PDA

View Full Version : The biggest thing that AoS has done.



Veshnakar
05-07-2015, 00:04
So much negativity right now, I just wanted to voice perhaps the other side of the coin for those of us are excited about the Age of Sigmar.

I think the biggest thing that AOS is going to do is push a lot of people out of the game that are playing purely for the competitive/tournament fix.

There has been so much doom-saying and nay-saying that is being blasted in online forums since the release of the free rules online, it's pretty depressing. Then I went down to my local FLGS and what I saw really changed my mind about how I feel about it. Would you believe that we had about 15 people in our store today having the time of the lives just throwing some warhammer miniatures down on the table and just having a really fun time with the new rules. Even units in the past that I have never used like my tomb king on necropshinx, tomb swarms, or skeleton horsemen FINALLY had use on the battlefield. Units like goblins, gnoblars, or skinks don't just evaporate anymore too, and it's kind of bizarre because you are so used to the conventional wisdom brought by mindsets of what is and isn't good in 8th edition. It's not that black and white at all anymore.

And I mean we did have a few of "TFG" that brought multiple greater daemons and such, but we noticed it didn't really have as much of an effect on the game, even from a standpoint of fun, as even lowly units stood a decent chance of taking them down or weakening them to the point that they lose significant effectiveness.

And I really do get why some people are up in arms about this. I think there are mostly two very different groups of people here with some leaning towards warhammer purely as an outlet to let off steam and have some fun with friends in a not so serious environment, and others as a game where their fun is the competitive balance and smashing their friend's into the dirt for the satisfaction of that win, and I know some people fall in between too.

What it boils down to though is I think it's very clear that this isn't "Warhammer Competitive Battles" (if it ever was really) but much more of a narrative forging system. Honestly I feel like if you were coming to Warhammer for an equal and balanced tabletop wargame then you were looking in the wrong place. To maintain some notion of balance in a game with 15 armies is almost impossible without making everyone have the same profile but with different model, it's just not realistic. Everything is so subjective and situational. And people are always going to find something to complain about in a points based system, especially if they don't trust the company creating the rules.

And obviously this is my humble option, so I hope no one takes it as an attack as that's not how I intended it in the least. I just feel like if you are already theory-crafting that you will hate the game, or you have tried it and don't like it that it's just time to politely move on and stop bringing the negatively to people who are genuinely excited about the changes.

Commissar Davis
05-07-2015, 00:09
Guess it is definitely worth a go.

HereComesTomorrow
05-07-2015, 00:12
Some people have fun in competitive games without netlisting.

Why is that bad?

Shifte
05-07-2015, 00:19
You can have a narrative and silly game with a system that includes points/army composition. You could have used your Necrosphynx and Skeletal Horsemen before. We, however, cannot play an (im)perfectly balanced game anymore because the game isn't even trying to offer is that sort of structure. I like narrative rules and more casual games, but I still want it to be a game.

Samsonov
05-07-2015, 00:24
Consider many historical players. They often do not use points values. One player attacks, having three platoons under their commands, the other player defends with a single platoon. Also, the platoon consists of historically accurate forces rather than the best units in the codex. Despite this, both people play to the best of their abilities. This situation is a competitive tactical games even though points, army lists and netlisting are being completely ignored.

AngryAngel
05-07-2015, 00:29
Yes but do they do so while dancing, and riding an invisible horse ? I've played historicals and they can be fun, they can often be very unbalanced as your re creating historical scenarios. However, historicals aren't near a pick up game, make much less money and aren't as mainstream as GW want warhammer to be. For those things, you need some balance, you need ways to set up balanced armies. If they completely divorce their games from any semblance of competitive play, they are doing nothing but killing their own company more then currently.

Mawduce
05-07-2015, 00:33
Consider many historical players. They often do not use points values. One player attacks, having three platoons under their commands, the other player defends with a single platoon. Also, the platoon consists of historically accurate forces rather than the best units in the codex. Despite this, both people play to the best of their abilities. This situation is a competitive tactical games even though points, army lists and netlisting are being completely ignored.

Thing is, historical games have something to build on... the real world. Fantasy or Science Fiction do not have that. You know that no matter what you do, a Tiger tank needs heavier armor and better guns than a Sherman. But you also know that the Sherman must be more maneuverable and faster than the Tiger. You know from history on average it takes about 4 Shermans to take out 1 Tiger. You know the under belly and the rear of a tank are its weakest points. How do you manage that with cavalry versus a dragon...

Veshnakar
05-07-2015, 00:48
On the same hand must we always assume that armies would meet on a battlefield of equal points? I can see it now. "Whoa whoa whoa, how many points is the army you have assembled?!" shouts the Chaos Lord. "Well it's about 1500 points!" exclaims the Dwarf Thane. "Preposterous! We agreed we would fight at 1300 points!" roars the Chaos Lord, and the two glared angrily at one another shouting insults of "cheese" and "overpowered" at one another.

In all seriousness I get that it's important for those of you who seek a tournament balance but if ETC or a similar system wanted to then they could assign points to all of the units. They were already doing that much work, if not more, just trying to "balance" the existing system for 8th edition. For those of us that points and winning were already kind of almost an afterthought it's not that big of an adjustment.

And really jerks and WAAC people are always going to find a way to make an overpowered army in a structured game. That goes for Age of Sigmar, Warhammer 8th, Warmahordes, or any other system out there. Even a mirror design game like chess has the first turn advantage. There is always an army or a loophole that they will exploit to get the upper hand, and no amount of system or meta maintenance will be able to resolve this with reasonable accommodation.

3eland
05-07-2015, 00:50
On the same hand must we always assume that armies would meet on a battlefield of equal points? I can see it now. "Whoa whoa whoa, how many points is the army you have assembled?!" shouts the Chaos Lord. "Well it's about 1500 points!" exclaims the Dwarf Thane. "Preposterous! We agreed we would fight at 1300 points!" roars the Chaos Lord, and the two glared angrily at one another shouting insults of "cheese" and "overpowered" at one another.

In all seriousness I get that it's important for those of you who seek a tournament balance but if ETC or a similar system wanted to then they could assign points to all of the units. They were already doing that much work, if not more, just trying to "balance" the existing system for 8th edition. For those of us that points and winning were already an afterthought if not a restriction or chore it's not that big of an adjustment.

And really jerks and WAAC people are always going to find a way to make an overpowered army in a structured game. That goes for Age of Sigmar, Warhammer 8th, Warmahordes, or any other system out there. Even a mirror design game like chess has the first turn advantage. There is always an army or a loophole that they will exploit to get the upper hand, and no amount of system or meta maintenance will be able to resolve this with reasonable accommodation.

If only there was a like button.

Inquisitor Kallus
05-07-2015, 00:58
Consider many historical players. They often do not use points values. One player attacks, having three platoons under their commands, the other player defends with a single platoon. Also, the platoon consists of historically accurate forces rather than the best units in the codex. Despite this, both people play to the best of their abilities. This situation is a competitive tactical games even though points, army lists and netlisting are being completely ignored.


On the same hand must we always assume that armies would meet on a battlefield of equal points? I can see it now. "Whoa whoa whoa, how many points is the army you have assembled?!" shouts the Chaos Lord. "Well it's about 1500 points!" exclaims the Dwarf Thane. "Preposterous! We agreed we would fight at 1300 points!" roars the Chaos Lord, and the two glared angrily at one another shouting insults of "cheese" and "overpowered" at one another.

In all seriousness I get that it's important for those of you who seek a tournament balance but if ETC or a similar system wanted to then they could assign points to all of the units. They were already doing that much work, if not more, just trying to "balance" the existing system for 8th edition. For those of us that points and winning were already kind of almost an afterthought it's not that big of an adjustment.

And really jerks and WAAC people are always going to find a way to make an overpowered army in a structured game. That goes for Age of Sigmar, Warhammer 8th, Warmahordes, or any other system out there. Even a mirror design game like chess has the first turn advantage. There is always an army or a loophole that they will exploit to get the upper hand, and no amount of system or meta maintenance will be able to resolve this with reasonable accommodation.



These guys 'get it'

The_Real_Chris
05-07-2015, 01:05
And really jerks and WAAC people are always going to find a way to make an overpowered army in a structured game.

That shows limited knowledge of many games. Even GW ones. Here is a link to Epic lists, please please tell me the overpowered combo?

http://epic-uk.co.uk/wp/army-lists/

If you need a few pointers I can link to the last decade of results and each army list used?

Hell, even blood bowl. Some teams are great, but there aren't any dominating ones.

It is quite possible to develop fair and balance dissimilar forces. And ddo you know something? Playing a fun game with them is normally better than trying to have fun with a poor rules system.

MiyamatoMusashi
05-07-2015, 01:08
On the same hand must we always assume that armies would meet on a battlefield of equal points? I can see it now. "Whoa whoa whoa, how many points is the army you have assembled?!" shouts the Chaos Lord. "Well it's about 1500 points!" exclaims the Dwarf Thane. "Preposterous! We agreed we would fight at 1300 points!" roars the Chaos Lord, and the two glared angrily at one another shouting insults of "cheese" and "overpowered" at one another.

War is about crushing your enemy (preferably without needing to fight; if you can turn up with an army ten times larger than theirs and make them surrender without fighting, that's a good thing. Just ask Sun Tzu).

Wargames are about having fun, in which you're still trying to win but winning is not the ultimate purpose of the game; and winning a roughly even contest gives the best chance of both players of doing so, and is at its most rewarding when player skill - their decisions and choices, known as player agency - are the deciding factor.

No, "real" battles would not be perfectly equal and perfectly balanced. But we're not fighting real battles, and the loser doesn't get beheaded and buried in a shallow grave.

Col. Tartleton
05-07-2015, 01:14
Playing a historical scenario is different because you're given a battle to recreate (or a smaller element of it) and you try to see if you can win the battle the way it happened or win it in spite of what happened.

Can your Coalition Forces repeat what Arthur Wellesley did or will your opponents Imperial Army be more successful than Napoleon? That's the historical narrative. It's also a bit boring if you've played it a few times unless you randomize whether Blucher or Grouchy or Both or Neither show up. In which case by all means that's a fun scenario.

It stops being Historical when Henry Tudor brings a company of Jagdpanthers to Bosworth field. Hell Guderian didn't even have Jagdpanthers. :cheese:

We may get those scenarios in the future but then how much more inflexible a system we must deal with so that we have to play as Sigmar's forces at the Battle of Azyrheim against Nagash's forces using the exact units we're told to.

Darnok
05-07-2015, 01:15
I guess people defending the AoS "rules" are equally fine when their soccer team shows up to a regular match with 11 guys, and the other team brings 15 guys. Sure, bring it on. :rolleyes:

Samsonov
05-07-2015, 01:15
Just to be clear, my point about historical games is that you often have unbalanced games which do not employ points values yet both players can get a satisfying, competitive, tactical game from it. In contrast, AoS has the advantage of getting rid of netlisting and always using the best value units in an army book, but appears to have also thrown out most of the tactical elements as well.

Reinholt
05-07-2015, 01:21
So, let us engage in a thought experiment:

1 - It is obvious from the OP that there are people who will appreciate the lack of ability to play AoS competitively.

2 - GW is a for-profit public company.

3 - Given these two factors, is AoS a good idea as a replacement for WHFB?

My personal suspicion is that there will definitely be people AoS appeals to; however, the world of RPGs and our current board-gaming universe seems to indicate people wanting purely high-concept or narrative games are a minority compared to those who want tactical/strategic balance and crunch. Thus, this is likely a very bad idea for a for-profit company at this scale, in this format.

Samsonov
05-07-2015, 01:24
Playing a historical scenario is different because you're given a battle to recreate (or a smaller element of it) and you try to see if you can win the battle the way it happened or win it in spite of what happened.To my mind, this is basically AoS only hope. Assume we currently just have the 'ravening hordes' release, just a temporary stopgap. Then over the coming months scenarios books are released (physical or download) that produce interesting games (balanced or not) with specific forces being listed. Advertise this as the main way to play. It would get rid of netlisting, get rid of always using the same overpowered units, you could have very small scenarios to allow people to play with few models and it could be very tactical. Done properly, it could produce some interesting games. Imagine one side largely composed of archers having to capture something in the enemy deployment zone, whilst the defending side only has cavalry, i.e. the defensive force has to attack and the offensive force has to defend. Making scenario effectively 'puzzles' like this could produce a really interesting game, especially since many units have synergy with one another.

Shandor
05-07-2015, 01:25
War is about crushing your enemy (preferably without needing to fight; if you can turn up with an army ten times larger than theirs and make them surrender without fighting, that's a good thing. Just ask Sun Tzu).

Wargames are about having fun, in which you're still trying to win but winning is not the ultimate purpose of the game; and winning a roughly even contest gives the best chance of both players of doing so, and is at its most rewarding when player skill - their decisions and choices, known as player agency - are the deciding factor.

No, "real" battles would not be perfectly equal and perfectly balanced. But we're not fighting real battles, and the loser doesn't get beheaded and buried in a shallow grave.

Now i need a like button :)

@ OP. Yeah everyone wants a almost equal game for the fun is a Evil Powergamer! Because Crushing your chanceless Buddy or getting beaten without a chance is so much fun after all :)

Col. Tartleton
05-07-2015, 01:26
I guess people defending the AoS "rules" are equally fine when their soccer team shows up to a regular match with 11 guys, and the other team brings 15 guys. Sure, bring it on. :rolleyes:

That's how it was before because of imbalances.

This is more like showing up to a soccer match with a hockey team and proceeding to grab them by their collars and beat them into a pulp until they can never play again.


To my mind, this is basically AoS only hope. Assume we currently just have the 'ravening hordes' release, just a temporary stopgap. Then over the coming months scenarios books are released (physical or download) that produce interesting games (balanced or not) with specific forces being listed. Advertise this as the main way to play. It would get rid of netlisting, get rid of always using the same overpowered units, you could have very small scenarios to allow people to play with few models and it could be very tactical. Done properly, it could produce some interesting games. Imagine one side largely composed of archers having to capture something in the enemy deployment zone, whilst the defending side only has cavalry, i.e. the defensive force has to attack and the offensive force has to defend. Making scenario effectively 'puzzles' like this could produce a really interesting game, especially since many units have synergy with one another.

I remain perpetually optimistic because of nostalgia and investments.

First World of Warcraft becomes Farmville and now Warhammer becomes Charades. Nerds are going to start eating less cake and playing sports I tell you.

May as well sell my toy soldiers, buy a gym membership, and talk to women. My life has no purpose anymore.

hdctambien
05-07-2015, 01:30
I think there are mostly two very different groups of people here with some leaning towards warhammer purely as an outlet to let off steam and have some fun with friends in a not so serious environment, and others as a game where their fun is the competitive balance and smashing their friend's into the dirt for the satisfaction of that win, and I know some people fall in between too.

And there is the third type of player that doesn't want to play GW's not-40k game, but instead liked playing a fantasy game of mass battles with a tactical movement phase where arcs of vision and flanks are a thing. GW's not-40k game used to be that, now GW's not-40K game is a skirmish game.

It's a bit insulting to assume that people who played Warhammer Fantasy should automatically like whatever not-40k game GW puts out. AoS is getting a lot of flack that it doesn't deserve from people that want it to be something that it isn't, but that's because GW left them with a Fantasy Battle hole that AoS just doesn't fit into.

Scribe of Khorne
05-07-2015, 01:31
There is no comparison to anything but Unhinged from MTG, look it up folks.

Reinholt is as usual making the best distinctions. If this was to replace WHFB because WHFB was selling poorly, is it going to appeal to more people than what WHFB was?

It wont reach tournament types.
It wont reach pickup types.
It wont reach outside the realm of small, insular groups (as there is no way to ensure building lists is fair or equal across groups).

So there you go. Will the player base of AoS be greater than the player base of WHFB?

I dont think so...

Veshnakar
05-07-2015, 01:38
That shows limited knowledge of many games. Even GW ones. Here is a link to Epic lists, please please tell me the overpowered combo?

http://epic-uk.co.uk/wp/army-lists/

If you need a few pointers I can link to the last decade of results and each army list used?

Hell, even blood bowl. Some teams are great, but there aren't any dominating ones.

It is quite possible to develop fair and balance dissimilar forces. And ddo you know something? Playing a fun game with them is normally better than trying to have fun with a poor rules system.


I am pretty sure that something being an "overpowered combo" is subjective. For instance of the 10 people in my blood bowl group, about 3/4 of them feel Wood Elves are overpowered. And 40k in my area is dominated by Imperials and almost no one plays Eldar so most of the guys don't think that the new Eldar are overpowered at all. And there are forces in Epic that are inherently better than select others.

Furthermore point valued tournament scoring info is hardly conclusive as different armies perform better at different point values. There is not nearly enough statistical data to prove or disprove the "balance" of any game system. And also I would greatly appreciate you not assume my knowledge of games is limited or suggest that I might need pointers. That was a little off-base and unnecessary.



I guess people defending the AoS "rules" are equally fine when their soccer team shows up to a regular match with 11 guys, and the other team brings 15 guys. Sure, bring it on. :rolleyes:

Well that's not exactly a reasonable analogy. Sports set the precedence that it is intended to be balanced and fair. Warhammer has never said it's anything more than a tabletop game of fantasy battles. It's a select niche of players and collectors that have tried to make it about being competitively balanced.

Drakkar du Chaos
05-07-2015, 01:46
No matter what you say AoS rules are terrible and this "game" is about "bring the bigger stuff if you want to win". Horde army are a no go.
AoS is just HeroHammer designed for elite army (hello sigmarine) without personification or customisation. Its just plain generic. Tactical depth is nonexistent.
When i started with WFB i was like "woah there is so much to learn about the world, about the rules, about how to paint". AoS has no learning curve whatsoever. Devoid of substance. The old world is gone, replaced by that grotesque "humanity **** yeah" 40K like full of copyright stuff, the rules are a mix between too much simplicity and some debility without any play-testing involved. I dont want to know anything about this fluff nor theses rules. Its designed for childrens or ****** (what we are for GW) but not for me.

Darnok
05-07-2015, 01:46
Well that's not exactly a reasonable analogy. Sports set the precedence that it is intended to be balanced and fair. Warhammer has never said it's anything more than a tabletop game of fantasy battles.

Actually AoS doesn't even claim to be a "game", so you have that going for you Scrap that, I was wrong about this - meaning AoS completely fails when you take a "game" to be more than "random fun". Apart from that my analogy still stands: AoS gives you a set of rules you both agree to abide by, but doesn't suggest any means to provide a balanced playing field for both sides - just as if you played soccer without the "11 players by side" rule.

And I'm at a loss of words why you think "AoS pushing people away" is anything a product should do for a company interested in retaining its customers. You also completely ignore the fact that a balanced game is strictly better for both casual and "serious" players.

But maybe I got your OP wrong, and "the biggest thing AoS has done" is nothing you think of as a good thing, but actually really bad - in which case I'd agree.

The_Real_Chris
05-07-2015, 01:48
Sorry for the spiky language. Just a bit fed up with many of the lines trotted out to defend stuff like AoS. The one about impossible to balance seems to come up a lot and the language sounded absolutists where there are many counter examples.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

Veshnakar
05-07-2015, 02:04
Actually AoS doesn't even claim to be a "game", so you have that going for you Scrap that, I was wrong about this - meaning AoS completely fails when you take a "game" to be more than "random fun". Apart from that my analogy still stands: AoS gives you a set of rules you both agree to abide by, but doesn't suggest any means to provide a balanced playing field for both sides - just as if you played soccer without the "11 players by side" rule.

And I'm at a loss of words why you think "AoS pushing people away" is anything a product should do for a company interested in retaining its customers. You also completely ignore the fact that a balanced game is strictly better for both casual and "serious" players.

But maybe I got your OP wrong, and "the biggest thing AoS has done" is nothing you think of as a good thing, but actually really bad - in which case I'd agree.

You are taking my words out of context. I said "I think the biggest thing that AOS is going to do is push a lot of people out of the game that are playing purely for the competitive/tournament fix."

As to weather that is good or not is entirely subjective. From Games Workshops standpoint, it depends on who they are looking to gain as customers.

My only point in the OP was that I am excited about Age of Sigmar, as are over a dozen people at my FLGS with the consensus for most of us being that it was the most fun we have had in a long time. Since 3rd edition for me. You can badger and condemn me all you want for feeling this way but at the end of the day that's your opinion, and this is mine. I just don't understand why so many of you are still hanging around if you harbor such anger, resentment, and hostility? Just move onto a different game or continue playing 8th. Don't try and ruin it for those of us that find it exciting?

Veshnakar
05-07-2015, 02:06
Sorry for the spiky language. Just a bit fed up with many of the lines trotted out to defend stuff like AoS. The one about impossible to balance seems to come up a lot and the language sounded absolutists where there are many counter examples.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

It's no worries friend. I definitely understand where you are coming from too.

Inquisitor Kallus
05-07-2015, 02:09
You are taking my words out of context. I said "I think the biggest thing that AOS is going to do is push a lot of people out of the game that are playing purely for the competitive/tournament fix."

As to weather that is good or not is entirely subjective. From Games Workshops standpoint, it depends on who they are looking to gain as customers.

My only point in the OP was that I am excited about Age of Sigmar, as are over a dozen people at my FLGS with the consensus for most of us being that it was the most fun we have had in a long time. Since 3rd edition for me. You can badger and condemn me all you want for feeling this way but at the end of the day that's your opinion, and this is mine. I just don't understand why so many of you are still hanging around if you harbor such anger, resentment, and hostility? Just move onto a different game or continue playing 8th. Don't try and ruin it for those of us that find it exciting?

This is Warseer..... lol


It actually looks pretty interesting as something with fairly even sides and a cool scenario/fluffy objectives etc . The ruleset is very simple, though ive wanted something a bit less all over the place for a while. Looks like its really gone back to the core and hopefully the rumours about bigger games including units etc is true. I love the damage tables for the bigger things that can also affect move, attacks and so on, I wondered what the star meant at first in some units entries.

Darnok
05-07-2015, 02:14
I just don't understand why so many of you are still hanging around if you harbor such anger, resentment, and hostility?

This "game" is out for less than a day, what exactly do you expect? For people to just stay quite and let you do your happy dance?

Forums are for stating your opinions, and obviously lots of people wnat to do just that - it's just not your opinion. Comments like "just move on" are downright rude in that regard.

Glyn
05-07-2015, 02:23
I've played it and in honesty it makes me want to cry, I see a multitude of damaged models in the near future, the game , and I use the term loosely, seems to have no defined structure to it, it's reminds me in a vague way of early apocalypse in that it was you bring what you got ill do the same and...but the wild open setup of it is I can't even get to grips with what to compare it too.

Is gw maybe trying to put itself out of business with the release of such a bad game idea I mean it reads like Jervis sat down on a Sunday afternoon in bug mans bar and with a couple of others and these are the design notes they came up with or something....for whfb it's a very sad end...

.I mean you can't even really say it's a terrible rip of mantic games or wm/h cause while the whole scrolls idea is vaguely similar even those games have structure....an even more terrifying thought is this also the future of 40k

What has AoS done I think it's marked the end of an era and maybe the start of the end of a company I've been a faithful part of for over 2 decades

Col. Tartleton
05-07-2015, 02:27
Maybe they took a lesson from video games, ran out of time and budget for actual development by goofing off and then "finished it" over a long weekend, and got indignant about how it was "really ambitious" when the product didn't live up to the marketing.

"We were originally going to give you point costs, but then we realized we didn't have to."

DevonMeep
05-07-2015, 02:29
I am looking forward to trying Age of Sigmar. The no points thing doe's feel wrong but many other things make me very excited. Hopefully in the following weeks people can disect it and learn more about?

Darnok
05-07-2015, 02:29
Maybe they took a lesson from video games, ran out of time and budget on actual development and then "finished it" over a long weekend.

They ran out of time over all those four pages? :D

AoS was in development since shortly after the release of WHF 8th edition. I don't know what they did in all those years, but from my impressions it was not spent on developing the rules we got.

forseer of fates
05-07-2015, 02:41
Going mwhahaha fantasy space marines? :( and money fights ofc.

Veshnakar
05-07-2015, 02:45
This "game" is out for less than a day, what exactly do you expect? For people to just stay quite and let you do your happy dance?

Forums are for stating your opinions, and obviously lots of people wnat to do just that - it's just not your opinion. Comments like "just move on" are downright rude in that regard.

Okay.. happy dance? Wow. Are people genuinely upset that some people are excited about AOS? Forums are indeed about stating your opinion but if that opinion goes into the real of belittling someone because they enjoy something I feel it has gone too far. I just don't understand. And yes I do expect you to let me do my "happy dance", just as I am okay with someone venting their frustrations and disappointment with AOS. And I get it's frustrating for a lot of you, I really truly do.

And I didn't intend for that to come off as "just move on, there's the door". I just mean that I am struggling to come to terms with the intent of individuals that have express complete disgust with AOS and have stated that they won't be playing at all.

Yikes. I might have to bow out of this discussion.

Inquisitor Kallus
05-07-2015, 02:46
Comments like "just move on" are downright rude in that regard.

That's not what he said, though I also wonder why, if GW brings so much misery to some, that they insist on wasting their time talking about a hobby they hate rather than doing something they do like. The number of, 'I stopped playing GW games X amountof time ago' is really baffling. Still, I guess some people just want to 'be heard'

Darnok
05-07-2015, 02:49
That's not what he said

Umm, yes, he did:


Just move onto a different game or continue playing 8th.

Inquisitor Kallus
05-07-2015, 02:53
Okay.. happy dance? Wow. Are people genuinely upset that some people are excited about AOS? Forums are indeed about stating your opinion but if that opinion goes into the real of belittling someone because they enjoy something I feel it has gone too far. I just don't understand. And yes I do expect you to let me do my "happy dance", just as I am okay with someone venting their frustrations and disappointment with AOS. And I get it's frustrating for a lot of you, I really truly do.

And I didn't intend for that to come off as "just move on, there's the door". I just mean that I am struggling to come to terms with the intent of individuals that have express complete disgust with AOS and have stated that they won't be playing at all.

Yikes. I might have to bow out of this discussion.

Agreed, there are many on Warseer who will genuinely 'have a go' at you if you don't share their views. I like the decent discussions and it is interesting to see what people do and dont like about the concept of the new game. I imagine there will be many who wont give it a go because of preconceptions. This is a nice little gateway into the hobby from what ive seen so far, and if it allows fantasy to live on then thats great. I imagine die hard fans of older editions can still play 'their' games, or is it the idea that tournaments may not cater to your wants and needs? If so, set up your own and have fun. Its a game, the idea is to enjoy yourself. If you cant find it here then its probably a good idea to look elsewhere

Inquisitor Kallus
05-07-2015, 02:56
Umm, yes, he did:

Oh, no he didnt. he said:

Just move onto a different game or continue playing 8th.


not 'just move on'

Theres a difference....

Turgol
05-07-2015, 02:56
It is funny how people clings to the no points issue and some absurd exploits to say things like: "this is no game at all!" No wanting to try to understand? Fine. Just dont claim expertise.

Darnok
05-07-2015, 02:57
You know what? I guess this discussion (same as AoS) isn't for me. I'll unsubscribe from this thread now.

Turgol
05-07-2015, 02:59
This "game" is out for less than a day, what exactly do you expect? For people to just stay quite and let you do your happy dance?

Forums are for stating your opinions, and obviously lots of people wnat to do just that - it's just not your opinion. Comments like "just move on" are downright rude in that regard.
Is this ironic? Because this is directly rude. Unexpected

scruffyryan
05-07-2015, 03:14
I'm curious how they're going to sell this game with all the former WFB players going "this ruleset is trash, try this game instead" at the LGS.

Scribe of Khorne
05-07-2015, 03:29
It wont sell. Its DOA in my group, and thats encompassing most of the fantasy players within the local area. GW's rep at any LGS within 200KM from me was already trash (despite 40K clinging to life...), this certainly isnt going to help.

Kisanis
05-07-2015, 03:36
It just feels like we got a Beta test of WHFB 9th dropped on us with nothign but reassurances that its the finished product.

Theres a lot of good 'start from scratch' and 'wipe the slate clean and startover' ideas in AOS. Don't get me wrong.

But its like the like they threw out the baby with the bathwater. Its not fantasy, its not 40k, its not LOTR, its not really a wargame in anything but name.

I really like the ideas, and can understand some of the armylists being a little ravening hordes style broken. But the 4 pages of rules are so thin.
They could have literally just used the 40k rule set with minor tweaks, and bam. fantasy and 40k - recognizable, different, but easy to get into.

But the decided to go one step crazier and just break it all.
It has a lot of good potential, but just so many damned holes. Will I be playing it? Sure - a few times at the least. Will I be SPENDING MONEY FOR IT? I highly doubt that.

AngryAngel
05-07-2015, 03:50
You are taking my words out of context. I said "I think the biggest thing that AOS is going to do is push a lot of people out of the game that are playing purely for the competitive/tournament fix."

As to weather that is good or not is entirely subjective. From Games Workshops standpoint, it depends on who they are looking to gain as customers.

My only point in the OP was that I am excited about Age of Sigmar, as are over a dozen people at my FLGS with the consensus for most of us being that it was the most fun we have had in a long time. Since 3rd edition for me. You can badger and condemn me all you want for feeling this way but at the end of the day that's your opinion, and this is mine. I just don't understand why so many of you are still hanging around if you harbor such anger, resentment, and hostility? Just move onto a different game or continue playing 8th. Don't try and ruin it for those of us that find it exciting?

The thing is, some people are pretty deeply invested in the game system, it isn't that they wish to just toss it away and walk away at this point. Much time, much money, if the game cost only 40 dollars, I'm sure many people would just step away, but such isn't the case and just as you can be happy happy joy joy, others can be, this is utter rubbish, opinions work that way.



This "game" is out for less than a day, what exactly do you expect? For people to just stay quite and let you do your happy dance?

Forums are for stating your opinions, and obviously lots of people wnat to do just that - it's just not your opinion. Comments like "just move on" are downright rude in that regard.

Exactly this.


Oh, no he didnt. he said:

Just move onto a different game or continue playing 8th.


not 'just move on'

Theres a difference....

Not really, it was just move on with or added. However if you dare to play at a GW it may eventually be just move on either way.


It is funny how people clings to the no points issue and some absurd exploits to say things like: "this is no game at all!" No wanting to try to understand? Fine. Just dont claim expertise.

Anyone claiming age of sigmar expertise has the appropriate sense of humor GW need right now.


Is this ironic? Because this is directly rude. Unexpected

Seems having a contrary opinion on either side is always rude I've found.

celerity
05-07-2015, 11:00
I can understand playing without points. But designing a system without points even as a "suggestion" ?

dragonelf
05-07-2015, 11:30
I do wonder about Gw sometimes. New game with in my opinion stunning models, and afterthought rules. I don't buy a game that I have to balance and playtest myself. I just won't bother and go to someone who does. If you're going to sell flat pack furniture then you'd better charge me less and provide proper instructions. A real 'what were you thinking' moment for Gw. I feel sorry for the designers that produce some truly stunning models. Especially the chaos.

underscore
05-07-2015, 11:44
I don't buy a game that I have to balance and playtest myself. I just won't bother and go to someone who does.

Yeah, quite. In some ways this was the perfect reworking of Fantasy to work for me - lower model count in quicker games with a more simplified ruleset, all with free rules for the models I own. But all those time savings get thrown out of the door when I have to work out how to make a satisfying game out of it.

Who knows, maybe there'll be scenarios released at some point that have some kind of list building mechanic in, so that different types of battles can be constructed differently. But until that happens this reboot will remain a failure for me.

isthatnew?
05-07-2015, 12:07
It's done very little in my local area, it did sell out the 20 copies of WD in the LGWS but it had free stuff in it and WD is £2.40 so yeah that's fine. I know of one WHFB player that has pre ordered it so far but he had a £50 GW voucher from a tournament, kind of ironic eh?

So far I've yet to meet a regular WHFB player that has looked at it and said he'll yeah this is for me as a game. A few like the figures and I am in that camp of thinking the design of them is neat and I am tempted by them. I've seen a couple walk away shaking their heads laughing after reading the scrolls for their main army, the consensus seems to be 'yeah, I'll try it but I think it's not for me, too like 40k, no skill in manoeuvring, and the old world is gone'

There was more in store buzz for the EoT books and releases than this and way more actual money changing hands, the store had late night openings for pre order days and it was difficult to get hold of the books and keep models in the store. I can see sadly see a mountain of AoS boxes not shifting for a long time in store. There will be buyers for it but I don't see it having enough depth of play and challenge to it to build a community. The best games offer a challenge and take a learning curve to get the best from, be that video, board game or table top. I play things like munchkin for a laugh with mates now and then but I enjoyed the challenge of warhammer for different reasons while still having fun and laughs. I so wanted the rumours to be wrong and deliberately misleading for AoS, change was expected it happens in all long running games but, meh?

GW seem to have removed the challenge of game play, to play it for laughs and lower the effort to the minimum common denominator level.

ik0ner
05-07-2015, 12:13
And there is the third type of player that doesn't want to play GW's not-40k game, but instead liked playing a fantasy game of mass battles with a tactical movement phase where arcs of vision and flanks are a thing. GW's not-40k game used to be that, now GW's not-40K game is a skirmish game.

It's a bit insulting to assume that people who played Warhammer Fantasy should automatically like whatever not-40k game GW puts out. AoS is getting a lot of flack that it doesn't deserve from people that want it to be something that it isn't, but that's because GW left them with a Fantasy Battle hole that AoS just doesn't fit into.

Best reply in thread, and ignored. I assume that people just want to fight about this.

I loved whfb, AoS is not whfb as I know and love it. In my opinion it is a bad game. I reserve right to have and express this opinion and I respect that some people actually like AoS. But don't try and tell me that they are the same thing, or that it is only competitive players that will dislike AoS. Because that is both rude and disingenuous.

I'm not competitive about wargames. I even believe that competitive and wargames have nothing to do with each other. I liked whfb, because it felt like an attempt to simulate fantasy warfare that matched my vision of how such warfare would look and feel to a decently successful degree. it wasn't perfect and all editions had some problems. According to the internet the major issue was always balance, but as I said, I was never into competitive gaming so I never worried about that. The problem for me is that playing AoS doesn't feel like simulating a battle.

So I will be looking to hail caesar and see if either myself or someone else can modify it enough to work as a substitute for battles in the old world.

Why am I still here? Because I am still processing what is happening, and I had an investment in this. If I am still here in a year or so, posting negativity about aos, feel free to call me out.

Noodle!
05-07-2015, 12:45
I agree fully with the above comment. But I'm also here because I believe this forum will retain a lot of oldhammer.

There is one more thing which is hugely important for me in any game and that is the world, the background, the lore. I have a hard time even looking at most other war games because I'm just not interested in the lore. When I play I fully feel not only the story of my army but also it's place in that fantastic world. It's thrilling.

Even if AoS fixed it's rules they still removed such a fundamental part of what I enjoyed.

CrystalSphere
05-07-2015, 12:49
This is still the warhammer fantasy forum, not the age of sigmar exclusive one, so stop trying to kick people from the discussion because they don´t agree with you.

The fact is that GW discontinued their 30 years old mass battle fantasy game, and made a new fantasy skirmish game claiming it is his sucessor. Not many vets are happy about that.

Shandor
05-07-2015, 12:54
Best reply in thread, and ignored. I assume that people just want to fight about this.

I loved whfb, AoS is not whfb as I know and love it. In my opinion it is a bad game. I reserve right to have and express this opinion and I respect that some people actually like AoS. But don't try and tell me that they are the same thing, or that it is only competitive players that will dislike AoS. Because that is both rude and disingenuous.

I'm not competitive about wargames. I even believe that competitive and wargames have nothing to do with each other. I liked whfb, because it felt like an attempt to simulate fantasy warfare that matched my vision of how such warfare would look and feel to a decently successful degree. it wasn't perfect and all editions had some problems. According to the internet the major issue was always balance, but as I said, I was never into competitive gaming so I never worried about that. The problem for me is that playing AoS doesn't feel like simulating a battle.

So I will be looking to hail caesar and see if either myself or someone else can modify it enough to work as a substitute for battles in the old world.

Why am I still here? Because I am still processing what is happening, and I had an investment in this. If I am still here in a year or so, posting negativity about aos, feel free to call me out.

full agree with you.

Greyshadow
05-07-2015, 12:57
I guess people defending the AoS "rules" are equally fine when their soccer team shows up to a regular match with 11 guys, and the other team brings 15 guys. Sure, bring it on. :rolleyes:

I guess it is a different mindset though Darnok. The recent Game Informer interview with Games Workshop revealed that what were after were games that were set up collaboratively and not competitively. You set up a battle with a mate that you think might be fun to play out.

I haven't played the game yet but I remember my brother's mates gather around a table and play D&D. They would have an absolute blast but the game was balanced by human judgement and not ment to be overly competitive.

Is this the right game for you? Maybe not but I think I'll be giving it a go and seeing if it's good fun. Models are real beauties too.

TheFang
05-07-2015, 13:08
I haven't played the game yet but I remember my brother's mates gather around a table and play D&D. They would have an absolute blast but the game was balanced by human judgement and not ment to be overly competitive.
D&D was balanced both by the rules and a GM. It didn't leave you with no idea as to whether your 1st level fighter should be fighting Orcus or not.

Leaving aside the holes in the AoS rules the lack of any kind of clue as to how to set up a battle is laughable. The idea that scenarios can balance over a dozen armies and potentially an infinite range of available units in player's collections is beyond stupidity.

Greyshadow
05-07-2015, 13:11
The fact is that GW discontinued their 30 years old mass battle fantasy game, and made a new fantasy skirmish game claiming it is his sucessor. Not many vets are happy about that.

Yeah, chatting to the GW store guy and he said there seems to be a split down the middle. Same people are really excited about the new game. I have been playing Warhammer for 23 years - and I really am quite excited about this new game! Don't get me wrong, I was pretty upset at first. I had a look at the game and am starting to get my head around it. The models and the new narrative based approach I am finding quite new and refreshing. Reminds me more of a role playing game rather than a points match competitive game.

Greyshadow
05-07-2015, 13:21
The idea that scenarios can balance over a dozen armies and potentially an infinite range of available units in player's collections is beyond stupidity.

It is about putting some of game design onto the player, encouraging creativity and trying stuff out with mates. If you think of it like that maybe it isn't so stupid?

The fact that players are so unsure about it though seems to tell me GW needed to give us players some more guidance though.

samael
05-07-2015, 13:30
, just as I am okay with someone venting their frustrations and disappointment with AOS.

Actualy, your own words show you're not


I just don't understand why so many of you are still hanging around if you harbor such anger, resentment, and hostility? Just move onto a different game or continue playing 8th. Don't try and ruin it for those of us that find it exciting?. for me this sounds very much like a shut up and leave, something I have been seeing a lot over the last couple of days. I'm happy for you that you like the game, loads of us are not and telling us "to shut up and get out you moodkillers" (paraphrasing here) is not helping

TheFang
05-07-2015, 13:34
It is about putting some of game design onto the player, encouraging creativity and trying stuff out with mates. If you think of it like that maybe it isn't so stupid?It's even more stupid every time you look at it. The idea is a basic system so that new players can use all the minis in their collections. I'm fine with that.

The rules give you no clue how to set up a game. Say I'm 12. I've been playing for a while so I've got a few boxes above the starter set for the Sigmarines. I convince a friend to try it but he wants to buy undead. So he buys a few boxes of undead. How do we set up a game using our minis? One of us is going to get hammered.

I couldn't balance the game never mind some new players. I expect a game to be designed so I can play it not so I have to design the game myself.

Shandor
05-07-2015, 13:38
I guess it is a different mindset though Darnok. The recent Game Informer interview with Games Workshop revealed that what were after were games that were set up collaboratively and not competitively. You set up a battle with a mate that you think might be fun to play out.

I haven't played the game yet but I remember my brother's mates gather around a table and play D&D. They would have an absolute blast but the game was balanced by human judgement and not ment to be overly competitive.

Is this the right game for you? Maybe not but I think I'll be giving it a go and seeing if it's good fun. Models are real beauties too.


Well in my opinion, games need Rules to be fun. It has nothing todo with Competive or "i need to win" peoples.
If AoS would be Chess it would be like "Take some figures no matter what color or shape and place them somewhere on the board.. here you get the movement rules on this 1 rulesite, basicly all figures move like the King, and now have fun."
Im not sure if Chess players would react like "Wow this is cool.. finaly it kicks out the Professionell players out and its much more fun to play Chess now!"

Pacman
05-07-2015, 13:41
Consider many historical players. They often do not use points values. One player attacks, having three platoons under their commands, the other player defends with a single platoon. Also, the platoon consists of historically accurate forces rather than the best units in the codex. Despite this, both people play to the best of their abilities. This situation is a competitive tactical games even though points, army lists and netlisting are being completely ignored.

100% this.

The key difference is that the historical games have mechanisms that result in that making for an engaging game. The defender will have field defences, better access to fire support, or a fog of war advantage. Either that or you're playing a historical scenario where even if your force can't win you can still try to improve on the historical result.

Wargames need not be symmetrical to be fun. I actually think assymetry is interesting, and wrote about that on my blog (http://tinyhordes.com/asymmetry-in-wargames/) recently.

The problem is that interesting asymmetric games are really hard to design. The key thing is that both players retain a sense of agency throughout. Nobody will be having fun if they don't feel they can achieve their objective. AoS makes a nod in that direction with the sudden death objectives, but its not a robust system and doesn't seem to have been given the careful thought that asymmetric scenario design requires.

Bloodknight
06-07-2015, 13:06
Either that or you're playing a historical scenario where even if your force can't win you can still try to improve on the historical result.

It's much easier to guess the relative strengths of those forces, though. They're all human. Sometimes they're humans on horses. In later periods, some of those humans ride in metal boxes. We know how these boxes performed, and that's usually what the rules reflect. And historical games are usually period-bound. You don't get Romans fighting the Imperial German Army of 1917 including a salvaged British tank. And you certainly don't get superhumans riding on Griffins and Dragons fighting Caesar's auxiliaries.
What I mean to say is that Historical scenarios are much easier to balance, be it through the similarity of the fighting forces, or through different concepts like reaching objectives. They all use, as a baseline, some kind of human soldier that fights human soldiers of - most of the time - similar tech levels (and if not, we still know how those guys performed in reality, like Brits vs Zulus).

AOS is missing that baseline completely.

Nkcell
06-07-2015, 13:36
This thread is full of the same disingenuous nonsense that always gets posted by people that want to bash on the "competitive" viewpoint . Ultimately any discussion about this boils down to the same logical fallacy: False Dichotomy. Fluff players present the issue as if you can only have a competitive balanced game or a game made for "fun", as if there are only two choices. When in fact there is no need to make that choice, and a well made game would easily allow for both. Also "fun" is a term that means almost nothing. Every board game/miniature game/video game strives to be fun. It is not a separate goal that needs to be addressed as it's own issue. Every game is meant to be "fun", which is why the quality of a game is not rated on that metric, but instead on things like Rule Composition, Depth of Gameplay, Balance, Replayability, etc... This is why Age of Sigmar is a bad game. It scores poorly on all the objective measures of what makes a game good. You can enjoy it, but that does not make it a good game.

Mike3791
06-07-2015, 13:43
So, let us engage in a thought experiment:

1 - It is obvious from the OP that there are people who will appreciate the lack of ability to play AoS competitively.

2 - GW is a for-profit public company.

3 - Given these two factors, is AoS a good idea as a replacement for WHFB?

My personal suspicion is that there will definitely be people AoS appeals to; however, the world of RPGs and our current board-gaming universe seems to indicate people wanting purely high-concept or narrative games are a minority compared to those who want tactical/strategic balance and crunch. Thus, this is likely a very bad idea for a for-profit company at this scale, in this format.

Do you think it will sell less then 8th? :D

Tzar Boris
06-07-2015, 13:46
Without competition, without the challenge of taking something but plastic, glue and paint, and turning it into an awesome thematic fight against two opposing fantastical armies on a blood soaked plain - we'd still be using green tablecloths with books underneath, and pre-painted tin soldiers.

GW themselves are competitive. They purposefully proclaim "best miniatures in the world", what point is there to having ruleset with "victory conditions" or models with better stats than others if the aim isn't to use those units to grind their enemies into the ground?

If "narrative" is the reason, then why can we not customise every model to exacting standards as in previous incarnations? Why, if not for competitive balance, have they limited magic, Daemonic powers, non-current characters/units?

Simple - it's nothing to do with narrative, or fun - it's to do with "will it help us sell stuff?"

Which is fine, but from my time in GW, the times we genuinely got EVERYONE spending money was when you structured a strong narrative, competition based campaign or event that they could take part in. People would buy, build and paint forces to take part. Moreso if it was small, manageable battles. Numbers. It's all about numbers.

One guy spending £500 on a 2,500 pt army is nothing compared to 10 guys spending £200 on new balanced 1,000 pt armies. And they'd self motivate. That one guy, he has less people to "compete" with, either through finishing his army, playing games, what grand competition is driving this guy to finish his 2,500pt force? Finish one force, and the next one sells itself because they thought they could do something different to Willards Tzeentch force. Someone decides to slow it down by doing some kill-team. New forces all round. It's the 1%er argument. Less people playing = less money coming in, so competition is essential, in some form, and without it Warhammer, and GW as a whole is consigned to history.

No-ones making anyone play AOS, but save from massive towns and cities, GW is still one of the few places to find out about and take part in wargaming, and you won't be getting a game of 6th edition there anytime soon.

lordbeefy
06-07-2015, 13:59
my understanding is that WHFB was dieing...reducing sales, lower player base, fewer people at official tournaments and events at WHW and similar? I dont know if this is statistically correct, but only going on what i have picked up from forums and at my local GW shop.

I dont play WHFB, and while i have a massive 40K collection i play very little....i get more games in of space hulk and assassins than others. I have had WHFB armies in the past, but only from a modelling and painting perspective, quickly tiring of them and selling them off. I have to say, I am in love with the new models and will be getting the boxset at the least. I think they are some of the nicest, cleanest plastics i have ever seen.

Dont know if i will get the chance to play it or not, but i will definately be a customer of it.....and thats what GW is about....profit. They need to be, its a worldwide recession and they need sales to keep their business going. It will be interesting to see where the AoS game goes.

Avian
06-07-2015, 14:03
So I'm collecting options for a future poll, and I'd like to hear what people think are the good things about AoS. Here's what I have so far:

- The rules are considerably shorter.
- You can bring whatever you like.
- The models in the box look nice.


What else do you feel are the good things about AoS? :)

Reinholt
06-07-2015, 14:06
Do you think it will sell less then 8th? :D

Yes.

I also think it will sell massively less than a properly rebooted system, with a solid, balanced, relatively accessible ruleset.

In fact, if GW had basically just taken the LotR Skirmish rules and ported them to Age of Sigmar, and then used the War of the Ring rules for mass battles (minus the few janky spell/epic abilities bits), I suspect they'd have sold several times their 8th edition sales and then some.

Now, I think they are more looking at another Dreadfleet situation in terms of sales.


So I'm collecting options for a future poll, and I'd like to hear what people think are the good things about AoS. Here's what I have so far:

- The rules are considerably shorter.
- You can bring whatever you like.
- The models in the box look nice.


What else do you feel are the good things about AoS? :)

That it is making it considerably easier to recruit my former WHFB playing friends into other game systems.

DinDon
06-07-2015, 14:09
I completelly agree with the OP, tried it and liked it. But as i said again i m more in for the fun and the minis rather than tournaments.
But dear Op....you are in for some serious naysaying in these forums.

Dear Reinholt, at the end of the year we ll know who was right and who was wrong. I ll admit if i ll be wrong.The question is ,will you?

Mike3791
06-07-2015, 14:10
So I'm collecting options for a future poll, and I'd like to hear what people think are the good things about AoS. Here's what I have so far:

- The rules are considerably shorter.
- You can bring whatever you like.
- The models in the box look nice.


What else do you feel are the good things about AoS? :)

The warscrolls and streamlined to hit & to wound rules have made traditionally weak units a lot more viable.

Taker of skulls
06-07-2015, 14:12
That it is making it considerably easier to recruit my former WHFB playing friends into other game systems.

I dont think thats the type of "good" point he had in mind ;)

Col. Tartleton
06-07-2015, 14:13
my understanding is that WHFB was dieing...reducing sales, lower player base, fewer people at official tournaments and events at WHW and similar? I dont know if this is statistically correct, but only going on what i have picked up from forums and at my local GW shop.

I dont play WHFB, and while i have a massive 40K collection i play very little....i get more games in of space hulk and assassins than others. I have had WHFB armies in the past, but only from a modelling and painting perspective, quickly tiring of them and selling them off. I have to say, I am in love with the new models and will be getting the boxset at the least. I think they are some of the nicest, cleanest plastics i have ever seen.

Dont know if i will get the chance to play it or not, but i will definately be a customer of it.....and thats what GW is about....profit. They need to be, its a worldwide recession and they need sales to keep their business going. It will be interesting to see where the AoS game goes.

What they needed to do was rewrite the game so that a twelve year old could understand it. They rewrote the game so that an eight year old could understand it. Now it turns off the adults.

Coldhatred
06-07-2015, 14:13
I'm not competitive. I've been to exactly one tournament in my life at the end of 6th Edition. I'm gone because they destroyed the Old World that I have enjoyed for 15 years. Sorry, but as soon as you start mass labeling people that don't care for something that you do your "humble opinion" isn't worth much in my eyes.

DinDon
06-07-2015, 14:13
So I'm collecting options for a future poll, and I'd like to hear what people think are the good things about AoS. Here's what I have so far:

- The rules are considerably shorter.
- You can bring whatever you like.
- The models in the box look nice.


What else do you feel are the good things about AoS? :)

1)Its easier to play fast games.
2)Scenarios.

PS, i think you should wait a bit on the poll since we havent seen any of the upcoming releases for AOS

Avian
06-07-2015, 14:15
The warscrolls and streamlined to hit & to wound rules have made traditionally weak units a lot more viable.
You mean how there is now less variation in which numbers you need to roll to hit, wound and save, yes?

Ex: A Goblin has a 1/3rd chance of causing a wound on a Dwarf Lord, and the Lord now typically now only has a 3+ save, even if he has 5 wounds minmum.

Avian
06-07-2015, 14:16
2)Scenarios.
Which scenarios?

O.G-Palmer
06-07-2015, 14:17
Over 20 years of playing GW games I guess I can be classed as a veteran gamer right? I pre ordered it along with a couple of the staff members, myself and a few other old guard gamers played it none stop over Friday and Saturday and I have got to admit that I enjoyed it.

Looking forward to the ''Living Fortress'' yeah that's a hint there for you.

Mike3791
06-07-2015, 14:17
It seems like the biggest critics are people who haven't bought GW product in about 10 years anyway, so why they think they have a say is beyond me

Avian
06-07-2015, 14:22
Over 20 years of playing GW games I guess I can be classed as a veteran gamer right? I pre ordered it along with a couple of the staff members, myself and a few other old guard gamers played it none stop over Friday and Saturday and I have got to admit that I enjoyed it.
Which parts, specifically?

(I'm not trying to start a debate or anything, I genuinely would like to know.)

DVeight
06-07-2015, 14:22
I guess people defending the AoS "rules" are equally fine when their soccer team shows up to a regular match with 11 guys, and the other team brings 15 guys. Sure, bring it on. :rolleyes:


Oh mate!! I have been there many times. Just means we had to play a full game with no reserves. ;)

MiyamatoMusashi
06-07-2015, 14:27
It seems like the biggest critics are people who haven't bought GW product in about 10 years anyway, so why they think they have a say is beyond me

Because if GW were to win us back, they'd be making more money?

Why is that hard to understand? We're even helping them out by telling them how they could do it.

El_Commi
06-07-2015, 14:32
[s] just as if you played soccer without the "11 players by side" rule.

.

To be fair, although its been a long (long long long) time from I played soccer. When I was younger, we did this all the time.
5 a side, 6 a side. two a side.

I was awful, I usually ended up as goalie, and in some cases my side got extra players. Other times the other side got the extra player if they had someone worse than me playing..
So yeah, if you're playing in the premier leagues your point stands. But if you're playing with a bunch of mates...

O.G-Palmer
06-07-2015, 14:45
Which parts, specifically?

(I'm not trying to start a debate or anything, I genuinely would like to know.)


Oddly enough, I loved the fact that a hell of a lot of my really old miniatures can be used, some of the others enjoyed this too. A lot of us also found that most of the rules are easy to get used to, and the length of the games do not take to long. Whilst its not perfect, it does have potential to develop further.

As a stand alone game, not bad at all.

Avian
06-07-2015, 14:48
Thanks for the reply. :)

Which really old minis do you mean?

Reinholt
06-07-2015, 14:53
It seems like the biggest critics are people who haven't bought GW product in about 10 years anyway, so why they think they have a say is beyond me

Two points:

1 - Definitely untrue; I have a fully painted HH army, and multiple friends who have everything from End Times. To a person, we are not interested in AoS (other than one guy who bought a box to convert the models for his Blood Angels and World Eaters armies).

2 - GW has been having less and less customers for years now. Ever since I have been tracking the trend, which started in roughly 2007. If they don't address past customers or potential "other" customers, and only focus on people currently buying, the company will shrink down to nothing. Now on a much faster timeline than previously, as they just blew out many of the people who had been buying WHFB.

TheFang
06-07-2015, 14:58
Now on a much faster timeline than previously, as they just blew out many of the people who had been buying WHFB.

Also the manner in which GW killed fantasy is generating distrust and disquiet among 40k customers. I've just bought a massive mechanicus/mechanicum army but I'll be very wary about further GW purchases.

crazycaptain560
06-07-2015, 15:02
I had a feeling AOS would create a very big shake up in the Warhammer community, but I think it will be a good thing for most in the long run. Yes, the fact that points are gone (for now at least) is a little disappointing. However, as time goes on I can see the core rules expanding a few more pages to be even cleaner and provide even more variety. I feel that they have done a good job of keeping the flavor of the game but in a less clunky fashion. Is this game Warhammer? I don't think you can argue it is because it has completely wiped out the core of the game known for decades. Yet change can be a very good thing. I have been selling off all of my Warhammer armies on Ebay until this came out. It looks like a good time and has a lot of ideas that I can respect.

I believe a point system is totally up for remedy. What is to stop the community for making a fan "force org" chart with a basic points system. Also, keeping with the easy building theme, we could have more creative scenarios to balance any points differences. Fire and Sword, a renaissance rule set, does this by calculating the difference in points and that difference allows the player with fewer points to choose the scenario. As the point discrepancy rises, the victory conditions and deployment change to keep the game more balanced. It works remarkably well in a very much varied environment at balancing games so that anyone with a starter force can throw down models and have a great time. Why not use this same idea with AOS? Games live and thrive off of a great community. As I am primarily a Historical player I have witnessed this from the very moment I started gaming.

Most of us have our own groups and enjoy playing with them. What has ever been wrong with tailoring a game to make it more appropriate for you? Some of you may have heard of a game known as DBA. It was version 2.2 that had finally brought the rules so a solid closure for most. Thousands of people still play the game. Possibly even more than Warhammer Fantasy. Hell there are more DBA players in Texas than WFB players. When V3.0 came out many were upset as it greatly changed the game. You know what happened? The community built a modified version of their favorite calling it 2.2+ that many, myself included, find even better. For those of you who say "Tournaments are dead!" 2.2+ has caused them to thrive even more.

The example above is what exactly can come from a dedicated community. If we were all able to formulate solid conclusions for a more organized and "balanced" sort of play for AOS tournaments become a thing again. In fact, they may draw even more players. Nothing has to be a GW official product to make the game fun and exciting for all. Historical games have done the same for DECADES and have had no problems.

Just food for thought. No reason to assume doom before we even truly know the fallout of this major change in Warhammer. I vote the community stays alive and keeps having fun. We have all spent too much time and money to let a couple hundred pages that have dissipated ruin it.

*As a side note, many, at least in this thread, don't seem to understand how large historical gaming is and how many very popular games have a points system. Flames of War, Black Powder, Hail Ceaser, Bolt Action, Disposable Heroes, Napoleon at War, Price of Glory, Dux Bellorum, SAGA (This has a huge community), Field of Glory, Field of Glory Renaissance, DBM, DBMM, Chain of Command (arguably but it does have a great balancing system), Fire and Sword, and many more that I even forget about as I don't play every period of history.

As described before, scenarios are the key and can make a very good game.Points a are a luxury that I believe are a very good thing, but they are not a necessity to a very good time.

crazycaptain560
06-07-2015, 15:08
*(Further reading the thread)

Fantasy versus historical does not make it easier to gauge points. You must understand, as someone finishing up a Modern brigade level rule set, assigning points and stats to historical models is a pain. In fantasy or sci fi I can fudge weapons and stats anyway I like to fit the narrative. In history I can't and it is all up to data (hard to find sometimes) and judgment. Mix that with everyone having a strong historical background and you run into a lot of brick walls. Fantasy is one of the easier subjects to balance in the long run. With community insight that does not result in too much group think I can't imagine why it seems impossible for all of this to occur. Who knows anyway. I am sure GW has a system in the pipeline to pump out after more play testing to sell to all of us. For now my friends and I may actually get back to playing the game with our figures and work out a system for us. There is no one saying we can't so why should anyone else think so? Rules writing can be a lot of fun and with this large community it is not at all impossible.

Taker of skulls
06-07-2015, 15:13
I hope this does play out for them...

They sure are pinning alot of their hopes on it...

http://www.warseer.com/forums/showthread.php?410965-New-statue-and-signs-at-GW-HQ

Crimson Reaver
06-07-2015, 17:19
If people are having fun with AoS, that's great, hope you continue to enjoy the game and get a lot out of it.

I was waiting to see if AoS was a good time to jump back into WFB, I'd been hoping for something akin to the LotR rules which I'd had fun with previously. Already liked the models and was ambivalent about the background, so a smaller sized game with a more skirmish focus would have been great.

As things stand, the rules as written are not something I'm interested in playing. The lack of points values is probably my biggest concern. Balancing mechanisms are incredibly important when it comes to playing structured games and whilst GW are less than stellar at costing models appropriately in 40K, they at least still attempt to do so. By eschewing this completely for AoS, there is no longer a baseline to aim for when trying to have a "fair" fight. Before anyone asks, also not a tournament player, never have, never intend to.

In terms of asymmetric scenarios, you still need some way to establish achievable goals/victory conditions IMHO, otherwise there's a greater chance that you just end up with guesswork and wasted time. Again, I appreciate some people are much better at eyeballing stuff like this than others, but it all comes back to investing in a professionally designed product that facilitates ease of setup and play. I have a higher standard than when I'm messing about with something my friends and I cooked up for laughs.

About the humour, I can see what they were going for and in one respect I credit them for trying to inject this back into the proceedings. However a lot of my favourite anecdotes from gaming back in earlier editions were from improbable dice rolls and odd circumstances arising, not through specifically jokey rules. This feels like watching Snakes on a Plane, it offers up what at first glance appears to be an appropriate helping of silliness, but it is all too forced and doesn't quite work.

That could actually sum up a lot of AoS. I can see what they were attempting, I'm not adverse to that sort of thing, but they couldn't nail the landing sufficiently for me to give it the thumbs up. If other players appreciate the effort and the intention and can get behind that, not a problem, but for those with a big investment of time and money I fully understand why this is a terrible product for them.

My big worry is that they do this with 40K, where I do have a big investment. Unless AoS bombs spectacularly, they have to at least be considering what 8th Edition 40K is going to look like, now that everyone has a hardback Codex (or the pitiful POS eBook that Sisters players have to put up with) and they are going to see a law of diminishing returns given that they've rebooted all the Marine armies and Eldar this quickly.

If they bring in some sort of army-balancing mechanic, whatever that happens to be, then I'm certain to reconsider, although the new Elf models will also be a factor as I'd like to collect some sort of High/Wood Elf list.

Overtninja
06-07-2015, 17:57
I think the real problem with AoS from the perspective of this and many other online communities is likely that it removes the purpose of actually having forums concerned with things like list-building, rules quibbles, and basically everything else that has driven this and other forums for many years. It's such a fundamentally different game that it doesn't even cater to the same sorts of players. It certainly won't satisfy anyone who played the game for it's list-building, movement tactics, the competitive core of the rules and the mental challenge of mathhammer, min/maxing your lists, and building the most potent armies possible. it's about as big of a change as turning basketball into soccer or something - they share superficial similarities, but they are completely different in practice.

All of those players have been largely abandoned by GW, and they are justifiably upset. However, from GW's standpoint, given their expressed goals, interests, and philosophy, those players are ones that GW is willing to lose to attract new players and retain older players who are interested more in the mini range, building their models, and playing less for the competitive aspect and more for the fun/social aspect. I also can't fault GW for doing this, as they were looking employing this strategy or continue to hemorrhage money.

Gharak
06-07-2015, 18:59
Biggest thing AoS has done...

Brought people like me a 30 something gamer who hasn't touched GW products in years into the store (there were several of us i the store today of this kind of customer group).
AoS seems to be something I can probably find the time to paint a force for, cost wise it's no more expensive than getting into another new game so that's not an issue (I've dropped £250 in the last month on Star wars armada which wasn't playable out of the box)

Comparisons with 40k aside the miniatures are gorgeous, highly detailed and dynamic. They really prove that GW makes far better plastics than anyone else on the market.

Rules wise I was disappointed that GW have kept to the same roll to hit, roll to wound and roll to save combo they've had for years and not attempted to make a modern ruleset.

Aside from a quick run through of combat and a look at some stats I've not had time to play a game out and I'll probably find an hour this week to drop into the store and try a full box game to see how it plays out.

I'm basing my opinions on the boxed set and any new miniatures only and will totally ignore the temporary rules for existing miniatures as I suspect thethat they are little more than placeholders while GW remove the ranges and replace with new AoS stuff.

It's got me interested and talking about GW for the 1st time in 10 years. That's surely a good thing.

The_Real_Chris
06-07-2015, 22:08
Good for you. If there are lots like you GW will be able to reboot their fantasy product line.

Not for me though. I don't mind the lack of points, GW can't balance for toffee anyway. I do mind the lack of strategy or decent tactics. Games appeal to different people and I guess I like the ones that rely on cunning movement, rolling flanks, cross fires and other similar stuff rewarding having a plan and out thinking the opponent.

What i saw at the weekend didn't seem to have that.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

Tokamak
06-07-2015, 22:14
Blizzard has the exact opposite take on their games.

They want their games to be accessible but they also want everything to be playable as an e-sport. It would be easy to have a casual version of their game and a 'pro' version of their game but they're adamant about keeping all versions of the game the same. Casual gamers and professional gamers play the exact same matches, same rules same everything. They even play on the same ladder. They want even the most inexperienced and unskilled player to have fun and have the idea that he can progress up to the world cup.

And that's what made Warhammer fun as well. You build an army predominantly to play against friends but by building and tinkering away at it you could also imagine how it would perform on local tournaments or grand tournaments. The hobby effectively became a sport. And sure you can take a competitive army into a campaign if you wish so. It's all part of the same continuum.

For AoS the continuum stops at 'put your stuff on the table and mess around with it'. That's where it ends.

Games Workshop really could take a leaf from Blizzard's playbook when it comes to game design.

El_Commi
06-07-2015, 23:21
Blizzard has the exact opposite take on their games.

They want their games to be accessible but they also want everything to be playable as an e-sport. It would be easy to have a casual version of their game and a 'pro' version of their game but they're adamant about keeping all versions of the game the same. Casual gamers and professional gamers play the exact same matches, same rules same everything. They even play on the same ladder. They want even the most inexperienced and unskilled player to have fun and have the idea that he can progress up to the world cup.

And that's what made Warhammer fun as well. You build an army predominantly to play against friends but by building and tinkering away at it you could also imagine how it would perform on local tournaments or grand tournaments. The hobby effectively became a sport. And sure you can take a competitive army into a campaign if you wish so. It's all part of the same continuum.

For AoS the continuum stops at 'put your stuff on the table and mess around with it'. That's where it ends.

Games Workshop really could take a leaf from Blizzard's playbook when it comes to game design.

As a formerly competitive Arena player. I'd say look at Arena junkies forums. I've seen it posted a few times here that blizzard do game balance super well, etc etc.. Honestly.
Trawl throuGh those forums for a day, and see if you have the same opinion.
The number one complaint is that balance is awful because blizzard are supporting the casual crowd and completely ignoring anyone who's near competitive/skilled/high rated.

I think, community interaction is the only thing they should take from blizzard, even then that seems like a poisoned chalice.


Edit, sorry for typos. Stupid auto correct

Urgat
06-07-2015, 23:25
I guess people defending the AoS "rules" are equally fine when their soccer team shows up to a regular match with 11 guys, and the other team brings 15 guys. Sure, bring it on. :rolleyes:

The day I'm paid millions to play Warhammer, I'll consider that comparison relevant.
C'm'on Darnok, you're not supposed to troll.

Spiney Norman
06-07-2015, 23:32
I guess people defending the AoS "rules" are equally fine when their soccer team shows up to a regular match with 11 guys, and the other team brings 15 guys. Sure, bring it on. :rolleyes:

And if the 11 man team contained a bunch of pro footballers and the 15 man team was composed of slightly drunk nobodies from the nearest pub the smaller team would still win. The whole point in AoS is its up to you to balance your forces as best you can. Granted that means it doesn't work if you're both just trying to do the other guy over, but then did any wargame ever work in that situation?


Oddly enough, I loved the fact that a hell of a lot of my really old miniatures can be used, some of the others enjoyed this too. A lot of us also found that most of the rules are easy to get used to, and the length of the games do not take to long. Whilst its not perfect, it does have potential to develop further.

As a stand alone game, not bad at all.

I know it's early days, but I'm really loving it at the moment, taking responsibility for balancing the game is actually really great because I'm using models that have not been even slightly viable/competitive for years in wfb, stuff like Ushabti, Settra, Orion, Wardancers, etc.

KurganFr
06-07-2015, 23:38
I've never played a tournament in my life, and being a terrible player I've lost almost all the games I've ever played. However, what WHFB had and what AoS doesn't is tactical potential, the idea that maybe if I got better at positioning my units and focusing fire and whatnot I might actually win a game. That's motivation for me to keep playing. That's also why I will keep playing WHFB and Kings of War and why if I want my fix of skirmish games I will play Mordheim or Necromunda. But I'm glad if AoS floats your boat. I just wish it wasn't at the expense of the game I've been playing for 15 years.

Tokamak
07-07-2015, 00:06
As a formerly competitive Arena player. I'd say look at Arena junkies forums. I've seen it posted a few times here that blizzard do game balance super well, etc etc.. Honestly.
Trawl throuGh those forums for a day, and see if you have the same opinion.
The number one complaint is that balance is awful because blizzard are supporting the casual crowd and completely ignoring anyone who's near competitive/skilled/high rated.

I think, community interaction is the only thing they should take from blizzard, even then that seems like a poisoned chalice.


Edit, sorry for typos. Stupid auto correct

Even if it's badly balanced (and I believe games like HotS and Starcraft are amazingly balanced), then it's still all the same game continuum. WoW Arena poorly balanced? Maybe, but it's still all on the same continuum.

dhallnet
07-07-2015, 00:13
As a preambule I should say that I see some potential in AoS and I'm still thinking that some kind of "real rules" are coming.


And if the 11 man team contained a bunch of pro footballers and the 15 man team was composed of slightly drunk nobodies from the nearest pub the smaller team would still win. The whole point in AoS is its up to you to balance your forces as best you can. Granted that means it doesn't work if you're both just trying to do the other guy over, but then did any wargame ever work in that situation?

I know it's early days, but I'm really loving it at the moment, taking responsibility for balancing the game is actually really great because I'm using models that have not been even slightly viable/competitive for years in wfb, stuff like Ushabti, Settra, Orion, Wardancers, etc.

We were always able to take responsibility for balancing the game : if you can talk to your mates before a game of AoS, you should have been able to do it for a game of WFB...

What makes points and army comp rules important is that every body has the same basic system to build their roster. So I can play with a stranger one day and the next day play with my mates using our own stuff. It helps spreading the game and it gives a frame in which players have to evolve (like, in fact, every other game). And this frame contributes to make the game fun since army building is usually the first tool you use to apply a certain strategy. For the time being, the frame is incomplete and I'm guessing that the enjoyment tanks quite fast (I mean for those people that can't play a new roster each game for the next 20 years without buying any mini ;) )
IMHO without this element, games usually tend to get boring.

And we should remember that we can probably assess what feels balanced because we had previous experiences with the models (the power level "hierarchy" is more or less the same as in WFB).
How are new players going to decide that's it's not ok to pitch 3 ogres against 3 dragon lords ? Or who will tell them that "no, you shouldn't do this" in the first place ? If people want to "abuse" the (lack of) rules, they can and nobody will be able to argue (I have bad memories of 5th ed resurfacing ^^).

I hope I will be proven false but I would like to add that you should enjoy your "renewed" toys as long as you can since I've got the feeling that as soon as new profiles will come up, they will be underpowered again.

scruffyryan
07-07-2015, 01:15
To everyone who keeps talking about "itl be better for GW in the long run".

Do they HAVE a long run? Warmahordes is a juggernaut on the west coast of the U.S. growing leaps and bounds to the point that they can afford their very own convention. Their share of the wargaming pie is growing with no real signs of stopping. Kings of War is only going to get more polished. Infinity is growing with small squad based wargamers and the banner bearer 40k is in a sales slump. Can they really afford the 5 to 10 year "long run" people are talking about?

raymon
07-07-2015, 01:33
I am very pleased in what AoS hasn't become. I loved 8th edition and sorry to see it go, but also realise that starting a warhammer army from scratch is a great undertaking. We all know it's a expensive hobby. But it was silly that for one unit you had to buy 2,3 or even four boxes of stuff. With 40k when you buy a tactical squad, you have a complete operating unit. So on that front, fantasy was a hard sell.

So I welcomed change so that new players could have a chance to join this fun game. But when I heard that all armybooks became obsolete, I got the fear that I had to pay for 4 armybooks and a corebook to even be allowed to play all my armies. Like with 40K where all my money spend, is on rules and keeping up to date.

So I find it pretty good service to the old playerbase to at least give us free rules. And that it is a simple framework upon which they most certainly build more. Cause I think this is not the end all be all. More rules will follow. Now they got something where It does not need much to hop in. It is refreshing to start with something light and easy to understand. Less is more in that regard. I see it as a back to basics beta test. Rumours are there that a book is soon to follow. I hope they will find a way to not get it way to bloathed ( like 40k has become in my opinion). I think we end up with a mighty fine game.

Jind_Singh
07-07-2015, 02:04
I am a looooong time WHFG player - since perhaps 2nd ed. I only missed playing 6th Ed and some of 5th.

I used to attend a lot of events, tournaments and what not, and even placed well with my Goblin army.

As I get older I find those events more of a chore than fun, and I really enjoy narrative games, campaign games, etc, as part of the issue is finding players of my caliber to have a challenging game with - many a time I have had to tone down lists so that I can play my best, using crap, vs someones hard army - as the skill level difference acted as an equalizer.

But since having a child playing WHFB became a tough proposition - setting up the models and the game itself - it is a massive investment of time. Also I was put off starting new armies as realistically I do not have as much free time OR budget to do so.

So this Age of Sigmar is interesting to say the least as, on the surface, it addresses a lot of the issues I have been encountering.

HOWEVER...

Is this the RIGHT move - I do not know, nor can really anyone, as we have not played enough (or even ANY) games, we have not seen what else is coming out to support the game. Just today got an email from GW promoting the new AoS mobile app - free, has rules, data scrolls, and an army builder tool.

Let us not also forget that when 7th became 8th we lost a chunk of players as the nature of the game had changed too much from the game that they enjoyed - just as 8th to AoS is going to do - so it is easy to see why there is a lot of nerd rage and anger.

But think back to 8th ed - was not so great UNTIL a bunch of army books were released and THEN the edition started feeling like a new edition!

I do think, very seriously, that this will be the case with AoS - and it is too premature to judge the game.

Also the silliness - someone came back from a FW open day in the UK and spoke to some designers who worked on the AoS project I guess - and the silly rules were more to add flavor to some of the older units or special characters - but it not something that is moving forwards with the new releases.

They also spoke about scenarios - and how the game will be defined by scenarios, and from the sounds of it there is a LOT coming down the pipe.

So stay calm, relax - and take a break! Stop the forum reading, forget playing - paint, enjoy time - play other games! Come back in a few months and check it out with unclouded minds full of anger and pre-judgment and THEN see how you feel.

Pink Horror
07-07-2015, 02:38
Yeah, quite. In some ways this was the perfect reworking of Fantasy to work for me - lower model count in quicker games with a more simplified ruleset, all with free rules for the models I own. But all those time savings get thrown out of the door when I have to work out how to make a satisfying game out of it.

Lower model count? I thought I am now allowed to dump my entire model collection down onto the table.

Ayin
07-07-2015, 02:44
Lower model count? I thought I am now allowed to dump my entire model collection down onto the table.

This is a funny misconception.

Sure, YOU can field a smaller army, but your opponent doesn't have to. Infact, with no restrictions on factions/races and no points, you can field larger armies than you'd ever field before.

Darnok
07-07-2015, 04:57
The day I'm paid millions to play Warhammer, I'll consider that comparison relevant.
C'm'on Darnok, you're not supposed to troll.

Where did I refer to professional play? I thought my comment was clearly pointed in the direction of casual players - the relevant comparison for AoS. But thanks for taking it completely the wrong way.

That accusation of trolling was really unnecessary though. I'm disappointed, I thought you were above such silly things.

Tyberos
07-07-2015, 05:35
Also the manner in which GW killed fantasy is generating distrust and disquiet among 40k customers. I've just bought a massive mechanicus/mechanicum army but I'll be very wary about further GW purchases.

I can definately concur with that. I have two main armies, Marines and Knights, and am very sceptical about starting any others purely down to the fact that 40K could very well go the same way.

Games Workshop have shown without doubt they'll happily throw away past lore in an effort to bring in new blood. Storm Claw, Shield of Baal, and other starter army sets show they're looking at ways of bringing in new customers. Reducing the cost of their product to the consumer is the only thing they seem dead-set on not doing though.

Reinholt mentioned earlier in this thread that this could very well end up like Dreadfleet the sequel and I very much hope that it tanks, if only to help ensure they don't consider doing the same to 40K.

Darnok
07-07-2015, 05:45
Reinholt mentioned earlier in this thread that this could very well end up like Dreadfleet the sequel and I very much hope that it tanks, if only to help ensure they don't consider doing the same to 40K.

I've said it in another thread: whatever GW plans for the future of 40K, it is already set in motion. If AoS is the template for the next edition of 40K, then it is already decided, and we will get it - independent of the numbers of AoS sales.

Col. Tartleton
07-07-2015, 05:59
And that will basically be the end of the company...

Buddy Bear
07-07-2015, 06:05
It seems like the biggest critics are people who haven't bought GW product in about 10 years anyway, so why they think they have a say is beyond me

I refuse to buy Age of Sigmar, and I've spent a couple thousand in the past year for both 40k and Fantasy. I suppose I should be grateful to GW, though. They've cut the amount of money I need to budget for Warhammer Fantasy down to $0.

Urgat
07-07-2015, 06:25
Where did I refer to professional play?

Then I've seen plenty games with uneven games, if only because there were uneven numbers of players available. When you've got a bunch of friends wanting to play, you live the odd one out?


Where did I refer to professional play? I thought my comment was clearly pointed in the direction of casual players - the relevant comparison for AoS. But thanks for taking it completely the wrong way.

That accusation of trolling was really unnecessary though. I'm disappointed, I thought you were above such silly things.

Sorry to hear that, but I'm not very pleasantly surprised either, I thought you'd try to moderate things, not howl with the wolves.

Darnok
07-07-2015, 07:34
I wasn't aware that I'm no longer allowed to share my opinion... :rolleyes:

AngryAngel
07-07-2015, 08:16
Sorry to hear that, but I'm not very pleasantly surprised either, I thought you'd try to moderate things, not howl with the wolves.

So, because he is voicing dislike of this new game, he's howling with the wolves, as obviously anyone who doesn't like it is being completely loathsome and beyond scorn. Mods, to the best of my knowledge, still have the ability and capability to voice their thoughts on here, even if it happens to be negative.

Ayin
07-07-2015, 08:23
You're clearly confused. Anyone expressing any type of dissapointment or dislike is a wild hater.

Darnok
07-07-2015, 08:24
I think it is best to not add even more extreme views on top of what has already been said. Please keep it civil.

MiyamatoMusashi
07-07-2015, 08:42
I've said it in another thread: whatever GW plans for the future of 40K, it is already set in motion. If AoS is the template for the next edition of 40K, then it is already decided, and we will get it - independent of the numbers of AoS sales.

While that is likely true: the effort to make 40K use the AoS framework is very low (use exactly the same "rules", knock the warscrolls out in a week or two, done).

It would be sensible for them to hedge their bets, carry on with the current Codex/points model for a little while, and see what happens with AoS. There's no rush for a new 40K (quite the opposite, 7th Ed is only just out) so even given that they're probably planning a couple of years ahead, they could still afford to wait and see. (After all, if AoS bombs and they go ahead with pushing it on 40K anyway, that would be commercial suicide, no matter how much they say they believe in it).

That said, the big golden statue outside GW HQ suggests that against all good sense, they're not hedging their bets with this at all.

KurganFr
07-07-2015, 08:45
My suspicious and cynical mind has just started wondering whether AoS is designed to be a commercial failure with minimum new investment so that GW can eventually pull the pin on fantasy entirely (blaming their customers along the way for not buying enough models) while retaining an excuse to shift their remaining stock of fantasy miniatures before they call it quits on WHFB completely. It's not paranoia if they're out to get you!

AngryAngel
07-07-2015, 08:49
It is always our fault, couldn't be their own poor choices, must be the customers not constantly rewarding them with all our money. Do such for positive effort ? Perish the thought.

Kyriakin
07-07-2015, 09:02
You're clearly confused. Anyone expressing any type of dissapointment or dislike is a wild hater.
Any person who expresses a negative opinion of anything, ever (even if done a reasonable manner) = WHINER, HATER or TROLL.

I, for one, am glad we have these measured, happy, positive and upbeat people around to help neutralize the awful atmosphere of people expressing a negative opinion on something

Kyriakin
07-07-2015, 09:04
My suspicious and cynical mind has just started wondering whether AoS is designed to be a commercial failure with minimum new investment so that GW can eventually pull the pin on fantasy entirely (blaming their customers along the way for not buying enough models) while retaining an excuse to shift their remaining stock of fantasy miniatures before they call it quits on WHFB completely. It's not paranoia if they're out to get you!
Even as someone who stronly dislikes most of the recent developments, this is ridiculous.

If GW wanted to switch 100% to 40K, they would just do so. They wouldn't invest loads in making a intentionally useless product to justify leaving a realm that they have, in all but name, left already.

duffybear1988
07-07-2015, 09:09
I am very pleased in what AoS hasn't become. I loved 8th edition and sorry to see it go, but also realise that starting a warhammer army from scratch is a great undertaking. We all know it's a expensive hobby. But it was silly that for one unit you had to buy 2,3 or even four boxes of stuff. With 40k when you buy a tactical squad, you have a complete operating unit. So on that front, fantasy was a hard sell.

So I welcomed change so that new players could have a chance to join this fun game. But when I heard that all armybooks became obsolete, I got the fear that I had to pay for 4 armybooks and a corebook to even be allowed to play all my armies. Like with 40K where all my money spend, is on rules and keeping up to date.

So I find it pretty good service to the old playerbase to at least give us free rules. And that it is a simple framework upon which they most certainly build more. Cause I think this is not the end all be all. More rules will follow. Now they got something where It does not need much to hop in. It is refreshing to start with something light and easy to understand. Less is more in that regard. I see it as a back to basics beta test. Rumours are there that a book is soon to follow. I hope they will find a way to not get it way to bloathed ( like 40k has become in my opinion). I think we end up with a mighty fine game.

Actually nobody was forcing abybody to buy 4 boxes of figures to build 1 unit in 8th edition. You could have just bought 1 box of each and played with that.

You know you could have just used your powers of self moderation that people keep claiming is absolutely key to playing AoS and having fun back then as well. There was nothing stopping you at all.

"Hey Joe do you fancy playing a quick game against my new Wood Elves? I only have a shadow dancer and a couple of boxes of troops put together so far though."

"Yeah sure thing. Total up the points you have and I'll match it"

Job done.

Urgat
07-07-2015, 09:38
I wasn't aware that I'm no longer allowed to share my opinion... :rolleyes:

It's not what I meant, so let me apologize and forget about it, I don't want to antagonize someone I appreciate.


So, because he is voicing dislike of this new game, he's howling with the wolves, as obviously anyone who doesn't like it is being completely loathsome and beyond scorn. Mods, to the best of my knowledge, still have the ability and capability to voice their thoughts on here, even if it happens to be negative.

I was talking about both sides who are getting more and more vocal, but never mind.

Avian
07-07-2015, 10:08
So the list of AoS positives people have mentioned are as follows:

- Rules are shorter and simpler
- Models look nice
- You can take anything you like without worrying that it's not effective for the points
- Weaker models now do more damage
- Rules are free
- Game size scales better downwards
- New background
- New set of rules for everything
EDIT:
- Bigger stuff gets weaker as it takes damage

Kyriakin
07-07-2015, 10:44
So the list of AoS positives people have mentioned are as follows:

- Rules are shorter and simpler
- Models look nice
- You can take anything you like without worrying that it's not effective for the points
- Weaker models now do more damage
- Rules are free
- Game size scales better downwards
- New background
- New set of rules for everything
Many have mentioned they like certain individual rules, with the ongoing weakening of monsters one being the most mentioned in that respect.

To be honest, I also prefer the warscroll system more than ABs if they weren't so "meh" in their execution and for a poor game in general. A deck of rules cards taken to a game where they are left on the battleboard where your opponent - who might not be familiar with your army choices - can always see them.

Bloodknight
07-07-2015, 11:28
But think back to 8th ed - was not so great UNTIL a bunch of army books were released and THEN the edition started feeling like a new edition!

I do think, very seriously, that this will be the case with AoS - and it is too premature to judge the game.


If that was the reason that turned WFB 8 into the alleged flop it was, it's incredibly, superbly dumb to release a clearly unfinished game that's supposed to save the fantasy section or even GW's future. By the time they've released a playable ruleset that is fun for more than 3 or 4 games, people might just have wandered off either to different manufacturers or out of the hobby entirely, and they will have hurt their reputation (people don't like buying long-lasting goods if they can't trust the manufacturer, also bad word of mouth).

Nightfall Shimmer
07-07-2015, 13:17
If that was the reason that turned WFB 8 into the alleged flop it was, it's incredibly, superbly dumb to release a clearly unfinished game that's supposed to save the fantasy section or even GW's future. By the time they've released a playable ruleset that is fun for more than 3 or 4 games, people might just have wandered off either to different manufacturers or out of the hobby entirely, and they will have hurt their reputation (people don't like buying long-lasting goods if they can't trust the manufacturer, also bad word of mouth).

Hence why 'no 40K for three months.'. I imagine GW are trying to squeeze what might normally be a years worth of releases into 3 months. Get as much out as they can without bombarding us with everything all at once.

Tyberos
07-07-2015, 15:39
I've said it in another thread: whatever GW plans for the future of 40K, it is already set in motion. If AoS is the template for the next edition of 40K, then it is already decided, and we will get it - independent of the numbers of AoS sales.

Sounds plausible, if it does fail I expect Games Workshop will probably blame their retail staff for not pushing it hard enough, or the strenght of the £. I am fortunate that I only play games with a couple of close friend's so there isn't as much pressure to remain current. On that note I do hope they release a better Nid Codex before they get round to killing 40K, the current one does suck without the Shield of Baal books.