like a game for friends to play. Not trying to win, but sober up enough to drive home.

Coldhatred
04-07-2015, 04:39
No, I won't be playing it. Even if the rules were good, which signs show they aren't. they destroyed the setting which was the greatest appeal to me by far and look seems to be going down with it to an extent which is #2 on my list. Goodbye Warhammer, thanks for the memories.

Colonial Rifle
04-07-2015, 04:51
There are lots of better systems out there require my attention, so I'm not going to be wasting my time with this junk. AOS is DOA.

So from a 15 year veteran who has spent god-knows how much money over the years and has been driven out of Epic, 40K and now WFB, **** you GW.

....and hello KOW and historicals :)

Plebian
04-07-2015, 05:45
100% out. Will sell my armies for peanuts and spend the money on infinity.

mweaver
04-07-2015, 06:05
Couldn't answer the poll officially, as my response is "I dunno, maybe". I certainly have no deep philosophical objection to playing it, but even if it isn't the disaster most people are calling it, I might never get around to playing it. Even on those occasions where I played Warhammer, it was to support our D&D campaign's storyline. Hopefully the wave of new models will produce some I like (don't care for the figs in the starter set though).

Vazalaar
04-07-2015, 06:38
I chosed yes, but there should have been a undecided option.:) As I am not certain if I will actually play it regulary. How is it possible that they went from 8th edition to this. :( What a mess.

DVeight
04-07-2015, 07:36
If yes means at very least play-testing and experiencing the, ahem, mechanics, then I select Yes. Doesn't mean that I will continue though.

Marauder Carl
04-07-2015, 08:05
Yes, but in a different context completely- I have several armies and can run this with people (that genuinely wouldn't enjoy traditional FB) with my own stock. Might hook an occasional on collecting/painting/modeling- an important first step in bringing in new blood.

I have 6th/7th/8th materials for mass battle competitive grocking and will support that end of the hobby if the need arises. Don't like the Sigmarines at all, but if they are the gateway drug that works best (and they are), I'll say "Awesome!" through gritted teeth ;)

I've had 7 months to come to terms with the change, and in my years in the hobby have become versed in The Way of the Officially Unsupported by now.

WarsmithGarathor94
04-07-2015, 08:10
il.give it a go.tbh

heretic
04-07-2015, 08:12
No. I'm done with WHFB, AoS or whatever they want to call it.

I'm going to finally jump into WMH and KoW

Teurastaja
04-07-2015, 08:16
No, I won't play it. Age of Sigmar is more akin to aborted fetus of a game.

EmperorNorton
04-07-2015, 08:19
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law" is an idiotic ruleset.
Hard pass.

Denny
04-07-2015, 08:35
I thnk I'll play it at some point. In a way it reminds me of Talisman (which I love); a fun way to kill an evening with friends without worrying about fairness or who wins and loses.

I mean, I already have the models I need to play, and the rules are free, so it's not like it will cost me anything.

employed
04-07-2015, 08:49
If i wanted to play a skirmish game I would play WoH, LOTR or 40k.

RevEv
04-07-2015, 08:49
I'm really excited by the possibilities of this rule set. The previous rule set was getting so complex, and the armies needed so big, that it was putting my regular opponent (my wife) off playing.... it just took too darn long to set up and play.

Now we can look at setting up quickly with small armies and have some fun which, after all, is what games should be about.

The fact that, essentially, GW have given this game away is a huge plus as well.

EmperorNorton
04-07-2015, 08:54
The fact that, essentially, GW have given this game away is a huge plus as well.

IMO you still don't get your money's worth.

DarkMatter2
04-07-2015, 08:57
In an imaginary world where I was still an active Warhammerer, yes, I would play AoS just as much as I would have WHFB.

Overtninja
04-07-2015, 09:07
to be bluntly honest, when i first was dragged into Warhammer Fantasy by my friends, i thought it would be more like this game - i was expecting that my models could take more than a single wound, that my heroes were serious business and could in fact go at a whole unit and absorb damage like champions and lay them low, and that i wouldn't need hundreds of models to play a game (with most of them amounting to wound counters for a unit).

I modeled each model individually, even the rank-and-file, all of them uniquely posed to be visually interesting and unique. I kitbashed my Dryads and my Wild Riders are on wolves. I figured each of them would, like, individually matter and would do work and be regarded as unique individuals. THAT'S the game I thought I was getting into. It was not the game I ended up playing, of course, and I got used to that being the case pretty quickly.

THIS game is the game I thought I was going to be playing. I really want to take my lovingly-assembled individualized Wood Elf army and play this game. I wish they weren't across the world now in a sad box in a basement. :<

I know most of you guys are literally the saltiest ever people about this, chiefly I think because it wrecks the tournament scene (such as it is :S), but I'd absolutely love to play this game.

DarkMatter2
04-07-2015, 09:08
I know most of you guys are literally the saltiest ever people about this, chiefly I think because it wrecks the tournament scene (such as it is :S), but I'd absolutely love to play this game.

Positivity and fun? On WARSEER? You just don't get it, do you?

Overtninja
04-07-2015, 09:31
oh no, i do, but it kind of deserves to be stated, even if it's just to the void. people are so competitive they lose sight of what's actually fun about miniature wargaming, i think. people forget that there are more people than themselves playing, and that those people deserve to derive as much fun from the game as themselves. the rules for this game (some would say this is the loosest possible definition of the term) literally prevent play from even happening unless the players are wiling to enter into agreement that they are both playing to have fun, because the players themselves are responsible for ensuring a fair and enjoyable game.

additionally, it's actually going to be really easy to work out a basic template for a force that you can bring for tournaments - essentially an agreement by all players that x number of battlescrolls, with model counts per battlescroll defined by type, is a reasonable and fair force to bring for all-comers battles. i'm pretty sure people on this very forum have made great progress in this already. it took literally hours to do. People can do it differently if they agree that they think different things are fair, but it will be an agreement by all players involved that said things are fair. the end result is that basically everyone playing is responsible for how fun their game is - and the players honestly should be in charge of having fun. that's the reason we play miniature games, right? for fun and to enjoy the company of others who like the things we like? i've always thought so, but i'm probably the minority here. :s

syrme
04-07-2015, 09:32
I'll be playing aos. With a few tweaks it will be just fine. I for one have never taken my man dolly hobby too seriously

scruffyryan
04-07-2015, 09:42
oh no, i do, but it kind of deserves to be stated, even if it's just to the void. people are so competitive they lose sight of what's actually fun about miniature wargaming, i think. people forget that there are more people than themselves playing, and that those people deserve to derive as much fun from the game as themselves. the rules for this game (some would say this is the loosest possible definition of the term) literally prevent play from even happening unless the players are wiling to enter into agreement that they are both playing to have fun, because the players themselves are responsible for ensuring a fair and enjoyable game.

additionally, it's actually going to be really easy to work out a basic template for a force that you can bring for tournaments - essentially an agreement by all players that x number of battlescrolls, with model counts per battlescroll defined by type, is a reasonable and fair force to bring for all-comers battles. i'm pretty sure people on this very forum have made great progress in this already. it took literally hours to do. People can do it differently if they agree that they think different things are fair, but it will be an agreement by all players involved that said things are fair. the end result is that basically everyone playing is responsible for how fun their game is - and the players honestly should be in charge of having fun. that's the reason we play miniature games, right? for fun and to enjoy the company of others who like the things we like? i've always thought so, but i'm probably the minority here. :s

Games like this die out without a competitive scene. They may not go entirely extinct but they become the purview of the 2-4 players who cling to the system and try desperately to get new players involved. This usually fails because the new players see the dozen+ people attending monthly tournaments enjoying the games that cultivate a competitive scene and ruleset and winning prizes and want to try that game out instead. A significant portion, if not the majority of the playerbase simply has more fun striving in a competitive setting. I can buy a beer and pretzels game for less than five bucks if i want it. I don't need to spend hundreds to be disappointed in a ruleset and be told "but its just all about having fun right?"

Overtninja
04-07-2015, 10:10
Games like this die out without a competitive scene. They may not go entirely extinct but they become the purview of the 2-4 players who cling to the system and try desperately to get new players involved. This usually fails because the new players see the dozen+ people attending monthly tournaments enjoying the games that cultivate a competitive scene and ruleset and winning prizes and want to try that game out instead. A significant portion, if not the majority of the playerbase simply has more fun striving in a competitive setting. I can buy a beer and pretzels game for less than five bucks if i want it. I don't need to spend hundreds to be disappointed in a ruleset and be told "but its just all about having fun right?"

You don't honestly think interested parties will run tournaments for this game? It wouldn't be a hardship to set the parameters of the force you should bring - the difficulty would be in creating interesting scenarios and objectives for each game, which most tournaments do anyway.

A game needn't be a cerebral experience like yu-gi-oh or require a super rules-heavy system to be played competitively for prizes. Given, if you want crunch, then you're not going to play AoS - which is absolutely fine, as there are plenty of rules-heavy systems to play these days. :D

Blkc57
04-07-2015, 10:15
I can't vote in this as honestly I don't know. The new models I dislike yet I can use all my old models I do like. The rules are confusing yet hilarious. The gameplay is corny yet fast. I would have to give it at least 4-5 games before I can determine if this game is something I would not get bored or frustrated with if I was gonna be playing it once a week at my LFGS.

snottlebocket
04-07-2015, 10:16
I've gone back and forth on this. At first, I saw the lack of ranks and the round bases and despaired. Then, I saw the rules and felt like there was a chance this could work. Now, I've seen the war scrolls, and I know I'm out. I'll pick up kings of war when it releases.

I'd like something with a strong tournament scene, but I don't like Warmachine. Maybe Malifaux can work?

I've easily spent 15 grand on models, supplies, and travel over the last six years. I'm feeling down right now.

Take a look at Mantic's kings of war. It's basically what warhammer wanted to be, written by some of warhammer's old game designers. The community can be hit or miss depending on where you are but their game suddenly gained a lot of growth potential overnight.

Mantic also doesn't care whose models you bring to a tournament. You can bring your warhammer army no problem.

MLP
04-07-2015, 10:30
The potential for this game to be amazing and scalable to all types of gameplay was high, how they missed the mark so badly I don't know.

I have no interested in this type of timewasting, there is no "game" in AoS, I will not be playing it.

scruffyryan
04-07-2015, 10:40
You don't honestly think interested parties will run tournaments for this game? It wouldn't be a hardship to set the parameters of the force you should bring - the difficulty would be in creating interesting scenarios and objectives for each game, which most tournaments do anyway.

A game needn't be a cerebral experience like yu-gi-oh or require a super rules-heavy system to be played competitively for prizes. Given, if you want crunch, then you're not going to play AoS - which is absolutely fine, as there are plenty of rules-heavy systems to play these days. :D

No I honestly dont.

Turn 1 win
Kairos fateweaver + screaming bell.

You can houserule things into fun far more easily than you can houserule a poor ruleset into a tournament worthy one.

Beyond which, i'm sorry the unbelievably weird special rulesets is going to put off more new players than its going to bring in. Thanks for the special rules that reinforce the whole gamers are bad at not being weird as **** in public GW. I'm sure it will work out well for your new game when full grown adults are holding out chaices and proclaiming "FOR THE LADY". Not likely to get WTF looks and people edging away at all.

Nineswords
04-07-2015, 10:43
What I can't get my head round is the amount of negative comments based around a game YOU HAVEN'T ACTUALLY PLAYED YET. As a guy who lost interest in WHFB at 6th ed., I'm personally looking forward to having some quick, fun games with my friends. 4 page rules? Yes please. Rad models? Yup. Finally I don't need to have an encyclopaedic knowledge of every modifier, special rule etc. just to have a game. I for one hope this works for GW and I'm looking forward to having a few beers and playing several games in an afternoon.

Teurastaja
04-07-2015, 11:29
What I can't get my head round is the amount of negative comments based around a game YOU HAVEN'T ACTUALLY PLAYED YET. As a guy who lost interest in WHFB at 6th ed., I'm personally looking forward to having some quick, fun games with my friends. 4 page rules? Yes please. Rad models? Yup. Finally I don't need to have an encyclopaedic knowledge of every modifier, special rule etc. just to have a game. I for one hope this works for GW and I'm looking forward to having a few beers and playing several games in an afternoon.

I tried it. I hate it. My friends won't touch it. Even when I look at it as something new - I just think it's complete **** and waste of my time. There are far better games. For me it's not even a 'beer game'. Ruleset is lacking and too simple. Having to negotiate with my opponent seems like a waste of time. I can't just take my army and play with someone new. This may be a biggest sin of Age of Sigmar - it would be hard to create wider community around it, while basically every other wargame allows it.

Captain Idaho
04-07-2015, 11:43
I pressed yes by accident. Wrong button on my phone.

chris_dixon2004
04-07-2015, 11:57
Dude, you can get better tactical depth out of the box from a packet of Kleenex.
You sir are a genius

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I257 using Tapatalk

hobojebus
04-07-2015, 12:04
Never and anyone asking will be told to F off.

Azulthar
04-07-2015, 12:18
This "rule set" will only satisfy the most casual of players. And by that I don't mean "anybody but the WAAC players", I mean people who build armies purely on what they think looks cool.


I don't think we have many of those people on the forums.

DeathGlam
04-07-2015, 12:46
Im a casual player, never been to a tournament, never plan to go to a tournament and find the idea of the words Competitive and Wargaming being next to each other bizarre but i still want nothing to do with these rules, its obviously just not for me but i don't really understand where the fun comes from this set of rules, me and my opponents already have plenty of good natured banter in our games, we don't need to repeat the same tired old jokes game after game because it gives an in game benefit.

Im happy for anyone who does like it though, no hate from me on that, i will just personally stick to old editions of Warhammer at my club, maybe look into adapting my own Warhammer skirmish rules in the near future.

Pacman
04-07-2015, 12:58
I'm not normally one of these folks that predicts the end of the world whenever they change something in a new edition, but these rules are just plain bad.
I don't see anything in them out the warscrolls that lets a weaker unit beat a stronger one by outmanoeuvring it. So it's about fielding the biggest strongest unit you can and smashing into the front of the enemy, then rolling dice until all the minis are off the table. Yawn.
I don't play Saga because I don't like the lack of psych and morale in it, I like these AoS rules even less.
The lack of a sensible mechanism for force balancing (which doesn't always have to be points) is just bizarre. Warhammer isn't a historical game, it needs an artificial way of balancing forces.
Bottom line is that oldschool wargamers like me obviously aren't GWs target market, that makes me a little sad after all these years.

TheFang
04-07-2015, 13:11
No chance.

Utterly baffled as to how the ruleset ever got out of the studio.

Didn't anyone have the nerve to say "The rules are terrible." "We need point values or some way to select a vaguely balanced army." "All these funny warscrolls for existing units are really going to wind up our existing player base to psychotic levels."

Anyone know who designed it?

costa
04-07-2015, 13:15
AOS is so nonsense that actually by summing up the poll you get about 110%


damn, now fixed. It was Hylarious

Shandor
04-07-2015, 13:25
What I can't get my head round is the amount of negative comments based around a game YOU HAVEN'T ACTUALLY PLAYED YET. As a guy who lost interest in WHFB at 6th ed., I'm personally looking forward to having some quick, fun games with my friends. 4 page rules? Yes please. Rad models? Yup. Finally I don't need to have an encyclopaedic knowledge of every modifier, special rule etc. just to have a game. I for one hope this works for GW and I'm looking forward to having a few beers and playing several games in an afternoon.


Actualy i did PLAYED IT. Well if you want to call that Mess Playing. Its not even a Game its pure Comedy. Summoned 200 Models the first round and had the secound round too. Its such a joke.

Overtninja
04-07-2015, 13:34
Actualy i did PLAYED IT. Well if you want to call that Mess Playing. Its not even a Game its pure Comedy. Summoned 200 Models the first round and had the secound round too. Its such a joke.

So, you are That Guy. You figured the best way to test the game was to immediately do something that would so obviously ruin any attempt to enjoy the game by either party and called it a done deal.

What did you do, field Nagash or something?

Zywus
04-07-2015, 13:38
Almost 30% so far say they'll play it.

I'd imagined something like 10%. Maybe the game will have a chance. I can't for the life of me see what the appeal of AoS is, but the same could be said for that rap and RnB music or what it's called that the youngsters listen to and it's seems to be doing fine without me.:eyebrows:

gatsu
04-07-2015, 14:07
I could say that the rules are crap because I am really disapointed about GW, but scientifically the rules are crap. No way playing this but getting some new khorne miniatures for my 8th regiments when someone gets tired of AOS in one month and sells his miniatures on ebay? big yes!

SpaceGimli
04-07-2015, 14:10
This is not a game. This is a box of minis with a wacky pamphlet for children and cretins. So lame. So, so lame.

In all seriousness, could they have made this any worse? I'm not being funny here, can you actually think of a way that this 'game' could suck any more? Positive posters here reek of GW plants or employees to me, or those who run franchises and have just ordered 500 of this dog poop excuse for a wargame.

I was so going to order today until I did a bit of research about the new system. Models look like 40k, if I want 40k, I'll play 40k - I do not want to play 40k. The annoying wacky rules are so irritating. You'd have to be a total prat to find this stuff amusing. I have great fun playing wargames with my pals, sure I've probably even ridden the odd imaginary horse in my time - but to write this inane behaviour into the rules feels like the joke is on us.

HJFudge
04-07-2015, 14:18
Personally I will play. I dont know if I will like it or not till I try it.

But reading through the warscrolls for the old armies and the rules themselves, I really do like a lot of what they've done. Many of the units are just COOL now. As a Tomb King player, its also a SIZABLE power boost at first blush.

I very much dislike the lack of force organization and/or points costs but...we'll see. Also don't like how unclear the shooting phase is...as RAW says I can shoot even if I am in combat? Seems silly.

However.

A lot of the 'these rules are crap' complaints Im seeing are asinine things like 'BUT I CAN TAKE 30 BLOODTHIRSTERS HUR HUR' or 'Special Character + weird unit = game winning combo lolz'
Yes. You could. And if I wanted I could put a 'godmode' cheat in my favorite video game and play on super easy baby mode...but Id never do that since that'd defeat the point.

Also I like the funny rules. Obvs not gonna use or require em in a tournament.

MiyamatoMusashi
04-07-2015, 14:22
In all seriousness, could they have made this any worse? I'm not being funny here, can you actually think of a way that this 'game' could suck any more?

My hopes were high, but my expectations were low... and they've managed to wildly exceed my expectations, in the wrong direction. This is far, far worse than I ever could have imagined.

How could it be worse than it is now...? I'm struggling to think of anything. The rules look like the first draft of something; y'know, that you come up with on the first morning of a six month game design project... only they then skipped the rest of the six months. The unit scrolls are completely worthless, arbitrary and incomplete. It feels like a deliberate "**** you" to existing players, and it's very hard to think of anything worse than that. In fact, I think we've found it: the only possible way this release could have been any worse, was if the announcement they sent out by email would have been, "Dear Warhammer fans. **** you."

And nearly three in ten people still intend to play it! It boggles the mind. It's almost tempting to start another thread asking, "just what would GW have to do, before you admit that this isn't actually very good?" I think that may be what GW are experimenting with. At one extreme there's the "haters", at the other extreme there's the "fanboys", most people are somewhere in the middle (and move one way or the other depending on what GW do)... I reckon GW have asked themselves, "just how bad a product can we still put out, and still get people buying our stuff?"

Shandor
04-07-2015, 14:26
So, you are That Guy. You figured the best way to test the game was to immediately do something that would so obviously ruin any attempt to enjoy the game by either party and called it a done deal.

What did you do, field Nagash or something?

No i did field a Slann and 30 Temple Guard.
I didnt know it makes me "That Guy" sorry.

Tau_player001
04-07-2015, 14:31
No i won't. I enjoy games that allows for a somewhat fair game and rewards you for tactical/strategic thinking both.

Teurastaja
04-07-2015, 14:34
How could it be worse than it is now...? I'm struggling to think of anything. The rules look like the first draft of something; y'know, that you come up with on the first morning of a six month game design project... only they then skipped the rest of the six months. The unit scrolls are completely worthless, arbitrary and incomplete. It feels like a deliberate "**** you" to existing players, and it's very hard to think of anything worse than that. In fact, I think we've found it: the only possible way this release could have been any worse, was if the announcement they sent out by email would have been, "Dear Warhammer fans. **** you."

And nearly three in ten people still intend to play it! It boggles the mind. It's almost tempting to start another thread asking, "just what would GW have to do, before you admit that this isn't actually very good?" I think that may be what GW are experimenting with. At one extreme there's the "haters", at the other extreme there's the "fanboys", most people are somewhere in the middle (and move one way or the other depending on what GW do)... I reckon GW have asked themselves, "just how bad a product can we still put out, and still get people buying our stuff?"

You should start this thread, I'd like to know that too. I really don't think 3 in 10 people are actually interested in this 'game'. Some will just give it a try and stop there.

Harwammer
04-07-2015, 14:36
I'll try it. I used to play 40k in a very similar way (including no points) with one of my best pals as a drinking game before going out. Sadly we've grown up a bit since then (and don't live so close anymore), but if it was fun as a 40k variant I'm sure I can find someone who'll have a similar attitude.

I was never really one for pick up games, but I don't think these will happen anymore even if I wanted them to.

I guess at least this rule set is easy to get half interested spouses and siblings to play along with?

Shandor
04-07-2015, 14:38
However.

A lot of the 'these rules are crap' complaints Im seeing are asinine things like 'BUT I CAN TAKE 30 BLOODTHIRSTERS HUR HUR' or 'Special Character + weird unit = game winning combo lolz'
Yes. You could. And if I wanted I could put a 'godmode' cheat in my favorite video game and play on super easy baby mode...but Id never do that since that'd defeat the point.

Also I like the funny rules. Obvs not gonna use or require em in a tournament.

Well the problem isnt those fun comments about 30 Bloodthirsters. The Problem is you need to be extremly careful what you playing. If you play a common list from 8th Edition you might be a unfair Powergamer at the end. You playing a Unit that has summon abilitys, Archers, Special charakters.. you are cheating.
But if you put that aside.. its hard to make a match up thats fun to play. You just field what you want and your opponent fields what he wants you have a 99% Chance its a boring and unfair game.

Im not a Turney player myselve.. never joined one. But i like almost equal games. I could just beat some newbie kiddos all day but thats no fun. Same times its no fun to remove the half of my army the first turn against a Pro Player. But in AoS its really really hard to make an equal game.

HJFudge
04-07-2015, 14:42
Well the problem isnt those fun comments about 30 Bloodthirsters. The Problem is you need to be extremly careful what you playing. If you play a common list from 8th Edition you might be a unfair Powergamer at the end. You playing a Unit that has summon abilitys, Archers, Special charakters.. you are cheating.
But if you put that aside.. its hard to make a match up thats fun to play. You just field what you want and your opponent fields what he wants you have a 99% Chance its a boring and unfair game.

You may very well be absolutely right. I might play and end up thinking this is stupid and dumb.

But honestly? I think with a little self control from both parties and maybe a 'hey, dont take more than like 3 monster/warmachines, cool?' agreement beforehand or something, you could have some kickass games. No, you wouldnt wanna take the rules as they are now and run a tourney with em.

We will see. I got some games set up with my o&g buddy and my skaven buddy for later! Lets see how my new tomb kings fare, eh?

Gork or Possibly Mork
04-07-2015, 14:44
@Shandor unless i'm missing something the Slann can only cast three spells per round. It's not possible to summon as many models as you claimed in a round. At least not without multiple Slann.

Most of the summon troops spells will only get you 10 at a time and that's if you even meet the casting value & doesn't get dispelled. For 20 the casting value is 11+ on a 2d6.

Tau_player001
04-07-2015, 14:44
It's not about self control. You don't have a valued guideline to really make that judgement, so everything is up in the air.

The only way to really having a balanced fair game would be a mirror game.

HJFudge
04-07-2015, 14:53
It's not about self control. You don't have a valued guideline to really make that judgement, so everything is up in the air.

The only way to really having a balanced fair game would be a mirror game.

I do have a valued guideline though. I know, for instance, that a Chaos Warrior is going to beat a Goblin on a model for model basis. Its not a guess! Its statistics. So that being said, I know if I take 30 chaos warriors against my buddies 30 goblins...all else being equal? The goblins are toast. It wont be fun. It wont be interesting. I dont need a point value system to tell me this. Yes, some cases are much harder to judge. But...figuring it out is kinda fun for me. I like to experiment, see what works and what doesnt.

That being said, YES I wouldve liked more structure to things. I hope they put out some soon, but if all else fails I houseruled some **** in about an hour that probably isnt very balanced but it works as a framework. We'll just use that.

EDIT: And who said I wanted a completely balanced game? I like a bit of asymmetry in my matches. Plus, its never fair when people face the tactical genius that is me >:) (kidding)

Aelfric
04-07-2015, 15:01
I still hope this is all kind of a joke ... .

MiyamatoMusashi
04-07-2015, 15:02
I still hope this is all kind of a joke ... .

Says the person whose first four letters of their name are "Aelf". You're one of them, aren't you? :shifty:

;)

Malagor
04-07-2015, 15:02
When I heard about fantasy being dead and a new game will take it's place, I was naturally upset.
When we started to get word on actual rules with the no points value, warscrolls and free rules, I was interested, figuring that I would check this out.
But now that the rules are out and I had a look at my armies, I can safely say, no, I will not play this.
It's stupid and a mess really. I can play 8e out of the box just fine, no need to decide on which rules to use or how we are suppose to make our armies or anything like that. Just decide on a point value and play.
All I can hope is that this bombs badly so that they won't do the same to 40k.

Nubl0
04-07-2015, 15:03
Frankly the game isnt really a "game". That said some of the special rules are kinda nifty like the carnosaurs grappling attacks. Anyway I think I'll just stick with 8th and WMH/LOTR for my skirmish fix. Seriously guys give LOTR a go, its a fantastic game. Heck easy enoguh to make up some rules for your warhammer stuff if you dont just wanna keep playign 8th.

malisteen
04-07-2015, 15:09
I'd like to. I actually enjoy goofy ******** rules, much as i can understand those who hate them. But without any points system or equivalent to provide any sort of baseline for matching up lists, i just don't really see how i can.

sorberec
04-07-2015, 15:11
Haven't read any of the other posts here (TLDR). At the moment I'm just not enthused about Age of Sigmar. I didn't want a brand new game, I wanted a 9th edition that was an evolution of 8th edition. Right now a skirmish game just doesn't interest me (I'd have jumped ship years ago if I wanted a skirmish game) and I don't know if I'm going to be able to carry on using the models I've sunk a lot of money and time into unless I can find other local players willing to carry on with 8th or start a new game like KoW.

Maybe I'll feel differently in a month or two but right now I'm practically on a rage quit (which is funny because I was even buying bits to finish off units I'm in the process of building as recently as last Sunday and then the rules leaked)

shelfunit.
04-07-2015, 15:23
No. Following GWs own naming formula, this looks craep.

rob451
04-07-2015, 15:32
I gave it a little playtest then wrote it off forever.

The "Simpler" rules just aren't. The lack of clarity and amount of permissiveness in the ruleset means that you spend more time trying to figure out how something works than you did in 8th.

The core rules for 8th edition could be fit onto 4 sheets of A4 if you took out all the diagrams, artwork, special rules, magic, weapons, examples and rambling.

In my playtests the game length goes up exponentially the more units you add (not so much models) where with 8th edition the time to play grew pretty much linearly with points. Tactics and strategy didn't come into it at all even when identical forces faced off against each other there was no maneuvering, no baiting or shielding units and everything resulted in a single big fight determined entirely by luck not strategy. Battleshock at several points saw the "Winning" units in a combat lose more models than the "Losers" because they rolled a 6 and the losers rolled a 1.

Being able to move, shoot and charge made fast units with shooting attacks far exceed everything else. Either one player just bum rushes the other and destroys their units one at a time (pro-tip multiple minimal sized units is by far the best strategy to make your opponent waste attacks) or it devolves into a single big fight that goes on forever.

In comparison to this mess of just rolling dice and taking models off the board 8th edition is a simplistic masterpiece of games design which plays faster (movement trays and no pile-in moves make calculating attack numbers easier) and has actual strategy to it.

To be honest all 8th ever needed was an overhaul of magic (I like the Heroic Phase it's basically "Start of Turn" but codified), rules for allowing ALL units to skirmish with pros/cons to skirmish vs ranked and just making War machines etc roll to hit.

The Blue Knight
04-07-2015, 15:39
I don't post much but I have to post on this topic.

I was honestly gonna give it a try, and was going to pre-order the set today, as I was sincerely believing that GW was going to historically continue to produce a good game.

However upon having played this hot mess at my local store and hearing the absolute tripe being proffed on the product, I am very despondent.

This is not a game it is a system to put your minis on parade on a table that some how incorporates the rolling of dice.

At this date, I don't foresee me playing.

blindingdark
04-07-2015, 15:41
They have destroyed a game I have held an interest in for two decades. I held out commenting until the set showed up thinking it might be ok, but they have truly just binned it all. I cannot believe anyone working for GW thought this was a sound idea. It was monstrously stupid. I find the waste of decades worth of lore, customers, history and reputation to be incomprehensible. It makes no sense at all.

I'd add that through all the years they have often made choices I have found stupid, and felt a similar way when 40k entered third edition, but at least the lore remained intact, even if I didn't like the direction of the rules. Here, they have abandoned both.

ShruikhanTK
04-07-2015, 15:45
My hopes were high, but my expectations were low... and they've managed to wildly exceed my expectations, in the wrong direction. This is far, far worse than I ever could have imagined.

How could it be worse than it is now...? I'm struggling to think of anything. The rules look like the first draft of something; y'know, that you come up with on the first morning of a six month game design project... only they then skipped the rest of the six months. The unit scrolls are completely worthless, arbitrary and incomplete. It feels like a deliberate "**** you" to existing players, and it's very hard to think of anything worse than that. In fact, I think we've found it: the only possible way this release could have been any worse, was if the announcement they sent out by email would have been, "Dear Warhammer fans. **** you."

And nearly three in ten people still intend to play it! It boggles the mind. It's almost tempting to start another thread asking, "just what would GW have to do, before you admit that this isn't actually very good?" I think that may be what GW are experimenting with. At one extreme there's the "haters", at the other extreme there's the "fanboys", most people are somewhere in the middle (and move one way or the other depending on what GW do)... I reckon GW have asked themselves, "just how bad a product can we still put out, and still get people buying our stuff?"

dear warhammer fans....**** you! LMAO. I could totally imagine that too, with a lovely Games Workshop title at the top with a nice fantasy border and fancy letter font.

Ramius4
04-07-2015, 15:49
If you handed me a $20, I still wouldn't bother to play this with you. That's how bad I think it looks.

ShruikhanTK
04-07-2015, 15:53
If you handed me a $20, I still wouldn't bother to play this with you. That's how bad I think it looks.

what if I paid you in square bases? just a little used thats all, they still good promise!

shelfunit.
04-07-2015, 15:54
If you handed me a $20, I still wouldn't bother to play this with you. That's how bad I think it looks.

I'd take the money, then ride out of the shop on my imaginary horse crying "for the lady!" and buy the wife a nice bottle of wine.

dark devil
04-07-2015, 16:08
I haven't played in years and i thought maybe this would bring me back, then i started reading the scrolls and have decided to let my army rest in their cardboard graves.

Tau_player001
04-07-2015, 16:13
I do have a valued guideline though. I know, for instance, that a Chaos Warrior is going to beat a Goblin on a model for model basis. Its not a guess! Its statistics. So that being said, I know if I take 30 chaos warriors against my buddies 30 goblins...all else being equal? The goblins are toast. It wont be fun. It wont be interesting. I dont need a point value system to tell me this. Yes, some cases are much harder to judge. But...figuring it out is kinda fun for me. I like to experiment, see what works and what doesnt.

That being said, YES I wouldve liked more structure to things. I hope they put out some soon, but if all else fails I houseruled some **** in about an hour that probably isnt very balanced but it works as a framework. We'll just use that.

EDIT: And who said I wanted a completely balanced game? I like a bit of asymmetry in my matches. Plus, its never fair when people face the tactical genius that is me >:) (kidding)
There is a big difference between qualitative and quantitative measurements. And well, i don't need to agree in whatever you expect from a game.

Col. Tartleton
04-07-2015, 16:21
I think Age of Sigmar would be a good setting to play some fun Storm of Magic games. You know, with rules, and point costs, and square bases.

samael
04-07-2015, 16:25
I never participate in the "funny" games people tend to play during family gatherings like christmas and such. I am now tempted to call my sister in law who loves that crap and tell her that I have a couple of armies for sale. Then she is set for the next family gathering and they can scream and dance an be oh so silly to their hearts content. I myself will not touch this abomination of a game with a 10 foot pole

Shandor
04-07-2015, 16:30
I gave it a little playtest then wrote it off forever.

The "Simpler" rules just aren't. The lack of clarity and amount of permissiveness in the ruleset means that you spend more time trying to figure out how something works than you did in 8th.

The core rules for 8th edition could be fit onto 4 sheets of A4 if you took out all the diagrams, artwork, special rules, magic, weapons, examples and rambling.

In my playtests the game length goes up exponentially the more units you add (not so much models) where with 8th edition the time to play grew pretty much linearly with points. Tactics and strategy didn't come into it at all even when identical forces faced off against each other there was no maneuvering, no baiting or shielding units and everything resulted in a single big fight determined entirely by luck not strategy. Battleshock at several points saw the "Winning" units in a combat lose more models than the "Losers" because they rolled a 6 and the losers rolled a 1.

Being able to move, shoot and charge made fast units with shooting attacks far exceed everything else. Either one player just bum rushes the other and destroys their units one at a time (pro-tip multiple minimal sized units is by far the best strategy to make your opponent waste attacks) or it devolves into a single big fight that goes on forever.

In comparison to this mess of just rolling dice and taking models off the board 8th edition is a simplistic masterpiece of games design which plays faster (movement trays and no pile-in moves make calculating attack numbers easier) and has actual strategy to it.

To be honest all 8th ever needed was an overhaul of magic (I like the Heroic Phase it's basically "Start of Turn" but codified), rules for allowing ALL units to skirmish with pros/cons to skirmish vs ranked and just making War machines etc roll to hit.

Quote because its very true

Haravikk
04-07-2015, 16:44
I'll give it a try at least; the rules are promising, but they make some really weird decisions for no obvious reason, namely totally ignoring a model's base. In fact, ignoring the base actually makes things more complicated; while the intent seems to be to eliminate the need for turning rules, having to keep track of whether any part of your model has moved too far is a silly way to achieve this, to me measuring from the base is much more intuitive and avoids issues with model size, conversions etc., and since there's nothing in the rules that requires a facing there seems to be no need to have turning rules anyway.


The thing I like best are the war scrolls; in fact the war scrolls compendiums are some of the most fluffy and fun rules I've seen for many of the armies. Wood Elves for example have powerful dryads once more, with what looks like great synergy with the elves themselves, plus fun little rules like bewitching an enemy unit or form thorny shields. Bretonians have also got some pretty sweet rules this time around, with peasantry that are a force to be reckoned with in addition to the heroic knights (who now finally all have two Wounds as standard once more).

I also quite like where magic now stands; there's randomness, but nothing too extreme, with spells mostly being supplementary rather than overly game-changing (except for some of the more powerful characters).


I think the strangest thing is the changes to Lizardmen; they seem to be basically the Order faction's equivalent of daemons, which seems weird. Also, you could technically deploy nothing by Slaan and then just summon a whole army in the first turn. I could understand them rebranding the Lizardmen to oppose daemons more directly later on, but doing it now is pretty strange when we don't know anything about what's happened to them yet.

Coldhatred
04-07-2015, 17:04
I'd take the money, then ride out of the shop on my imaginary horse crying "for the lady!" and buy the wife a nice bottle of wine.

Aaaaaaand in my signature. Well done, sir, well done! :)

Ramius4
04-07-2015, 17:11
what if I paid you in square bases? just a little used thats all, they still good promise!

I might consider it then, those bases aren't nearly as cheap as they once were ;)


I'd take the money, then ride out of the shop on my imaginary horse crying "for the lady!" and buy the wife a nice bottle of wine.

:p Good show

Treadhead_1st
04-07-2015, 17:20
Unlikely. This could have been good. I was looking forwards to it, albeit with a little apprehension. My partner recently expressed an interest in gaming and I thought this would be a great way to start a new army for myself and play decent small games as we built our respective collections. Then I read the Warscrolls...:wtf:?

Haravikk
04-07-2015, 17:30
Unlikely. This could have been good. I was looking forwards to it, albeit with a little apprehension. My partner recently expressed an interest in gaming and I thought this would be a great way to start a new army for myself and play decent small games as we built our respective collections. Then I read the Warscrolls...:wtf:?
What do you find wrong with the war scrolls? I can understand issues of balance in army selection, but personally I think a lot of the war scrolls are done pretty well, the main issue with the rules I think is how you handle balance with your opponents; personally I expect to be employing the "seriously?" method, if my opponent deploys something is clearly too powerful for a balanced game, then they get a derisive "seriously?" at which point they can either put it away or find another opponent, simple :)

Holier Than Thou
04-07-2015, 17:31
I will never play this abomination, it's like they want Age of Sigmar to push Pass The Parcel off the top of the children's party games chart. I'm sure their new target customers in the 6 years + range will have a great time with it.

Mr_Foulscumm
04-07-2015, 17:33
Nope, there are better games out there for me to spend my time and money on! :)

Holier Than Thou
04-07-2015, 17:39
What do you find wrong with the war scrolls? I can understand issues of balance in army selection, but personally I think a lot of the war scrolls are done pretty well, the main issue with the rules I think is how you handle balance with your opponents; personally I expect to be employing the "seriously?" method, if my opponent deploys something is clearly too powerful for a balanced game, then they get a derisive "seriously?" at which point they can either put it away or find another opponent, simple :)

But that's the point, if GW have specifically said in the "rules" that you can use whatever you want then why would you have a problem with someone following these "rules"? That's what points costs are for, they enable you to take something powerful but as a result the rest of your army is comparatively weaker. Age of Sigmar takes that handicap away with the whole "take whatever you want, we don't care." ************.

Laniston
04-07-2015, 17:51
Yeah........no. If I want to play an embarrassing game I'll play Quelf with my nieces. Actually has tighter rules anyways.

Also they took away Hierotitans and I'm miffed about it.

Nightfall Shimmer
04-07-2015, 17:53
Looks like fun. And my friends are interested. Yes I'll play. None of them own any Greater Daemons or Dragons anyway! Worst I'll be fighting is probably Thorgrimm Grudgebearer and a Zillion Slayers. (I have a friend who really loves his slayers)

Gork or Possibly Mork
04-07-2015, 18:08
I played a quick test game of it and it was 'kinda' fun but not something that would hold my interest for very long. There are things i like about it but i hated the movement ( especially if u play a big game ) and i much rather the combat system of Real Hammer tm. The game tends to go fairly smoothly then it's just a big messy pile up that looks like someone took a dump in the middle of the table. lol.

Things i do like....

Updated setting and armies of AOS.
Simplified statistics already laid out on the Warscrolls.
Simplified shooting & magic of AOS although i don't like shooting into combat or being able to shoot and charge in the same round.
Simplified special rules of warscrolls.
Streamlined new phase sequence, special rules and hero combination synergy on warscrolls. Although i don't like the random turn thing.

Basically i really like the concept of warscrolls, the simplified special rules, turn sequence, shooting and magic but i hate the movement, the crappy pile up combat and the battle shock method of resolving combats.

I would hope this was all a GW market research social experiment and they will make a Age of Steel hybrid version eventually keeping the movement, combat res, army composition of 8th along with the new setting, updated armies, streamlined stats on warscrolls, special rules, shooting, magic and hero synergy from AOS.

Kyriakin
04-07-2015, 18:17
The game tends to go fairly smoothly then it's just a big messy pile up that looks like someone took a dump in the middle of the table.
I have read/seen three battle reports now, plus two anecdotal games (including yours) and all seemed to become a big rugby scrum in the middle of the table and roll a load of dice.

Treadhead_1st
04-07-2015, 18:23
What do you find wrong with the war scrolls? I can understand issues of balance in army selection, but personally I think a lot of the war scrolls are done pretty well, the main issue with the rules I think is how you handle balance with your opponents; personally I expect to be employing the "seriously?" method, if my opponent deploys something is clearly too powerful for a balanced game, then they get a derisive "seriously?" at which point they can either put it away or find another opponent, simple :)

The ton of special rules/abilities for each unit; the fact that you can take as many standard bearers and musicians (each called by many different names even within the same army) as you want - even having each model take both; the lack of upper unit sizes (let's not mention even mention points) and completely moronic forced "humour".

The way unit entries are written is abysmal: 'Some Princes are armed with a magical Starblade, while others wield a larger Enchanted Polearm, such as a halberd or a spear. If riding to war, a Prince may instead slay his foes with a mighty Star Lance. Many High Elf Princes fight with an Enchanted Shield for protection, while others prefer instead to carry a magical Reaver Bow to shoot their foes from afar...Some Princes ride to battle on Elven Purebreeds...' How nice for them. The Prince's Starblade is also different to the Prince on Griffon's Starblade, which is just awesome :shifty:.

Rules like those for Dwarf Thanes and Kurt Hellborg have pissed my partner off as well.

It could have been awesome - the difference between Elven Shields and Crypt Shields is cool and thematic. The way the profiles work definitely has potential and after playing Warmachine I like the rules for weapons (where they make sense - a thrown Prosecutor hammer has the same range as Bow). Although the main rules are much simpler there is still room for tactical play. I was even interested in some of the changing background (totally called the "bubbles" being more like Yggdrassil as presented in Thor 2!). The execution and "funny" inclusions have wrecked it for me though.

Gork or Possibly Mork
04-07-2015, 18:41
I have read/seen three battle reports now, plus two anecdotal games (including yours) and all seemed to become a big rugby scrum in the middle of the table and roll a load of dice.

To be fair sometimes 8th edition games could become that as well :p

but at least it was much neater looking, the units could flee, be caught or chased and change the direction of the battlefield opening up ever changing flow and tactical considerations.

Age of Sigmars pile-up combat kinda turns into Mel Brooks history of the world "jump the queen" scene.......GANGBANG!!!.....lol

Not really my cup of tea for a wargame. Granted i played a smaller game so i can see how it could be slightly different for a larger one but movement in AOS on large scale would be a chore not to mention i'd be afraid for my models taking real world damage when the pile up happens.

Voss
04-07-2015, 18:52
What do you find wrong with the war scrolls? I can understand issues of balance in army selection, but personally I think a lot of the war scrolls are done pretty well, the main issue with the rules I think is how you handle balance with your opponents; personally I expect to be employing the "seriously?" method, if my opponent deploys something is clearly too powerful for a balanced game, then they get a derisive "seriously?" at which point they can either put it away or find another opponent, simple :)

All sorts of things. The inconsistencies with gear, the inability to compare anything by eye, but mostly it is little things, like the exponential power curve. 10 crossbowmen are OK. 20 crossbowmen are 4x as better, because that 20th model lets all the crossbowmen shoot twice. Same with units like state troops. They all get +3 to hit when unit size is 40+? There is no '1s always miss' rule. So 40 halberdiers hit automatically. Because... reasons?

Haravikk
04-07-2015, 19:04
The ton of special rules/abilities for each unit; the fact that you can take as many standard bearers and musicians (each called by many different names even within the same army) as you want - even having each model take both; the lack of upper unit sizes (let's not mention even mention points)
This part of the larger issue of army selection, but really it's limited by sense and the need to actually have opponents; sure you could have every model in your unit be a champion, standard bearer and musician, but would your opponent be happy to let you play like that? Since the wound allocation is handled by the player that owns the unit, it makes no sense to have multiple standard bearers etc. since you can simply remove them last anyway. The only advantage is if you make a single character take on all special roles (assuming you can build it to convincingly adopt that role), and again, how many opponents will be happy to let you do this just so you can't lose a single bonus by removing them last?

Points costs are certainly an omission, and I can't help but feel that some kind of power rating system would have been nice to serve as a loose guideline, it again comes down to what your opponent is willing to let you get away with. Besides, GW hasn't exactly been great at costing things appropriately anyway, so if they just don't supply points costs then it's one less thing for them to mess up.

I do agree with others that the lack of implicit balance is uncomfortable, but at the same time it should be pretty obvious if one player is more concerned with winning than having a fun game. It's not so much that the rules can be exploited, but that if your opponent does so, then you've only yourself to blame if you play them anyway. If they defend their abuse as being "rules as written" then what they want isn't a game for fun, and they'd probably be a miserable person to play against anyway.


The way unit entries are written is abysmal: 'Some Princes are armed with a magical Starblade, while others wield a larger Enchanted Polearm, such as a halberd or a spear. If riding to war, a Prince may instead slay his foes with a mighty Star Lance. Many High Elf Princes fight with an Enchanted Shield for protection, while others prefer instead to carry a magical Reaver Bow to shoot their foes from afar...Some Princes ride to battle on Elven Purebreeds...' How nice for them. The Prince's Starblade is also different to the Prince on Griffon's Starblade, which is just awesome :shifty:.
I think this is mainly a side-effect of supporting old units; if you take a look at the entries for the starter set units the war scrolls are for that particular unit; in future I expect any multi-part kits will allow you to build one of several war-scrolls, so there won't be any need for that kind of verbosity.


Rules like those for Dwarf Thanes and Kurt Hellborg have pissed my partner off as well.
Why? The rule doesn't say you need to grow the beard/moustache yourself; just make one out of paper/cardboard, buy a fake one. Hell, the rulings are subjective anyway (what constitutes a better moustache/beard?), but what they do do is inject a bit of the character and humour of the Warhammer setting and I think that's great. If it's not for you then just agree with your opponent to either ignore the bonus, or always apply it (ignoring the conditions); but IMO humour in the game is what keeps it fun and helps to avoid grumpy player syndrome when the dice are in the mood for betrayal. Remember, the most important rule is that if an issue arises you find the best, or most fun, solution that you and your opponent can agree to.



I do dislike the loss of units breaking from combat and fleeing; this seems to be the main culprit of the rugby scrum finished; I'll probably be playing with house rules to measure from bases and have units flee if they lose too many wounds in a single turn, either that or let units disengage from combat, as units falling back (intentionally or not) was a big part of the tactics of the previous editions and gave the battlefield more fluidity. So far AoS seems to result in your units eventually just getting stuck and that's it, at which point the tactical element is gone. But I do like War Scrolls, and I feel that many of the new lists for existing armies are very well done, with many characterful and fluffy rules.

[edit]
I also forgot my favourite thing about the War Scrolls; Dwarf Miners can now field those many, many spare mine-cart models they come with!

Voss
04-07-2015, 19:11
Ah, are we smacking the other player with a label for being a miserable person already? It has to be their abuse of the rules, right?

I'll suggest it again. Make two 8th edition armies of equal points, and spin them through the AoS blender. Are they equal? Are they sane? Fun for everyone? How can you tell? You need to be able to, real quick, because that will be the benchmark many players will use for what is 'reasonable,' even if you disagree. And in many cases they're going to find that they aren't reasonable at all, as the Empire player will find his big blocks of state troops suddenly auto-hit, and putting two support regiments of handgunners or crossbows together is _vastly_ superior to keeping them apart.

Or are you going to suggest that the big block units that 8th encouraged are now unreasonable?

Nightfall Shimmer
04-07-2015, 19:21
If you are worried about getting an even battle against a random stranger, then your playing the wrong game for that if your playing Age of Sigmar...

Or you could just 'eyeball it' and maybe even interact with your opponent! What you consider equal and what he considers equal might not BE equal, but there is this thing called a Compromise, where both players can sort of adjust things between your 'equal' and his 'equal' for a little more balance.

Will it be hard at first? Yes. But after a few games I'm sure we'll start getting a feel for how powerful things are in comparison.

Haravikk
04-07-2015, 19:32
Or are you going to suggest that the big block units that 8th encouraged are now unreasonable?
Only if only a single player is taking them. If you're playing a big battle then both players should feel free to take bigger units, but if your opponent is taking special characters and elites every time you field a basic infantry, then it should be pretty obvious there's a balance issue. That said, a lot of weaker units actually have some interesting rules that balance them at least a bit better towards the same number of elites, there's a lot of interesting synergy effects from characters that we've yet to fully explore too, but I think so long as both players have similarly sized armies, and neither has taken a ton of special characters or heroes on monsters then the game is close enough to be fun.

Also you example of putting handgunners and crossbows together isn't clear on whether that's a unit or not; you bought and built those as two separate units, so why do you suddenly think it's okay to join them into one unit, and expect your opponent to let you do that? If you wouldn't let someone do the same to you, then why expect them to let you do it?

shin'keiro
04-07-2015, 19:47
I was willing to try it, but not now. It's back to Warmachine and Oldhammer for me. If they do the same with 40k/30k I'm finished with GW for good.

No from me... and as you say.. I really hope they don't do this with 40k.

The rules are obviously aimed at the child community, which is fair enough, but I think 40k has a far more adult community anyway. The new Space Marine dex has just come out, so we're probably safe for 2 to 3 years?

rob451
04-07-2015, 19:51
An overlooked rule in AoS is that Pile in moves are optional. You don't have to do it. If you want to keep your battles from devolving into a messy scrum in the imddle of the table and want to speed the movement up I suggest keeping all your models on square bases, putting them on movement trays and forming ranks! It makes the game much faster to play.

It's not any more fun to play but it does mean the game is over quicker so that's a plus right?

rob451
04-07-2015, 19:54
No from me... and as you say.. I really hope they don't do this with 40k.

The rules are obviously aimed at the child community, which is fair enough, but I think 40k has a far more adult community anyway. The new Space Marine dex has just come out, so we're probably safe for 2 to 3 years?

Really? There wasn't even 3 years between 6th and 7th edition 40k after all. We could be due a new 40k edition as soon as next May!

7th edition is already a mess though but it's a profitable mess so they may leave it alone.

Voss
04-07-2015, 19:54
Also you example of putting handgunners and crossbows together isn't clear on whether that's a unit or not; you bought and built those as two separate units, so why do you suddenly think it's okay to join them into one unit, and expect your opponent to let you do that? If you wouldn't let someone do the same to you, then why expect them to let you do it?
Uh... what? I don't understand anything you just said. All big units have to come out of multiple boxes. If you think you can't mix multiple boxes of models, there is no way to get big units at all, and those unit size bonuses of 20/30/40 can never happen and might as well not exist.

ModelCalamity
04-07-2015, 20:02
So I have played a few games today against mostly complete new fantasy players and....


I had a great time. I have been away from wargaming a lot (played maybe 3 games of 8th. But have been painting some stuff. But have been almost 99% been focused on boardgames.

I really enjoyed myself and I could see the others were too. We started with just a few units but moved to mostly battalions warscrolls after that.

I think none of the old "knowledge" applied. So I was really surprised at how resilient units of 10 skeleton warriors could be.

All in all I am looking forward to play some more tomorrow. (I played more games today than the last 5 years)

isthatnew?
04-07-2015, 20:20
Will I try it? Possibly. Will I play it in it's present form for any length of time? Nah it's complete ********...

Teurastaja
04-07-2015, 20:44
After reading many posts and looking one more time at some warscrolls my rage is turning into paranoia. I almost can't belive this game is really that bad. What if it's only some weird marketing trick that gone terribly, terribly wrong, as some people suggest? And next week we'll see real rules...that will seem fun...and acceptable...:shifty: Argh, I'm going insane...

Baragash
04-07-2015, 21:18
If you handed me a $20, I still wouldn't bother to play this with you. That's how bad I think it looks.

Sounds to me like you're scared of Ogres and you're just trying to meta-game them out of your potential opponent pool :p

Solid no from me, not a mass battle game = not interested. I've got Darklands for this specific niche and I'd rather play Malifaux, Batman or X-wing.

And the shame for me is that there's the potential in what's been released that it could have been a great game - take out silly rules (both the charade-style ones and the crazy broken ones), add in army selection and points values and it would have been an excellent heroic skirmish set. Unfortunately that's not like falling 5% short, it's more like falling 70% short to me. I think this just ended my association with GW products.

Knarg
04-07-2015, 21:32
My friends and I are planning on it. Reading Warseer gave us concerns for a bit, but then we remembered that the attitude around here is generally more emotional and negative than the real world experience by an order of magnitude.

Haravikk
04-07-2015, 21:35
Uh... what? I don't understand anything you just said. All big units have to come out of multiple boxes. If you think you can't mix multiple boxes of models, there is no way to get big units at all, and those unit size bonuses of 20/30/40 can never happen and might as well not exist.
No, what I'm saying is that presumably your handgunners and crossbows are currently separate units, so what makes you think that these should suddenly be mashed together onto a single war-scroll, and why should your opponent let you do that? The war scrolls for older units basically describe what that unit might look like, and then proceed to give what you need in order to play it; i.e- they're for existing units, rather than new ones.

Okay, so in the mean time we're going to have an awkward interim where thinks are a bit muddy, but if you look at the war scrolls for the new units, these are for specific units with fixed equipment, differing only in size. It's very likely that as different armies are re-released any kits with equipment options will be reboxed (or replaced) with a kit that contains a choice of war-scrolls. To stick with the example, an Empire kit might contain separate war scrolls for Crossbowmen and Handgunners, describing what each should be equipped with to qualify for that war scroll.

Put another way, the war scrolls for previous armies are intended to adapt your existing units to the new rules; you can add or remove models of the same time to change the size, but I doubt you're supposed to be mashing units together to exploit the range of options a single scroll has been written to represent. Basically if you look at a unit and its equipment matches a war-scrolls description, then that's the scroll you use. Newer scrolls will provide the actual template for the units you can add to your armies.

Voss
04-07-2015, 21:43
No, what I'm saying is that presumably your handgunners and crossbows are currently separate units, so what makes you think that these should suddenly be mashed together onto a single war-scroll, and why should your opponent let you do that? The war scrolls for older units basically describe what that unit might look like, and then proceed to give what you need in order to play it; i.e- they're for existing units, rather than new ones.

You're still not making any sense. There was no restriction on having big units of missile troops. You can have a 30 strong unit of crossbowmen, or a 10 strong. The new rules just incentivize large units of missile troops, where the old rules didn't. Previously, if you wanted a unit of 100 crossbows you could do that, it was just kind of dumb. If you want 100 crossbows now, AoS now tells you that you should totally do that. Have a 100 extra shots on top.

There is no mashing units together. Unless you think that in 8th edition people shouldn't have bought an island of blood set and two boxes of clanrats to form 2 40 strong units rather than 4 20 strong units because it was 'wrong somehow.'

You sound like you're seriously arguing that if you wrote down a unit size (or indeed, an entire army list) on a piece of paper once, you're stuck using it that way forever, which is bonkers nonsense.

Gork or Possibly Mork
04-07-2015, 22:07
The rules are obviously aimed at the child community, which is fair enough, but I think 40k has a far more adult community anyway. \

Really? See i always thought 40K was the nerdy kids that put their toys on the table and went pew..pew..pew. :p While the fantasy community were the grown adult nerdy kids that put theirs toys on the table and yelled...Lighting bolt.....lightning bolt. lol

Rakariel
04-07-2015, 22:08
Will I try it? Yes I will, but only when doing a fun brawl which involves some serious drinking along side it and without caring if I win or lose.

Will I keep playing it? Definitly no. This is something that should have been promoted as a complete self contained beginners game to get new people hooked while openly confirming rules would be released in the near future to allow competitive, and most of all, serious, balanced play. I`m no powergamer at all, only doing tourneys once in a while, but without any resemblance of balance this game has a very fast expiration date. If AoS stays as it is at the moment our gaming community will probably keep playing 8th or move on to something else like KoW.

Treadhead_1st
04-07-2015, 22:18
This part of the larger issue of army selection, but really it's limited by sense and the need to actually have opponents; sure you could have every model in your unit be a champion, standard bearer and musician, but would your opponent be happy to let you play like that? Since the wound allocation is handled by the player that owns the unit, it makes no sense to have multiple standard bearers etc. since you can simply remove them last anyway. The only advantage is if you make a single character take on all special roles (assuming you can build it to convincingly adopt that role), and again, how many opponents will be happy to let you do this just so you can't lose a single bonus by removing them last?

The thing is though, it is how the scrolls are written. You say it is to cover existing/archaic units, but no previous unit had multiple standard bearers/musicians. Instead of saying "One model may..." they say "Models may be standard bearers", double plural so it is clearly intentional, in units that have special effects tied to these upgrades say "any" rather than "a" too. Why include it if it is both unreasonable and not for reasons of backwards compatibility?


Points costs are certainly an omission, and I can't help but feel that some kind of power rating system would have been nice to serve as a loose guideline, it again comes down to what your opponent is willing to let you get away with. Besides, GW hasn't exactly been great at costing things appropriately anyway, so if they just don't supply points costs then it's one less thing for them to mess up.

It is not just that, but with all of the additional rules that pile on at certain unit sizes it is really difficult to tell if forces are balanced. With the old points system it was easier to tell - we knew roughly how many High Elf Archers and Spearmen compared to Skeleton Warriors and Banshees. Now the profiles are totally different (no more Toughness/Weapon Skill affecting match-ups); 10 Skeletons are worse than 20 Skeletons and much worse than 30 as the latter get additional attacks yet are all the same "cost"; and how does that compare to any number of Archers that have also gained an ability to double their shots once per game and get re-rolls if they don't move?

For any sort of escalation collecting the lack of points is seriously problematic. Is purchasing paired units fair now? Will one box of Grave Guard match one box of Phoenix Guard as they are the same "cost" of 1 Warscroll, both elite infantry and both 10-strong?


I do agree with others that the lack of implicit balance is uncomfortable, but at the same time it should be pretty obvious if one player is more concerned with winning than having a fun game. It's not so much that the rules can be exploited, but that if your opponent does so, then you've only yourself to blame if you play them anyway. If they defend their abuse as being "rules as written" then what they want isn't a game for fun, and they'd probably be a miserable person to play against anyway.

Some of us are not so lucky with choice of opponents and have to play at local stores against random people rather than amongst friends or in a gaming group with regular membership. If playing with my partner we want to keep the cost low and the game fair on a month-by-month basis. See above for some problems with determining what counts as "abuse", but some of the rules directly encourage abuse - in the most literal form take a look at Wulfric the Wanderer, who tells you to be as mocking, rude and insulting as you dare.


I think this is mainly a side-effect of supporting old units; if you take a look at the entries for the starter set units the war scrolls are for that particular unit; in future I expect any multi-part kits will allow you to build one of several war-scrolls, so there won't be any need for that kind of verbosity.

Not really - they have split off profiles for Princes on Dragons and Princes on Griffons, but not Princes on Steeds. All the mounted models have access to completely different types of lances which can get confusing as hell. Without any defined "costs" the equipment options weird. With the clear-as-mud explanations it can be confusing as to what equipment a model can actually take. If in the future they remove *any* customisation from the profiles to limit the verbosity then what is the point of having multi-part models and why encourage conversions in their scant media - particularly if we are accept that these new, less robust rules are because they are a model/hobby focused company rather than a games company.


Why? The rule doesn't say you need to grow the beard/moustache yourself; just make one out of paper/cardboard, buy a fake one. Hell, the rulings are subjective anyway (what constitutes a better moustache/beard?), but what they do do is inject a bit of the character and humour of the Warhammer setting and I think that's great. If it's not for you then just agree with your opponent to either ignore the bonus, or always apply it (ignoring the conditions); but IMO humour in the game is what keeps it fun and helps to avoid grumpy player syndrome when the dice are in the mood for betrayal. Remember, the most important rule is that if an issue arises you find the best, or most fun, solution that you and your opponent can agree to.

Mostly because of the exclusionary language. For example, a woman who occasionally needs a wheelchair is not best pleased by rules telling them to have a beard/moustache or dance. For those with experience of mental health issues Konrad's special rule is rather distasteful. Directly telling players to mock and insult their opponent is frankly stupid for a company that wants people to play the game in its own stores - hearing someone hurling the most imaginative insults they can think of is not going to be good PR for potential players and in particular parents.

It is not that there are not ways around it - you can use fake moustaches, wheelchair dancing is a thing, and Konrad's rules are intended to be cute, but coming across something like that is like a sudden drenching of ice water in that it appears nothing like that was ever considered and sours perceptions towards the company producing what is supposed to be a fun and inclusive past-time.

Tau_player001
04-07-2015, 22:26
I am really tired of reading people talk about "fun game" likes it means the oppossite of "balanced game". Start getting a clue. Any game is supossed to be fun, the balance works towards confidence on the players to have a good game and fair chances. It reinforces the sense. And yes, the majority of people who play a game, want to win and will try to. This is the only community (for lack of a better word to define it) where people will complain about people trying to win on a game, and even getting so mad on a personal level that they would insult others because of that. If i am playing football with my pals, we try to win, we don't say "hey, you can't score with your head because you are very tall".

And about "talking to your opponents about what to play". Are you serious ? Do you even think that you can measure what would produce a decent game in the current ruleset ? I am genuinely baffled, i can understand people who may find that complete "free for all" system enjoyable, but stop making a fool of yourself when you are speaking about playing for fun or whatever. Everybody plays for fun for christ's sake.

Kahadras
04-07-2015, 22:28
Nope. Why bother? There are better games out there and I'm going to play those.

Haravikk
04-07-2015, 22:37
There is no mashing units together.
I was writing in response to your comment: "putting two support regiments of handgunners or crossbows together is _vastly_ superior to keeping them apart", however I believe I've misunderstood. Several units described by the new war scrolls are described with a variety of possible different equipment options, implying that you could take units with mixed equipment, and I thought the Empire had such an entry for handgunners and crossbowmen, but looking back I see they are in fact separate.

Sorry, I see you just meant combining units of handgunners with other units of handgunners and the same with crossbowmen.

Sure this is a possibility, and gives you a bonus, but it's a matter of what your opponent will allow; if you place a block of 40 handgunners, but you're supposed to be playing a small to medium game, then all you're going to do is encourage them to either do the same with some of their own units in return, or object since it's not what the type of game you'd agreed to play.

However, if you're both happy to play a big game then of course you can take as many handgunners as you like in a single unit, and get the bonuses, but there are number of drawbacks. First is that a larger unit will move less effectively, since no model can move further than its move characteristic, which means that manoeuvres to bring more models in range will be slow, likewise you may end up out of range with the handgunners in particular (due to their 16" range). However, most importantly you'll limit your access to the State Troop Detachment; for example, if you could make up two units of 30 handgunners to get the bonus for numbers (plus some spares), then you could instead make up six units of five each, as part of two State Troop Detachments which would gain the same bonus (plus a morale bonus), be more manoeuvrable and also won't lose their to hit bonus as they take wounds.

Johnmclane
04-07-2015, 22:41
If I bring say 300 chaos warriors to a game, can it be beaten? In one unit, in a pickup game. Short answer: I can't understand what they are doing. This is just horrible. People probably wanted a more streamlined but more complex game (ie better written rules). Now they get this ...

Skickat från min SM-G920F via Tapatalk

frapermax
04-07-2015, 23:48
Nope, I'm out.
Thx all for years of fun, but I can't stomach this joke of a game.

Commissar Davis
04-07-2015, 23:53
My thinking is that this is just the bare bones, will give it try and see how things go as it is still fantasy based Warhammer.

Flipmode
05-07-2015, 00:14
If I bring say 300 chaos warriors to a game, can it be beaten? In one unit, in a pickup game. Short answer: I can't understand what they are doing. This is just horrible. People probably wanted a more streamlined but more complex game (ie better written rules). Now they get this ...

Skickat från min SM-G920F via Tapatalk

Yes, it can be beaten. If you already have 300 Chaos Warriors and can find an opponent it will cost you nothing to try.

Alternatively, bring 50 to the first game then build it up, or just see if you enjoy it.

LGD
05-07-2015, 00:23
If I bring say 300 chaos warriors to a game, can it be beaten? In one unit, in a pickup game. Short answer: I can't understand what they are doing. This is just horrible. People probably wanted a more streamlined but more complex game (ie better written rules). Now they get this ...


Oh it can be beaten very easily by anyone with access to a terrain feature. You deploy 300 chaos warriors. I deploy a Watchtower from the Scenery Warscroll Compendium and then stop deployment. I nominate my Watchtower as my General, and then, as you definitely have more than 130% my model count, I get to choose a Sudden Death victory condition. I choose Endure, so your 300 chaos warriors need to remove my Watchtower from the battlefield before the 6th turn or I automatically win. Your 300 chaos warriors have no means of doing this whatsoever, so my victory is assured. ;)

Drakkar du Chaos
05-07-2015, 00:45
Oh it can be beaten very easily by anyone with access to a terrain feature. You deploy 300 chaos warriors. I deploy a Watchtower from the Scenery Warscroll Compendium and then stop deployment. I nominate my Watchtower as my General, and then, as you definitely have more than 130% my model count, I get to choose a Sudden Death victory condition. I choose Endure, so your 300 chaos warriors need to remove my Watchtower from the battlefield before the 6th turn or I automatically win. Your 300 chaos warriors have no means of doing this whatsoever, so my victory is assured. ;)

Is this is real ? AoS rules are that dumb ?

Flipmode
05-07-2015, 00:57
Is this is real ? AoS rules are that dumb ?

No, it isn't. Nothing to say that the Chaos player could not deploy a counter to the Tower.

MiyamatoMusashi
05-07-2015, 00:57
Is this is real ? AoS rules are that dumb ?

Yes, it is real. Scenery is clearly considered part of your army (see e.g. the Balewind Vortex which makes that 100% clear), and there are no restrictions on what models are required in your army. Therefore you can take a scenery piece and nothing else and, as long as your opponent deploys at least two models in his army, you can choose the Endure Sudden Death victory condition and (since there are no rules for destroying scenery) automatically win.

It's obviously very silly, and a reasonable person wouldn't do it, but the rules completely support it, and anyway a reasonable person would be playing a different game instead. Or going down the pub, or something.

Azaireal
05-07-2015, 01:04
I think I'll play AoS with Lego.

i can have Wolverine lead my Aelfs.

bound for glory
05-07-2015, 01:24
my son wanted to play warhammer as he knows i played quite a bit in the late 1980's. i must admit i was going through my old armies and my old white dwarfs and looking forword to getting back in. mean to say, i've been out of the warhammer hobby for about 27 years. while i've maintained an inerest, i've not cracked a WFB rulebook or army book in ages...
i won't play this garbage. just plain no...

scruffyryan
05-07-2015, 03:41
my son wanted to play warhammer as he knows i played quite a bit in the late 1980's. i must admit i was going through my old armies and my old white dwarfs and looking forword to getting back in. mean to say, i've been out of the warhammer hobby for about 27 years. while i've maintained an inerest, i've not cracked a WFB rulebook or army book in ages...
i won't play this garbage. just plain no...

Get an 8th rulebook and army books for the stuff you have and play 8th with your kid. AoS is the worst possible introduction to wargaming.

Arduhn
05-07-2015, 05:29
Nope, I won't play it. Not interested. I'll stick with 8th edition thanks.

Getifa Ubazza
05-07-2015, 14:38
oh no, i do, but it kind of deserves to be stated, even if it's just to the void. people are so competitive they lose sight of what's actually fun about miniature wargaming, i think. people forget that there are more people than themselves playing, and that those people deserve to derive as much fun from the game as themselves. the rules for this game (some would say this is the loosest possible definition of the term) literally prevent play from even happening unless the players are wiling to enter into agreement that they are both playing to have fun, because the players themselves are responsible for ensuring a fair and enjoyable game.

additionally, it's actually going to be really easy to work out a basic template for a force that you can bring for tournaments - essentially an agreement by all players that x number of battlescrolls, with model counts per battlescroll defined by type, is a reasonable and fair force to bring for all-comers battles. i'm pretty sure people on this very forum have made great progress in this already. it took literally hours to do. People can do it differently if they agree that they think different things are fair, but it will be an agreement by all players involved that said things are fair. the end result is that basically everyone playing is responsible for how fun their game is - and the players honestly should be in charge of having fun. that's the reason we play miniature games, right? for fun and to enjoy the company of others who like the things we like? i've always thought so, but i'm probably the minority here. :s

Read the quoted quote that I did not wrote. That's what I would have wrote, if the quoted quote had not existed to be a quoted quote.

DeathGlam
05-07-2015, 15:32
I have changed my mind after talking about it some more with my gaming group the last two days in detail, i will be giving it a go, as think with like minded players(which we are) we can have some fun with this, just not as our actual full replacement for 8th, more like this is an expansion to use our already owned miniatures for those of us who are already Fantasy players.

Im still not a fan of GW making the regular jokes & gaming banter part of the rules, not because im shy, just think they would quickly get boring as the same jokes are repeated again and again for a rules benefit but they are optional and not as widespread as i thought at first so no big deal, im sure if im playing after a few pints they will seem brilliant. :D

stroller
05-07-2015, 15:50
OK, so some of the jokes probably will grate after a repetition or 20.

As a goblin player, however, I get my troops drunk on mushroom beer, then attach them to a ball and chain, stick some wings on them and catapult them, or spit them from a giant squig. FAR more sensible... and that's BEFORE animosity rolls, foot of Gork (or is it Mork?), Hand of Mork (or is it Gork?) and my giant stuffing enemy models down his trousers....

Yeah, I'll give it a go. If I enjoy it, I'll carry on. I'll also still carry on playing fantasy at my local GW. Win win.

Vazalaar
05-07-2015, 15:59
Maybe not the right topic, but do you think that the Armybooks will stay available on iTunes? Thus meaning I can still get the other books on iTunes in the future?

Its Jack
05-07-2015, 16:06
I'll give it a go, all my models are on square bases and i'm not going to tear them off just for this. If I like it, i'll keep playing, if not then i've not lost any money on this and I can go back to 8th or other systems.

Bannik
05-07-2015, 16:26
yes, will play it... at least now I can buy the models I love the look of without being restricted by their "race" or faction...

Necromancer leading hellpit abominations with a pack of hired ogor mercs? go for it..
a Pegasus army with wood elf eagle rider supports? go for it
vampire lord leading a steamtank and cannon army? go for it...

your fluff is now go.

Lordcypress
05-07-2015, 16:48
No can't be bothered. This new game is just some weird joke. Hiding models behind your back, winking at players, not kneeling or you auto lose........etc. Give me a freaking break!! This game was designed with 6 year olds in mind. No thanks.

Commissar Merces
05-07-2015, 16:51
Not only am I out of fantasy for good, as soon as ATC is done, I am out of 40k because I can't stomach the idea of the AoS coming to 40k.

Shandor
05-07-2015, 16:54
Wow im really shocked that already over 100 Peoples will "play" this thing..

We should ask this question again in 2 month.

forseer of fates
05-07-2015, 16:55
For those not convinced, you should have a look at the bell of lost souls latest battle report, a couple of iron guts destroy everything because they cause three wounds per successful wound.....no thanks..

Haravikk
05-07-2015, 17:01
I actually like that AoS supports skirmishes quite well; so long as you and your opponent have an idea of what is suitable for your skirmish (e.g- min unit sizes only) then you can assemble a game and play it very quickly.

There's also nothing that really stops you from allowing regular rank and file units on movement trays like before, and if you're both using them then shunting them together can constitute your pile-in moves. In fact these formations work well to give you maximum attacks using the new melee weapon ranges. But if you want to have your front ranks disperse into a swirling combat then you can do that too.


I sympathise with those that find the rules lacking or too non-specific, but I think that focusing on a core set of rules just to get things rolling, then leave the rest up to the player, then we actually get a better overall system; the rules are easily modified with simple tweaks or extra/alternate rules to adapt them for different sizes of games. Unit/army composition by player agreement is really what all good casual players should have been doing anyway (just because you could spam overpowered units never meant you should, and usually just lost you opponents and/or friends). Some people find the lack of structure daunting, and I agree to an extent (some kind of rating system, even a very loose one, would have been nice), but a focus on fast, fun rules is a good thing.

My only issue is the lack of panic; battleshock is certainly a simple system, but can't help but feel that units should still fall back if they lose more than X% in a single turn, as morale is what gave our battle lines fluidity. While it is technically possible for units with specific rules to break from combat (by not piling in) it doesn't really capture the old manoeuvring and flow of battle, instead it's just a crush at the end.

rob451
05-07-2015, 18:57
Maybe not the right topic, but do you think that the Armybooks will stay available on iTunes? Thus meaning I can still get the other books on iTunes in the future?

They are already gone except for the end times books.

Shandor
05-07-2015, 19:11
There's also nothing that really stops you from allowing regular rank and file units on movement trays like before, and if you're both using them then shunting them together can constitute your pile-in moves. In fact these formations work well to give you maximum attacks using the new melee weapon ranges. But if you want to have your front ranks disperse into a swirling combat then you can do that too.




Well its not really fun to move them in rank and file.. regroup them in every battle and remove them again after battle. It was a mess even if you change one model position sometimes in the 8th edition.. now think about moving the full unit around every time.

Bede19025
05-07-2015, 19:14
KoW is not more "complicated" than AoS.

Still Standing
05-07-2015, 19:18
I love how upset We've longed for years for GW to regain their sense of humour. They have, and we're all crying. Take them in the spirit their intended. If your special rule says you get a bonus for having a large moustache, then you just always get it, regardless of what's on your face.

I for one am looking forwards greatly to our new round based overlords. In fact, I am going to switch some Chaos Dwarves over to round bases right now. :)

AngryAngel
05-07-2015, 19:20
Not everyone cared if GW got back their sense of humor, perhaps you did, but I don't recall anyone ever saying that to/around me. Though the Joker in me applauds the company for releasing a product so crap and still getting people to defend it to the hilt. That alone, showcases their sense of humor.

Still Standing
05-07-2015, 19:25
I'm not defending it to the hilt. I would find that difficult when I've not even played the game yet. I am just willing to give it a try.

AngryAngel
05-07-2015, 19:30
Well then, consider those comments of defense to be to others and not yourself good Sir, I actually, honestly hope you enjoy your try. That would be contrary to my own experience, but I always wish the best for others.

Freak Ona Leash
05-07-2015, 19:38
Okay, the moustache rule for Kurt Helborg made me smile, I admit.

You know what these rules remind me of? A tiny paper pamphlet of "rules" I got with a box of green plastic army men when I was little: just basic rules to let little kids play with their toys. Especially considering the rules reference very specific combinations of gear for characters (all Chaos Lords on Daemonic Mounts wield hammers, all Bretonnian Lords wield sword and lances, etc.) which correspond with the "stock" models for those units, I figure that this is just Games Workshop really following through on their "we produce models, not rules" line. They are just producing the bare minimum of rules to let you faff about with their models. Nevermind that it was their background and IP that I found engaging, not their models or rules. Ugh. Whatever.

Noodle!
05-07-2015, 19:57
I love humor. In the fluff. Things that are more subtle or good deadpan.
Scream like an idiot for a reroll isn't my kind of humor and falls on the side of a strained smile and a quick exit.
For me it feels like the difference between humor only a child would like or humor that any age can like (including children).

grumbaki
05-07-2015, 20:16
No points, so (near) impossible to do pickup games
Hit a swordmasters as easily a goblin
Wound a swordmasters as easily as a bloodthirster
No customization for...anything!
Ogres are an army of lord choices with victory conditions assuming they are gnoblars


Yeah. Pass.

HammerofThunor
05-07-2015, 20:28
They are already gone except for the end times books.


Wood elf army book is available on iBooks.

the humour is only for the old models and I imagine these will be phased out as the new armies are fleshed out.

rob451
05-07-2015, 20:55
Wood elf army book is available on iBooks.

the humour is only for the old models and I imagine these will be phased out as the new armies are fleshed out.

Books you own are listed on the store so you can download them. I can still see the original 8th edition rule book on there but I can't see it on another account. If the Wood Elf book is still available then I can't find it and I've looked through every book published by GW on the store.

HammerofThunor
05-07-2015, 21:02
I just searched "Wood Elves" and the interactive version was top of the list. Just searched "Warhammer" and Lizardmen, High Elves, Dark Elves, The Empire, Daemons of Chaos and Dwarves, are all there. Beastmen and Skaven aren't. I own Warriors of Chaos and it has the download button rather than the price. I'm not going to try buying one, just it case it goes through :)

Justicar_Freezer
05-07-2015, 21:14
I'll give Age of Sigmar a go but I'm going to wait to see what the releases coming out for the game bring. I can't help but feel that part of the current problem is the old armies being used to play the new system. Granted I haven't seen the rules for the Sigmarines or the new Chaos dudes because I don't get white dwarf but I have to wonder if perhaps they don't work better in the rules.

Now I know if that is the case and the warscrolls for the old armies are just kind of there to get you by till the new stuff comes out people are going to be irked and they have every right to be. However for me I had no investment in Warhammer anymore and looking at Age of Sigmar as a totally different game means that to really see how it will work I'll need to wait for more models/units/armies to be released that were designed for the system specifically.

Not saying it's amazing or anything along those lines. However I'm willing to wait for more of the actual game and it's armies to come out before I pass a final judgement on it.

Cutter
05-07-2015, 21:21
Yes. I'll play Age of Sigmar with my kids, I'll play Warhammer with my friends.

Still Standing
05-07-2015, 21:28
216551

This is doing the rounds on Twitter. Makes a lot of sense to me.

Avian
05-07-2015, 21:33
The thing that makes we weary is that pretty much none of the rumours we've had these last few months have been on the mark. I see no reason why that would suddenly change.

mattl
05-07-2015, 21:45
I can't wait to play it and use some of old metal models on round bases. For big games, I will play Kings of War 2.0

Ramius4
05-07-2015, 21:47
Along with the fact that it makes zero sense whatsoever to release a rulebook after the game is already on the market.

Still Standing
05-07-2015, 21:56
Along with the fact that it makes zero sense whatsoever to release a rulebook after the game is already on the market.

Why not? It seems to be GWs new release schedule. Release models for 2 weeks, then release the Codex / Army book. What makes you think they will work differently for their boxed games?

Ramius4
05-07-2015, 22:02
Why not? It seems to be GWs new release schedule.

Since when does GW's new release schedule involve releasing half finished, half-assed rules and then releasing a more full version of them later?

rob451
05-07-2015, 22:08
I just searched "Wood Elves" and the interactive version was top of the list. Just searched "Warhammer" and Lizardmen, High Elves, Dark Elves, The Empire, Daemons of Chaos and Dwarves, are all there. Beastmen and Skaven aren't. I own Warriors of Chaos and it has the download button rather than the price. I'm not going to try buying one, just it case it goes through :)

Ok This was because I was searching on my iPhone not my iPad they are indeed still there.

Still Standing
05-07-2015, 22:09
Since when does GW's new release schedule involve releasing half finished, half-assed rules and then releasing a more full version of them later?

Bearing in mind they consider themselves a model company, not a rules company, this exactly fits with their current MO. They have released a box of models. We're shortly about to get some terrain models. Then we're likely to get the rule book. My store manager says pre-order next week, however I don't know if he has any inside info (probably not), or is just guessing.

Haravikk
05-07-2015, 22:24
Well its not really fun to move them in rank and file.. regroup them in every battle and remove them again after battle. It was a mess even if you change one model position sometimes in the 8th edition.. now think about moving the full unit around every time.
That's why it's good that it's up to you; if you prefer to keep them loose then you can, put people that prefer to keep them on movement trays (which IMO simplifies movement for bigger units) then they can. It gives us freedom, and there's no specific advantage or disadvantage to either method.


I love humor. In the fluff. Things that are more subtle or good deadpan.
Scream like an idiot for a reroll isn't my kind of humor and falls on the side of a strained smile and a quick exit.
For me it feels like the difference between humor only a child would like or humor that any age can like (including children).
The rules are there to help you play the game; maybe your experiences differ and your games are played in sombre deathly silence with only the barest minimum of necessary communication, but in my experience most games involve joking and laughing, silly anecdotes, self-deprecation, cursing the dice for their infidelity and so-on, so what exactly is the harm in having a few rules that encourage that kind of levity and light heartedness? Also, as I've said in other threads, but what is stopping you from agreeing with your opponent to just ignore those rules or automatically apply them?

Again, the rules should be viewed as a foundation; they're simple, but very functional, rules that let you just get into the game and play. If that's not enough then they're very easy to build on top of, as really the core mechanic of AoS is that you're allowed to talk to your opponent so you can agree on a game you both want to play, which seems to be a concept that a lot of people are struggling to come to terms with, because they need things like "don't take an army of Archaon's" to be written down somewhere :p

I only wish the starter set reflected the same ease of entry to the hobby by not being £75; if the aim is to attract new, mostly younger, players then the huge starter set price should have been one of the first things to be revised, especially since the rules support skirmishes just fine, so 10-15 modes per side would have been plenty (or even do away with sides and just release two separate boxes, which is what many people have wanted for years anyway). It's always been sad to see parents with excited kits coming into stores then watch as the blood rushes from their faces when they hear how much the starter set costs, and that you really need paint, glue etc. too; GW should be making a push towards smaller £40 starter sets either for a small game, or £30 army starter sets to give a dozen or so models per side to get things rolling.


Along with the fact that it makes zero sense whatsoever to release a rulebook after the game is already on the market.
I doubt they're going to release something that will totally overrule the new core rules, but that doesn't mean they won't release supplementary rules for different types of games; they could release extra rules for bigger games, scenarios or campaigns, maybe some actual rules for the various realms (since this is mentioned but not expanded upon in the core rules) and so-on.

MiyamatoMusashi
05-07-2015, 22:34
About one in three people actually intend to continue playing this steaming ****.

I weep for the future of humanity. I'm also astonished that people accept this crap from GW. You're not exactly giving them any incentive to actually try if you declare that this is good enough.

Noodle!
05-07-2015, 22:57
The rules are there to help you play the game; maybe your experiences differ and your games are played in sombre deathly silence with only the barest minimum of necessary communication, but in my experience most games involve joking and laughing, silly anecdotes, self-deprecation, cursing the dice for their infidelity and so-on, so what exactly is the harm in having a few rules that encourage that kind of levity and light heartedness?

:rolleyes:
Of course we don't play like that but the joking and laughing and sometimes roleplay is spontaneus, not driven by the rules. My beef comes when they write ****** rules with "wacky" jokes instead of writing a good rule set. The forced humor has come at the expense of balanced writing.

Balance does not come at the expense of fun, nor does creativity disappear. There were so many ways they could've added a simple skirmish game to work alongside WHFB with more depth. In fact that would've been a great way to get people into the hobby. Heck, could've made it so people went into Mordheim as well.

Instead there's this abomination of a rule set that pushed a very good game out of existence.

Nazrax
05-07-2015, 23:26
I kept an open mind about the new rules. I spent hours with a friend trying to come up with a balanced force for our two armies. It was painful, lol. We finally just took what we would normally play for a 2000 point list and the results were horrid, absolutely horrid. We couldnt even finish the game. With the new rules being so vague, silly "forced" humor rules and well...everything, we couldnt keep going. There were no tactics, no decisions being made.(aside from" lets quit, this is a cluster**** of a so-called game")

There is so little to keep a person interested. Everything is a gimmick or joke. How can a person play a game like this with such vague and bizarre rules and structure? I see why they were free, they have no effort put into them. My friend and I just couldnt be bothered to do GW's job of writing a balanced and fun ruleset. I mean what is the point here, GW? Yeah, yeah, yeah, we know that you are a "model company, not a games company." But this mess is just absurd. Why did you even bother? What are you trying to do here? Who is your target market? It seems like the game is aimed towards young players but the cost, assembly and painting seems to go against that. Are there alot of parents who will pay for this, assemble and paint the models for their kids to play with? I would think most parents would rather spend that money on something like video games or Legos. Costs less, little or no assembly and painting required and seemingly far more long-term use.

I wanted to like this new game. I kept my mind open. I hoped for the best. I prepared for the worst. I'm sad that it didnt work out. I, like many others, will stick to older editions of the Warhammer Fantasy game. I sure hope that a proper rulebook comes out where they address, well...everything, lol.

Jack Shrapnel
05-07-2015, 23:32
Well I finally had my first game of AOS today... for context I have four WHFB armies and have played since 6th, and I'm an avid 40k player.

played ogres vs. orcs. we agreed to a very simple form of balancing armies that we had talked about using and seeing if it would work for tournaments:

1 formation plus 2 warscrolls of our choice (add ons to a unit such as crew for a cannon or an engineer were included with the taking of the original warscroll)

unit sizes: if a unit has a regiment bonus and was made up of one wound models it could be maximum of 10 models over the regiment bonus (ie: orcs could be 30, goblins 40). Any other unit was maxed at 20 wounds (so my ogres were max 5 models each unit)

in the end it was a close, very fun game. Everything got to do something in the battle to contribute. magic was helpful but not overpowered. Very shortly into it the flow of the game was pretty easy to get into, and a LOT of tactical choices were realized. A lot more than I thought there would be. I'm hooked.

Tzar Boris
05-07-2015, 23:46
I've been waiting for something along these lines for a good while. The LOTRisation of Fantasy. I'll probably give it a few goes. Obviously heavily house ruling the bits that make no sense.

Nice from a "common ground" way though. If this is baseline, then it won't take much to instigate house rules in pick up games. Like Poker.

"Base measure, Wounds cause Battleshock, No shoot into combat, Bravery confers 3", Dancing Redundant. Savvy?"

We just have to agree a universal lingo to use.

ESP0DAMUS
06-07-2015, 00:21
I can't wait to play. Although I've been playing and enjoying Warhammer for about 20 years, there was no question that with each passing edition, the game was largely the same with a tweak here and there. Not to mention, with my friends and I getting older, with families and other things to do with our lives, we were playing less and less with the passing of time. The bottom line is, the game was expensive to get into, took a lot of time to set up, and took a long time to play. AoS seems to have alleviated many of these issues.

Competitive play or abuses of the rules will not be an issue with us at all, and I fully expect a book of "competitive rules" or a "scenario" book(s) in the future. Most of all, I love the new models - they are fantastic IMO - and I can't wait for more.

rob451
06-07-2015, 00:34
Well I finally had my first game of AOS today... for context I have four WHFB armies and have played since 6th, and I'm an avid 40k player.

played ogres vs. orcs. we agreed to a very simple form of balancing armies that we had talked about using and seeing if it would work for tournaments:

1 formation plus 2 warscrolls of our choice (add ons to a unit such as crew for a cannon or an engineer were included with the taking of the original warscroll)

unit sizes: if a unit has a regiment bonus and was made up of one wound models it could be maximum of 10 models over the regiment bonus (ie: orcs could be 30, goblins 40). Any other unit was maxed at 20 wounds (so my ogres were max 5 models each unit)

in the end it was a close, very fun game. Everything got to do something in the battle to contribute. magic was helpful but not overpowered. Very shortly into it the flow of the game was pretty easy to get into, and a LOT of tactical choices were realized. A lot more than I thought there would be. I'm hooked.

A question that I hope you don't take the wrong way, it is not intended to appear hostile or confrontational but I realise it may be taken that way:

What exactly was fun about the game? Could you analyse your experiences and tell us exactly what was the source of your enjoyment?

The reason I ask is because when I evaluate a game I remove the banter, laughter, cursing and basically everything social from the process because I experience those things regardless of the game I'm playing. It doesn't matter if I'm playing a war game, an RPG or something light like Munchkin or Boss Monster (which is objectively awful). Just hanging out with other people playing the same game in a relaxed casual environment will yield enjoyment.

When most of us claim that AOS is a bad game we aren't saying that we aren't having "fun". We're saying that the game itself is not responsible for or amplifying our enjoyment. That the game itself is not presenting us with interesting decisions, interactivity or even an interesting narrative beyond that which WHFB achieved.

So that's why I ask. Are you having fun because of the game or because you are hanging out with your friends rolling dice?

AngryAngel
06-07-2015, 01:36
I've been waiting for something along these lines for a good while. The LOTRisation of Fantasy. I'll probably give it a few goes. Obviously heavily house ruling the bits that make no sense.

Nice from a "common ground" way though. If this is baseline, then it won't take much to instigate house rules in pick up games. Like Poker.

"Base measure, Wounds cause Battleshock, No shoot into combat, Bravery confers 3", Dancing Redundant. Savvy?"

We just have to agree a universal lingo to use.

I can't wait to have to develop a thieves cant just to find a game, AoS gamers, moving in shadowy circles trying desperately to find those willing to follow their own created attempts at game balanced vs one another..very fantasy.

"Yeah, so slip down on the midweek, dancing grapefruit ? No grapefruit, gotcha, you gotta watch when ya go to Jabba. Yeah mate, jabba, no jabba, lets say, more like r2. Aiming for the 0100 range, no crunch time. Yeah, sounds good, slap a ribbon on it "

Mr_Foulscumm
06-07-2015, 02:11
The thing that makes we weary is that pretty much none of the rumours we've had these last few months have been on the mark. I see no reason why that would suddenly change.

Aye, GW seems to have taken this secrecy thing to such absurd lengths that not even their own store owners were up to speed when it launched. Something is wacky in Nottingham.

Weyuhn01
06-07-2015, 03:23
No, I won't be playing AoS. I think I have a decent feel for how some of the game mechanics will operate since I got in a few 40k games in with a friend before AoS dropped. I thought about starting 40k, but if AoS is really all there is to replace Fantasy, the people at GW could possibly scrap 40k without warning as well. I will move to another game run by a company that still has its collective sanity and hopefully a working pair of ears.

Ol'shas'ka
06-07-2015, 03:39
I think it's very unlikely that I'll actually collect models with the intention of playing Age of Sigmar but I'm certainly planning to play a demo game when things quiet down a bit.

Commissar Merces
06-07-2015, 03:48
This poll, even if there is like a 10% margin of error, is a really, really bad sign for GW.

Tyberos
06-07-2015, 04:03
Now I've seen the rules for Age of Sigmar it's actually made me consider getting rid of my 40K stuff as I'm worried they'll pull a similar stunt there.

To answer the poll question; No, obviously.

Voss
06-07-2015, 04:18
Since when does GW's new release schedule involve releasing half finished, half-assed rules and then releasing a more full version of them later?

Well, to be fair, the imperial knight codex...

Tichey
06-07-2015, 04:26
This poll, even if there is like a 10% margin of error, is a really, really bad sign for GW.

It's a really bad sign with there existing player base, however its no secret that fantasy lately hasn't been making them any where near as much as 40k so I feel they decided to take the risk, release a new format radically different from the old one and hopes it picks up steam. If this gamble works for them great, if it doesn't then there left with a low profit game which they already have. I also feel that the kind of people posting online on forums the weekend of launch are going to have a stronger attitude towards AoS, the average casual player who likes to have a quiet game with friends on occasion may love this. I know I have several friends who seems keen to try out the new game but wouldn't touch old fantasy with a 10 foot pole. The one time I managed to convince them to try an old fantasy game and gave them the old 8th ed. rule book they just laughed and thought I was joking.

Shards of Basalt
06-07-2015, 04:28
I don't know yet...

Pros:
I played a demo game in store, it was fun.
I like the models in the starter set.
I think the premise of taking back the Warhammer World is awesome.

Cons:
I don't like the rules listed online, I don't feel as though I can play my Dark Elves right now and that's worrying.
The lack of character options - I know Magic Items seem like a weird hill to die on but part of why I'm still playing Fantasy is that I've built up this interesting cast of characters for my armies. Not being able to cutomise my army generals makes it harder for me to get invested in AoS.
The fluff changes... the premise of taking back the Warhammer World falls flat if the retcons mean it's not a recognisible Warhammer World.

Scribe of Khorne
06-07-2015, 04:33
Its not the Warhammer World, that rightly blew up. Its a proper Multiverse now, Moorcock-ish.

Shards of Basalt
06-07-2015, 04:46
I mean in the sense that the retcons could potentially give the feeling that the world which blew up wasn't the Warhammer World because the basic facts about it don't seem to add up.

quindia
06-07-2015, 05:16
We played a battle today and had a great game.

Dwarf Lord
Runelord
Ironbreakers (x10)
Longbeards (x10)
Dwarf Warriors (x10)
Dwarf Warriors (x10)
Thunderers (x10)
Dwarf Cannon
Dwarf Organ Gun


High Elf Prince on Elven Purebreed
High Elf Mage on Elven Steed
High Elf Mage
High Elf Archers (x10)
High Elf Archers (x10)
Silver Helms (x5)
Silver Helms (x5)
High Elf Repeater Bolt Thrower
High Elf Repeater Bolt Thrower
Great Eagles (x2)
Shadow Warriors (x5)

Most units that could have standards and musicians had them.

I played the High Elves, an army I have never played in any edition of Warhammer, vs a veteran Dwarf general. My brother acted as GM to help us along, but after a few turns we rarely need to refer to anything except the Battle Scrolls. We played for six turns. I can't recount every die roll, but here are the highlights...

*One of my High Elf Archer units and my Shadow Warriors were mauled by Dwarven artillery on turn one.
*The combined weight of fire from my Bolt Throwers managed to take out the Cannon on turn two.
*I positioned both Silver Helm units to sweep around one flank, managed to avoid the artillery by keeping LOS blocking cover between me and it, and crashed into the Longbeards on turn three.
*My eagles failed to cause a single wound on the unit of Thunderers despite rolling 12 dice to attack... my dice rolls in general were terrible today, but I rolled five 1's in that cast alone! The paltry pair of attacks that actually hit and wounded were countered by my opponent rolling a pair of 6's to save...
*Our generals ended up slugging it out for a couple of rounds, before each being pulled down by attacks from other models who entered the scrum.
*One of my wizards was vaporized by the Organ Gun on turn five when I forgot to move him...

We ended the game after turn six we declared a minor victory for the dwarves as I lost around 70% of my army and my friend lost around 50% of his...

We only ran into one thing we didn't like during this game - there is no rule preventing a unit shooting while it is in melee. Specifically, I had an eagle attacking the Organ Gun. We took all of about 10 seconds to go around the table and agree the crew couldn't fire the gun. We also allowed units to run in the movement phase when they were obviously not shooting or going to be in a position to charge, to keep from having to move units twice in the turn.

Finally, three observations:
*A wizard casts spells in the Hero Phase, BEFORE movement, meaning it can be tricky to have him in position to cast offensively. You need to plan your maneuver and potential attacks the turn before or you will find your spell casters putzing around the rear of the army and resorting to his defensive spells because you don't have a target!
*Your characters' abilities to place buffs on nearby units are just as important as their combat abilities, and were instrumental in my Silverhelms being able to grind down the Longbeards before reinforcements could arrive on the flank.
*We felt this game was pretty balanced - even after a poor start by the Elves, I felt like I had a chance to win until the later half of turn 5 with the death of my Prince due to poor rolling on my part (again) and the loss of my wizard due to boneheadedness. We probably would reduce the dwarves by one unit or added one unit to elves if we fought the same contest again. While the rules are obviously different, the units felt like the warhammer armies were were familiar with.

We will definitely play these rules again.

Okuto
06-07-2015, 05:30
Already did, all I can say is that it fullfills it's goals, a quick easy to play game

I will say one thing though.....it needs alot of house ruling and agreements in advance before you play, SoA has alot of holes to fill

After you plug them in, it's not so bad. To me, felt like a game of killteam in 40k

The latter is a huge problem if you don't like that sort of thing, I certainly didn't but I know AoS isn't made for my demographic(or maybe it is? I play 40k more afterall)

But AoS does fullfill its goals and I can't really slam it for that. I'm not gonna get on that train though until it looks viable in the long term.

But if it does.....gonna dust off my mordheim models and use that, don't like anything about the new "empire" in AoS, except how great they're look in my 40k army

Wesser
06-07-2015, 07:17
I'm not playing WarmaHordes because I didn't want to play Fantasy as a skirmish-game.

All AoS does for me is pulling support from 8th edition and ensuring I'll never get a new zombie kit...

williamsond
06-07-2015, 08:57
The old world (and fantasy battle) really is dead...

Havarel
06-07-2015, 10:05
Just to clarify, they won't do this with 40k. They only did this with WHFB as the sales are dire and it was unsustainable to support the game in its current form. 40k in its current form is thriving and profitable.

AoS is designed to appeal to new players as well as allowing existing Vets to use their models, so I don't expect a vote on this forum (which seems to be largely vets) to give a great indication of the total number of people who will pick up AoS.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

Avian
06-07-2015, 10:07
Just to clarify, they won't do this with 40k.
[citation needed]

Haravikk
06-07-2015, 11:56
:rolleyes:
Of course we don't play like that but the joking and laughing and sometimes roleplay is spontaneus, not driven by the rules. My beef comes when they write ****** rules with "wacky" jokes instead of writing a good rule set. The forced humor has come at the expense of balanced writing.
This is a set of rules with no force organisation, intended for quick pick-up games for fun so I'm not sure how can you call the writing unbalanced. I've found all the war-scrolls that I've read through so far to be fun and fluffy with lots of characterful actions to take such as planting standards, forming shield walls and so-on; many of the humorous rules are for special characters and mostly reinforce their character in a quick and amusing way, in fact a lot of the war-scrolls I've read have some of the best rules for their units that I've seen in my opinion, humour or no.

The core rules for AoS are all about playing a game that you and your opponent agree to, so if you want to leave them in as an ice-breaker then fine, if not, then do something about it. I don't agree that they've come at the cost of anything, in fact I think they do an excellent job of reinforcing the character and humour that has always been a part of many armies.


Instead there's this abomination of a rule set that pushed a very good game out of existence.
I've mentioned in another thread, but what you call an "abomination" is a set of core rules, released for free alongside a starter set. The goal is clearly to let you quickly play games with your existing models, have fun and get to grips with the new mechanics, the layout of the war-scrolls and so-on. The war-scrolls compendiums are clearly not intended to be list-building guides, but instead their war-scrolls are designed to match units you already have to let you play them in game, and the balance comes from talking to your opponent.

That doesn't however mean that this is it; there's a rulebook release on the way, and the rumours point towards it being part of a Realmgate Wars sort-of expansion that will have rules for the different realms (which the core rules mention but don't expand upon), more scenery rules and possibly some form of list building designed to support some kind of scenarios/campaign. It's not clear if this will all be in the rulebook, or if it'll be a separate book, but I very much doubt that the core rules released so far are intended to perfectly handle every single game; what they are is flexible, quick to learn foundation, and indeed people are already finding ways to better support larger and smaller games through simple little house rules; as they are now they support smaller games (like you can play with the starter set) pretty well on their own, but it's far too early to decry a lack of depth in bigger games an "abomination" as all we have so far is a free set of four page rules. You can bet there'll be more because, after all, when hasn't GW charged for books with extra rules in them?

That's not to say that the rules lack depth on their own either (in fact we've barely begun to see the possibilities with what we've been given with the hundreds of pages of free rules released so far). Also, we're talking about an all-new replacement for a game whose rules have only ever changed incrementally in the past; some of those changes had big consequences, but the core game (characteristics, rules to hit, to wound etc.) changed very little, so such a radical shift was always bound to have to make sacrifices; GW knows this and seems to have to decided to focus on what was needed for people to just play the game, the rest can, and will, come later, the only question is what will come from GW themselves, and what will be left for us to fill in for ourselves. Hell, when it comes down to it, GW have never released a ruleset that everyone was happy with, and tournaments have always had to adapt the rules to determine balance; if the core rules are in fact all we're going to get, then they'll certainly have more work to do, but it's not really any different from what came before; humorous rules can hardly ruin the game when people have complained about every rulebook and army book ever released anyway, whether those had humour in them or not :p

Avian
06-07-2015, 12:05
What I don't get is why, if this was meant for quick pick-up games for fun, does it have twenty-one different types of shields! I haven't counted the number of standard bearer or musician effects, but presumably they are similar.

WHY? This makes it so much more complicated for a new player to learn the rules.

Shandor
06-07-2015, 12:10
Just to clarify, they won't do this with 40k. They only did this with WHFB as the sales are dire and it was unsustainable to support the game in its current form. 40k in its current form is thriving and profitable.

AoS is designed to appeal to new players as well as allowing existing Vets to use their models, so I don't expect a vote on this forum (which seems to be largely vets) to give a great indication of the total number of people who will pick up AoS.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk

Good your Crystall Ball told you that. :) GW had an overall reduced bilance the last year. Not only WHF. WHF still had 30% of the Profit so the main loss wasnt WHF.. Profitable was both still but not as much as GW want it. I would not be surpised if Age of the Emperor is coming.

Getifa Ubazza
06-07-2015, 12:16
Reading all these different threads and watching battle reports has made one thing quite clear. If you play a small game with around 50 models, it's a good fun game. If you try to play with all the models you used to use in oldhammer (100+). You're not going to have a good fun game.

My 40k Slaanesh army pretty much slots into this game very easily. All I need is a Seeker Chariot and I can play a Cohorts of Slaanesh formation. My army will have 82 models, which I feel is probably as much as I would take. Anything more than that would likely make the game tedious.

I'm very much looking forward to this game and maybe playing a 3 way game with my wife and son. They will likely gang up on me, but who cares. I'm Slaanesh. I can take it.

brm130
06-07-2015, 12:32
"Abomination" is probably a bit far. It's definitely a lazy, low-effort mess of a design.

Whirlwind
06-07-2015, 12:34
If you play a small game with around 50 models, it's a good fun game. If you try to play with all the models you used to use in oldhammer (100+). You're not going to have a good fun game.

Oddly movement trays are your friend here. With no template weapons there is no harm in clumping your models as tightly as possible. You only need to split them out once you charge. And oh don't play model to model, stick with base to base its by far easier to manage.

My general concern with the game though is lack of long term replay value from a few playtest games. Once everyone gets tied up in combat there is nothing really to do other than throw dice at each other. It doesn't really matter who gets into combat with who as the stats are fairly similar (its the special rules that distinguish them and oddly this just increases game bloat). There is not really any benefit of trying to match up the most favourable battles for your units as they are all hit on the same value. As such most games end up the same way by turn three everyone is grinding in combat. If you get a lucky role, the enemy unit then collapses and that unit runs into the next combat and so on. The only real strategy is trying to ensure that your hardest hitting unit attacks first and hopefully whittle down his hardest hitting unit before it attacks. It's a bit like say Talisman or similar good for a few laughs once in a while; but playing week in week out I think is likely to get stale quite fast. Scenarios might open it up a bit but I'm not sure that it's the game to get people buying lots of new models for it as GW hopes. Mordheim as a skirmish game in my view holds much more tactical depth (for example height and terrain actually mean something).

Sephillion
06-07-2015, 12:36
Since I would have to PUG anyway and this is entirely un-PUGable and has badly written rules, it's a resounding "no" from me.

wulox
06-07-2015, 12:40
I voted yes.
However I personally have never played a game of the "original" warhammer, usually sticking to 40K or the LOTR.
I never got into the previous editions of fantasy because, whilst the setting appealed to me, there wasnt an army that did. However, the Stormcast Eternals are right up my street and the figures make me want to play AoS.
Whether I enjoy playing it or not is another matter, as not having a points-based system is currently confusing to me at the minute.

However they have succeeded in gaining my interest and a purchase of the AoS set, which afterall I think is their plan. To bring in players like me who have not played the previous editions and up fantasy sales which from what I've heard were incredibly bad when compared to 40K sales (think I read somewhere paints etc were outselling fantasy?).
I am hoping they bring in some sort of system, even if it isnt points-based, in which allows for more balanced and restrictive play.

Kurgan Ironbeard
06-07-2015, 12:52
I'm gonna retool one of my old armies (ogres) just for it and leave my warhammer fantasy armies in normal shape. It's got potential I think, really depends on how much GW supports it, if it's just a little spin off like Dreadfleet etc it'll flop if they go full hog it could do well.

Rick_1138
06-07-2015, 13:03
I will give the game a chance, this is obviously a full on release, not just a box and let it ride. GW is putting all its chips in the middle of the table, looking at news posts and such online.

The no points thing is a bit of a pain, in terms of balancing, BUT a smaller skirmish game is what WFB needed as the buy in for even 1500-2000 point games was massive.

I will reserve judgement but i can see the kernal of a fun tight game in there once people get used to it and some framework for control is made, i think it may be on wounds.

Other rumor i heard today is that there may be a possibility of campaign books coming out a bit like PP WH do, with a framework in each campaign book as to how to build lists.

http://natfka.blogspot.co.uk/2015/07/aos-realmgate-war-campaign.html?m=1

I am giving GW the benefit of the doubt for 6 months, after that ill know if they have just thrown out any old rubbish, or there is some actual thought to this, but their release\info secret squirrel attitude may be hurting it as folk are a bit baffled\underwhelmed right now.

If its rubbish, i have 40k\infinity\WH to play :)

EDIT: Add link

duffybear1988
06-07-2015, 13:06
Did the people who claim this is like LoTR ever actually play LoTR? :rolleyes:

LoTR SBG was one of the best rulesets ever put out by GW. It was simple enough for a new player to get their head around in an afternoon, had plenty of tactical depth and was full of cool little rules. Not to mention the brilliant miniatures to support it. Yes it had a few problems that needed fixing, but overall it was excellent.

AoS doesn't even come close.

Now if GW had ported the LoTR rules into Fantasy, I would have been all over this.

wulox
06-07-2015, 13:39
Did the people who claim this is like LoTR ever actually play LoTR? :rolleyes:

LoTR SBG was one of the best rulesets ever put out by GW. It was simple enough for a new player to get their head around in an afternoon, had plenty of tactical depth and was full of cool little rules. Not to mention the brilliant miniatures to support it. Yes it had a few problems that needed fixing, but overall it was excellent.

AoS doesn't even come close.

Now if GW had ported the LoTR rules into Fantasy, I would have been all over this.

I agree with this, a port of the LoTR rules would have been a fantastic way to go in my opinion. The rules are very well written and now that it has been mentioned, if the AoS rules do turn out to be a bit of a flop, using the LoTR rules and profiles to play AoS could be incredibly fun.

Reinholt
06-07-2015, 14:08
Did the people who claim this is like LoTR ever actually play LoTR? :rolleyes:

LoTR SBG was one of the best rulesets ever put out by GW. It was simple enough for a new player to get their head around in an afternoon, had plenty of tactical depth and was full of cool little rules. Not to mention the brilliant miniatures to support it. Yes it had a few problems that needed fixing, but overall it was excellent.

AoS doesn't even come close.

Now if GW had ported the LoTR rules into Fantasy, I would have been all over this.

I will also echo this. As someone who has played a ton of LotR, this is nothing like LotR.

Or, put a different way, Age of Sigmar is as similar to LotR as Age of Sigmar is to WHFB.

Elensar777
06-07-2015, 14:11
Good your Crystall Ball told you that. :) GW had an overall reduced bilance the last year. Not only WHF. WHF still had 30% of the Profit so the main loss wasnt WHF.. Profitable was both still but not as much as GW want it. I would not be surpised if Age of the Emperor is coming.

I see numbers regarding battle and 40k all the time. What is your source? The information is not in the reports, where both games are not differentiated.

Andy p
06-07-2015, 15:24
I will try it, but so far the overwhelming negativity has presented few offers.

Oh well, not a huge loss I suppose, but I hate denying my curiosity.

Jack Shrapnel
06-07-2015, 15:24
A question that I hope you don't take the wrong way, it is not intended to appear hostile or confrontational but I realise it may be taken that way:

What exactly was fun about the game? Could you analyse your experiences and tell us exactly what was the source of your enjoyment?

The reason I ask is because when I evaluate a game I remove the banter, laughter, cursing and basically everything social from the process because I experience those things regardless of the game I'm playing. It doesn't matter if I'm playing a war game, an RPG or something light like Munchkin or Boss Monster (which is objectively awful). Just hanging out with other people playing the same game in a relaxed casual environment will yield enjoyment.

When most of us claim that AOS is a bad game we aren't saying that we aren't having "fun". We're saying that the game itself is not responsible for or amplifying our enjoyment. That the game itself is not presenting us with interesting decisions, interactivity or even an interesting narrative beyond that which WHFB achieved.

So that's why I ask. Are you having fun because of the game or because you are hanging out with your friends rolling dice?

Fair enough, I certainly do not take this the wrong way at all...

The reasons I stopped playing 8th was because it quickly stopped being fun to play. The ruleset was cumbersome and alot of rules just simply didn't make any logical sense. The magic phase was so overpowered that certain armies were just decimated and listbuilding became so boring because you basically had one maybe two builds for an army if you hoped to win a game or two. So that is my bias stated right off the bat, and I realize others do NOT share my opinion of 8th, which means you may not share my opinion of AOS.

What I really enjoyed about AOS:

when the units (as I've said in my post though we put in restrictions) fought one another each fight seemed "clutch" like it wasn't just a forgone conclusion which unit would win. Didn't matter if it was ogres vs. giant battle, savage orcs vs. Ironguts, character vs. troops. Each was very, very close, and frankly dispelled our preconceived notion of what we thought WOULD happen at the start of the combat.

magic was helpful for certain at buffing and plinking off a couple wounds, but there were no "initiative save or pick up your unit of ogres" nonsense. It was also not a runaway train. I would even consider playing a game without a mage at all. (gasp!) something that would have been a near automatic tabling in 8th. They were helpful but not overpowered (in context I had one stock butcher and my opponent had a special character wizard - traditional level four, and a traditional level one wizard)

Characters actually did something. They weren't able to solo units or anything, but units could damage them, (no 1+ armor & reverse ward save silliness from 8th - no blender vamps either) and could have an impact on the game without getting into deathstar mode because they couldn't join units. Combo charges were very important, and characters served as a force multiplier, which I liked.

movement matters. I didn't think it would, so this surprised me. I went in with the bias thinking block movement was superior in the "old way" of doing things, however quickly realized that flanking was still very important and you could not only bail out a unit in an inferior match up, but you could also "clear a zone" to try and detach a unit (ie: character) from an unfavourable situation.

Monster rules. It was really cool that our monsters started out as crazy beasts, but then got less powerful as they were injured. It just made sense to us and meant that the monster could be "worn down" in combat and with shooting. Cannons didn't just one shot the monsters (I do NOT miss laser guided artillery!) but did significant damage, lessening the power of the beast. Cannons were also actually useful against units.

terrain rules. Terrain did something and affected the battle. Small things like having a +1 to cast from a terrain feature made a big difference, as there's only a couple spells being cast a phase, so any small advantage is actually great and turned the tide a couple times to something working or not. That fear causing forest actually affected an important combat which my opponent definitely used against me!

no points. oh man, why on earth would this be a positive? I mean this is contrary to any wargame ever right? well kind of. the forces (using again those few restrictions we agreed on) all seemed balanced against one another. It didn't even matter that I had one more unit than my opponent (who won by the way) and that my ogres could be max unit sized 5. I was still able to fight big units and the outcome wasn't just clearly decided. By the way, in 8th I ran mournfangs, level 4 wizard, gutstar with bsb, 2 ironblasters with leadbelcher support. Effective but quickly boring. I got to play with units I never used before and they were good. The lack of worry about points efficiency just led me to play things I thought seemed cool and I wanted to try - and it worked.

At the end of the game, my opponent and I both said we enjoyed it and scheduled another game. Remember I had basically quit WHFB as did my opponent long ago. Any attempts to go back into the system were just met with frustration as we either brought the same "net approved" list or got rolled. More than half my collection could not effectively even be used in 8th if I wanted to have a "fair" game. This game was close, never seemed one sided, and all models were useful and had something cool to make them distinct from one another.

So in the end it surprised us both in a positive way, and made us want to play it again. So that's why I liked it.

Tau_player001
06-07-2015, 15:46
Did the people who claim this is like LoTR ever actually play LoTR? :rolleyes:

LoTR SBG was one of the best rulesets ever put out by GW. It was simple enough for a new player to get their head around in an afternoon, had plenty of tactical depth and was full of cool little rules. Not to mention the brilliant miniatures to support it. Yes it had a few problems that needed fixing, but overall it was excellent.

AoS doesn't even come close.

Now if GW had ported the LoTR rules into Fantasy, I would have been all over this.

Those were my hopes for AoS.

rob451
06-07-2015, 18:19
That's an excellent summation and I can totally understand why you like the game now.

I'll be most interested to find out how you feel after a few more games. My biggest problem has been that every game I played was functionally identical and got boring very quickly as all I was doing was rolling the same dice over and over regardless of what I was facing. I felt like I didn't have to problem solve or try and counter my opponent instead being dependent on dice. It was like playing the slot machines when before you'd been playing Poker.

All of your problems with 8th are totally valid and I share them but I still feel when I play 8th that victory or defeat was a result of my skill as a general and not because of the dice I roll.

There are things in AOS I like, characters as force multipliers rather than unit blenders is a great idea and the lower effectiveness of magic but I would rather these changes in the context of an evolution of Fantasy Battle.

Jack Shrapnel
06-07-2015, 19:32
I'll definitely get some more games in for sure before I can properly evaluate. I actually never expected to like it as much as I did, given all the negative reports I've read online (but that of course can be attributed to alot of other things to be honest).

I think the key was we went into it with a clear structure of how we were going to balance the forces, which made for a much more enjoyable game as it didn't feel like one person was just getting steamrolled, and with no clear advantage either way from the start we probably played alot more cautious then others who've said they just ran into a big combat blob in the middle - that could get old pretty quick for certain.

I think the four page rules being too simple though doesn't give enough credit to how much these warscrolls add. They were the rules we kept referencing the most, along with reminders about the terrain. Command traits added some fun options as well, and no matter what our mages knew the two base spells in addition to their warscroll so you always had an option to do.

another thing that we discovered was charge / movement blocking is pretty big... if you move within 3" they either have to be stationary (engaging in combat phase but only with three inch pile in move - so far less attacks) or retreat. Adds some additional options with some fast cav and skaven that can feint and charge which we'll be trying out.

hoping with the sheer amount of models/armies we own we can switch things up enough to keep the variety in the game.

grhino
06-07-2015, 21:40
I'm out for Warhammer, but I am looking forward to the Total War game. Changing the bases for warhammer and stepping away from the format of large armies going at each other with more or less balanced rules means the end of this hobby for me. Not going to bother getting into Age of Sigmar, just going back to ww2 military modelling.

Voss
07-07-2015, 01:27
Finally got the reaction from the LGS and various ex-Warhammer players that wandered in. It basically consisted of "This is awful!" Followed by laughter.

TheLionReturns
07-07-2015, 01:40
I will definitely get a game in somewhere along the line. It seems silly not to, given the rules are free and I already have models. I would be very surprised if it became a common occurrance though. This is nothing against Age of Sigmar, but simply a reflection that 8th has plenty of legs left for me personally. I am trying not to judge until I have played the game. I do have some serious concerns about the rules, but I have played enough games to realise that you really need to play them a bit before making a proper judgement.

Zywus
07-07-2015, 19:03
Still holding at about 30% Yes and 70% No.
Although from the comments it seems many of the Yes voters interprets trying out the game a bit as a Yes (which is fair, as one cannot know if one will keep playing the game before having tried it out).

It will be interesting to run this poll in a few month or so and see how big a percentage have kept playing (or I suppose how many of the No-voters has changed their mind).

Tymell
07-07-2015, 19:13
Did the people who claim this is like LoTR ever actually play LoTR? :rolleyes:

LoTR SBG was one of the best rulesets ever put out by GW. It was simple enough for a new player to get their head around in an afternoon, had plenty of tactical depth and was full of cool little rules. Not to mention the brilliant miniatures to support it. Yes it had a few problems that needed fixing, but overall it was excellent.

AoS doesn't even come close.

Now if GW had ported the LoTR rules into Fantasy, I would have been all over this.

Another "I second this" vote.

The LotR game was a great set of rules. It was simple enough but had a decent tactical side too, it was fluid, and above all, fun.

Age of Sigmar, from all I've read in the reviews/summaries, sounds awful. No hyperbole intended, I read through all I could find, and the rules genuinely sound like the sort of thing I would've written when I was 8, first discovered tabletop gaming and knew nothing about it.

In terms of models and lore I quite like it, though I feel there should really be more right at the start, considering how dramatic a change it is. But the rules themselves are, by all accounts I've seen, a joke.

carlospictor
07-07-2015, 19:25
My tuppence worth - I've never been a gamer in the Warhammer settings. Tried 40k once but it was an evening of looking things up in books and measuring distances. Didn't feel like a game at all. While I love(d) the world of Warhammer Fantasy, I never felt like playing as it felt like a huge overhead of big armies and tonnes of rules.

With Age of Sigmar, I'm keen and curious. Four pages of rules plus Warscrolls puts in the realm of something I can get my head round and (importantly) get my friends to play too - like a game of Zombicide or Super Dungeon Explore. I'm going to pick up a box on Saturday, and give it a go with a couple of friends.

Voss
07-07-2015, 20:41
Did the people who claim this is like LoTR ever actually play LoTR? :rolleyes:

LoTR SBG was one of the best rulesets ever put out by GW. It was simple enough for a new player to get their head around in an afternoon, had plenty of tactical depth and was full of cool little rules. Not to mention the brilliant miniatures to support it. Yes it had a few problems that needed fixing, but overall it was excellent.

AoS doesn't even come close.

Now if GW had ported the LoTR rules into Fantasy, I would have been all over this.

In between the outrage and hilarious laughter (more of the latter), I heard this several times yesterday. Whatever people were expecting from GW, this wasn't it, and a simple conversion of the SBG or WotR would have gone over much better than this.

Noodle!
07-07-2015, 20:43
Still holding at about 30% Yes and 70% No.
Although from the comments it seems many of the Yes voters interprets trying out the game a bit as a Yes (which is fair, as one cannot know if one will keep playing the game before having tried it out).

It will be interesting to run this poll in a few month or so and see how big a percentage have kept playing (or I suppose how many of the No-voters has changed their mind).

Yeah, I mean I hate the living daylights out of this but I still voted yes because I will test it. That's how I interpreted the poll.

That said, while we were going to test the game this week none of us feel like doing so anymore. Perhaps some time down the road but the more we read and the more battle reports we see the less any one of us feel like even testing it.

artisturn
08-07-2015, 01:13
I am going to play, using my old models.

The group I belong is going to keep playing 8th but I can see AOS being something fun for a short game night.

Also I was watching a battle report on youtube for an AOS game when my wife commented that she would play AOS if she could have a "pretty good guy army". My wife and I are in a role playing group and I have gotten her hooked on Heroquest, She also mentioned the sheer numbers of models and the huge rulebook kept her from trying Warhammer.

Also this new way of building armies will make it easier for my honey to pick out her army,I don't have to explain the difference between Core,Special and Rare troops.Now I all I have to do is have her choose Her army and then I can tell her to pick out Two Characters and three units that catch her fancy.

Voss
08-07-2015, 01:16
Yeah, I mean I hate the living daylights out of this but I still voted yes because I will test it. That's how I interpreted the poll.


Its actually the opposite of the question of the OP, but I suspect quite a few people answered yes, meaning they'll test it out, but not continue to play into the future.

Coldhatred
08-07-2015, 01:24
I am switching my "No" vote to a firm "Yes". After a got over my nerd-rage about the Old World being destroyed I am willing to give this game a fair shake.

Bishops finger
08-07-2015, 06:54
http://www.avatars-of-war.com/eng/web/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=59&Itemid=51 finally AOW is translated! I didn't like the look of kow but this..looks interesting.

Attilla
08-07-2015, 21:51
Voted yes - a brand new game, very excited! :)