PDA

View Full Version : Some clarification on races



scoutbike
06-07-2015, 17:59
There are so many threads now so apologies if this has been covered elsewhere. If it has, just delete this.

Source of this is GW customer service, just now, so treat as legit.

On races. All races are represented in AOS, in the lore itself, rather than just contingency for legacy players. So war scrolls for ogres, dark elves etc are war scrolls for the new AOS armies in the new setting, rather than just being a nod to the old stuff so people can still play. That isn't it.

The only new race (so far) is the Sigmarines. They are not just renamed Empire. Empire has been renamed to something like the provinces of men, something like that, and is a separate army to Sigmarines. Really sorry I can't remember the Empire name!

But all the other races that have renaming, such as Orruks, those are your old army that you know and love, just in the new setting.

Interestingly, the Wood Elves are called the Wanderers, the Dark Elves are called the Exiles, and the High Elves I think are still just High Elves.
Even though all are 'Aelfs', the Dark Elves are under the Destruction faction, whereas the High and Wood are under Order. I found that interesting as it suggests that they aren't all friends like they were at the end of End Times.

I did ask about scale, and basically the Sigmarines are meant to be a new form of 'superhuman', so they are bigger. Everything else though is the same scale as our normal models, with exception to some chaos (as we've seen) who are meant to be the size they are. They don't represent a new scale, just a 'bigger' breed of chaos beings.
I did find it funny though that the lady I spoke to corrected herself and said "...oops, we aren't meant to say the word scale" :D

Anyway, I thought the above really really useful for picking apart what's legacy continuation (or not, as is the case) and what sort of races we can expect.

Ender Shadowkin
06-07-2015, 19:41
The Dark Elf units all have the Order key word on their profile indicating that they are part of the Order Gradn Alliance, not destruction. The High Elves are called "High Born" and like you said "Exiles" for the DE and "Wanderers" for the WE

There are no rules about them all disliking each other so I dont think there is a problem mixing them up.

There is no real new name for the empire or brettonia armies. The just refer to them both as "Sigmarion free people of Humanity". Their fluff blurb is identical.

Kotrag
06-07-2015, 20:05
What about the Northmen?

scoutbike
06-07-2015, 20:10
What about the Northmen?


Didn't ask, sorry!
Just phone them up though, they'll talk you through it all.

Kotrag
06-07-2015, 20:13
Didn't ask, sorry!
Just phone them up though, they'll talk you through it all.

They got an email address instead I could go through? Overseas calls, you know.

Elfhead
06-07-2015, 20:25
The exiles are on the side of order (sigmar) but according to their fluff blurb really only answer to themselves and 'Malerion', so maybe malekith gets renamed? Which would make sense ip wise.

microCACTUS
06-07-2015, 20:43
These news are terrible if true.
Hopefully this is not the case, the 15 Warscrolls of old armies have those terrible joke rules, the tone and seriousness is different with Khorne and Stormcast.

I seriously hope those Munchkin rules to play with old Games Workshop toys aren't part of the new game system.

New rumors seemed to point in the OPPOSITE direction of what the OP says: legacy armies are just there for show, almost joke lists.
They will be as supported as Chaos Dwarves were.
Hopefully they will add every faction/release with a balancing system.

If we ignore the terrible mess of the 15 old lists, the new game has currently one single form:
the Stormcast warscroll vs the Khorne warscroll.
And without looking at the other junk, it is balanced and fair, and currently can't really be expanded without buying more AoS box sets.

All of my hope is that every future release comes after or with balancing rules (like the starting box, pre-balanced).

If boxes of Sigmarines start flooding the shelves, if old factions are as important as the 2 new lists,
all of this without any more balance than "Sudden Death", then the game really is shaping up to be messy.

Yet there is still hope, there is still time, up to now, 100% of GW releases for AoS have been carefully balanced.
And those are exactly ONE: the starting box.

The quality of the "hey guys we haven't forgotten about old models, don't be mad at us!" rules is completely incomparable with the tiny yet orderly self-contained, rigid world of the box.

Without those, and without the "any base goes! Measure from the model!" Rule, the game's quality is considerably better.
The legacy rules MUST be separated from what Age of Sigmar will be.
What other reason would there be for the silly rules being limited to the old 15 factions, instead of being in all 17 factions?
No, the extra 2 factions, the ONLY NEW ACTUAL factions, must be the core of the new game. This is what I want to believe.
There is no way the Empire and Stormcast Eternals can be put on the same table with any logic. And certainly GW wants to replace humans with Sigmarines.

And it is also what the other rumors say:


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

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

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

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

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

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

Hope this helps


Wonder if if there is anyone else there who can confirm or debunk this.

Ar Ulric
06-07-2015, 21:55
I did find it funny though that the lady I spoke to corrected herself and said "...oops, we aren't meant to say the word scale" :D



Hmmm why would they be not supposed to use 'scale'?

Regarding the human cultures, I wonder how they will explain fluff-wise the two main human cultures of the Mortal Realms being technologically and aesthetically identical to the two main human cultures of 'The World-that-was', thousands of years ago, at the exact level of development they were when that world ended...

drazhar222
06-07-2015, 22:17
Without those, and without the "any base goes! Measure from the model!" Rule, the game's quality is considerably better.
The legacy rules MUST be separated from what Age of Sigmar will be.
What other reason would there be for the silly rules being limited to the old 15 factions, instead of being in all 17 factions?
No, the extra 2 factions, the ONLY NEW ACTUAL factions, must be the core of the new game. This is what I want to believe.
There is no way the Empire and Stormcast Eternals can be put on the same table with any logic. And certainly GW wants to replace humans with Sigmarines.

seeing as in GW official age of sigmar trailer on there youtube page show both the stormcast eternal and empire in the same army i think the old factions are going to be part of the main game. the fact that most of the silly rules seem to be linked to characters is likely an indecation of the character not being part of age of sigmar

Turgol
06-07-2015, 22:21
seeing as in GW official age of sigmar trailer on there youtube page show both the stormcast eternal and empire in the same army i think the old factions are going to be part of the main game. the fact that most of the silly rules seem to be linked to characters is likely an indecation of the character not being part of age of sigmar

I expect a human faction to appear. Although the new models most likely will not be related directly to the Empire (although they will be related indirectly through lions, griffons, twin tailed comments), the vastness of the human factions might allow for different aesthetics including, maybe, something similar to the Empire. But that will probably be just fluffy. New humans should look different from Empire and Brettonia.

Bigglesworth
07-07-2015, 17:10
They got an email address instead I could go through? Overseas calls, you know.

Yes, but I doubt they will get back to you within a week, and all I wanted was some PDF instructions that time, not any questions answered.

Icarus81
07-07-2015, 17:17
These news are terrible if true.
Hopefully this is not the case, the 15 Warscrolls of old armies have those terrible joke rules, the tone and seriousness is different with Khorne and Stormcast.

I seriously hope those Munchkin rules to play with old Games Workshop toys aren't part of the new game system.

New rumors seemed to point in the OPPOSITE direction of what the OP says: legacy armies are just there for show, almost joke lists.


Could you highlight exactly what is different about the rules for the new models and the rules for old models?

TheFang
07-07-2015, 17:28
Could you highlight exactly what is different about the rules for the new models and the rules for old models?

Old special character models have "comedy" rules involving prancing like a horse or similar to activate some of their special rules. They also seem to be poorly thought out, as the numbers in a unit increase so do their special rules so forty or so state troops or skeletons are very tough. Auto hitting. Since there's no point values it's impossible to balance.

New models lack the comedy rules. Their special rules may be less unbalancing though it's hard to say at this stage.

Almost as if the new models are going to be used going forward while the old models are buried and forgotten.

Icarus81
07-07-2015, 17:43
That doesn't preclude the possibility of those things being introduced to the new models. The "comedy" rules are based on the old fluff anyway.

TheFang
07-07-2015, 17:52
That doesn't preclude the possibility of those things being introduced to the new models. The "comedy" rules are based on the old fluff anyway.

What was reported (http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/655189.page) from the GW Age of Sigmar rep at the FW open day would suggest different.


http://www.dakkadakka.com/s/i/flags/gb.gif[/IMG]DakkaDakka]GW had a guy camped out at the Forge World open day whos entire job was to answer questions and talk to people about Age of Sigmar. His entire job is to go to shows and talk to people about the new game. For the first time I think ever they're taking Age of Sigmar to Gencon, Comic Con, all the major wargames conventions in Europe etc. They're throwing a considerable amount of money at putting this in front of new audiences who have never played fantasy before. He was also brutally honest and didn't dodge any questions and answered everything he could. I'll start with the negative stuff first.

This is it. There categorically will not be a '9th' edition of fantasy. Age of Sigmar is the only thing fantasy related GW will do for the considerable future.

He acknowledges that the 'funny' rules are rather silly and don't make for a great intro to the system for new people. His response was that the armies in the box set don't have the silly rules. They're there as kind of a celebration and final send off of the old warhammer armies, and he said you might notice the new armies don't have the stupid noises or imaginary friends. This is deliberate, its designed that you'll only generally play the old stuff with your mates since it's a bit embarassing to play in a public place.

The new races will look different to the old ones. Ooruks will not look the same as the orcs we currently have. As such, when they get round to releasing Ooruks, the old models will cease production. He did say that you can still use your old models as ooruks, but you won't be able to buy normal orc boys again.

There will never be points values.

On to the slightly positive stuff then.

They are going to fully support all modes of play, and will be releasing rules to balance armies against each other. There will be narrative campaigns where your forces are picked for you for specific missions, and there will be a system for tournament players to balance lists that isn't based on model count. He did not know the specifics of this, but said it is definitely coming.

The rules will always be free. He said that they are very very aware that fantasy had a massive buy in for someone to get started, as such the game was designed with the ability to play it with one box of models. There will be army books, but every rule in them will be available, for free, online. The books will just have extra background info and scenarios.

GW really are trying harder than they ever have before to make this work. If you're at one of the shows go and talk to them. They want to talk to you about this, but especially they want your feedback on it. As he said, this is totally uncharted territory for them and they are totally open to rules revisions as they go.

"This is deliberate, its designed that you'll only generally play the old stuff with your mates since it's a bit embarassing to play in a public place."

Guyver 3
07-07-2015, 18:22
Old special character models have "comedy" rules involving prancing like a horse or similar to activate some of their special rules. They also seem to be poorly thought out, as the numbers in a unit increase so do their special rules so forty or so state troops or skeletons are very tough. Auto hitting. Since there's no point values it's impossible to balance.

New models lack the comedy rules. Their special rules may be less unbalancing though it's hard to say at this stage.

Almost as if the new models are going to be used going forward while the old models are buried and forgotten.

Isn't it common knowledge that all the old armies will be phased out?

I mean the lists are filled with characters that died in the old world, the only reason they got warscrolls was to help with the model transition and to (try!) to appeal to players with existing armies.

The old armies will be phased out and I think it's been posted that they will get a big change in style.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

TheFang
07-07-2015, 18:28
Isn't it common knowledge that all the old armies will be phased out?

That's the rumour which seems to be current but really we won't know until units start vanishing in the night what's in or out. All of the old units? Some of them? Do you feel lucky?

Guyver 3
07-07-2015, 18:39
If the releases are handled anything like 40k this last year we will have at least an army a month and without the need for army books it will be a very quick process.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

kaulem
08-07-2015, 15:39
Selling models for a game they no longer support our will phase out purposely, without explicitly telling the customer about it, is borderline fraudulent in my opinion.

At the very least, it's a slap in the face to their customer.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

CoolWhip
08-07-2015, 16:05
Selling models for a game they no longer support our will phase out purposely, without explicitly telling the customer about it, is borderline fraudulent in my opinion.

At the very least, it's a slap in the face to their customer.

I'm inclined to believe that they could really care less if anyone on this forum is a future customer. As sad as it seems, this game is being restructured to appeal specifically to pre-teens, GW is willfully covering up the past, and if the older player base is left behind in the process... All the better.

I just want to clarify that this isn't a bitter post, or one that is spiteful in any way. But a factual and unemotional assessment of what is currently happening.

Turgol
08-07-2015, 16:17
I'm inclined to believe that they could really care less if anyone on this forum is a future customer. As sad as it seems, this game is being restructured to appeal specifically to pre-teens, GW is willfully covering up the past, and if the older player base is left behind in the process... All the better.

I just want to clarify that this isn't a bitter post, or one that is spiteful in any way. But a factual and unemotional assessment of what is currently happening.

Pre-teens with hundreds maybe thousands of dollars needed to play the game? Ehh no. Target audience is the same as usual: teenagers and adults, male, middle and upper classes.

People claiming that it is for children either do not have a clue or do not like the game and want to say: oh, Iam too big for this! Sounds childish imo.

Ghal Maraz
08-07-2015, 16:47
Pre-teens with hundreds maybe thousands of dollars needed to play the game? Ehh no. Target audience is the same as usual: teenagers and adults, male, middle and upper classes.

People claiming that it is for children either do not have a clue or do not like the game and want to say: oh, Iam too big for this! Sounds childish imo.
Well, to me the rules certainly don't appeal. And not because they're short. It's because they are full of holes and limited in scope.

Inviato dal mio GT-I9301I utilizzando Tapatalk

LTERALUS
08-07-2015, 16:56
Pre-teens with hundreds maybe thousands of dollars needed to play the game? Ehh no. Target audience is the same as usual: teenagers and adults, male, middle and upper classes.

People claiming that it is for children either do not have a clue or do not like the game and want to say: oh, Iam too big for this! Sounds childish imo.

A game that encourages you to ride and talk to an imaginary horse is not meant for adults, males, middle, or the upper class

Hoffa
08-07-2015, 16:56
This game does not, repeat does not work for pre-teens. Pre-teens are not capable of doing the work required to work out fair armies to play with. Games for pre-teens need to have simple unambiguous rules and a good balancing mechanism.

And so I'm back to what I have been saying from the start: I can not figure out who this game is for. Lack of balance means it will not work for pre-teens, the need to assemble and paint lots of models will make it not work for casuals and the the simplicity will make it not work for veterans.

LTERALUS
08-07-2015, 16:59
This game does not, repeat does not work for pre-teens. Pre-teens are not capable of doing the work required to work out fair armies to play with. Games for pre-teens need to have simple unambiguous rules and a good balancing mechanism.

The point of the game is to toss down whatever you want to and go at it. There is no balancing mechanism. That's the point. All pre-teens have to do is throw some models on the table and roll the dice. 8th edition required work. AoS doesn't.

Hoffa
08-07-2015, 17:02
Yes and how long will it take before the pre-teens get bored doing that as the game will be completly unfair. They will give it a few tries and then the player who keeps losing will not want to play anymore.

LTERALUS
08-07-2015, 17:10
Which is why it's doomed to fail. Kids are more interested in video games than social engagement. Adults are more interested in strategizing than role-playing. AoS fails to meet the desires of either group. Which is what you alluded to before. Who exactly is this game designed for?

Hoffa
08-07-2015, 17:48
And imagine what happens if the player who keeps winning (due to richer parents) keeps insisting it is because he is a superior strategist. *Que parent running in to break up fight*

Hoffa
08-07-2015, 17:51
And just to add this since I am a veteran role player, role players want to be able to customize their characters an element AoS lacks completely so it fails for role players of any age as well.

Konovalev
08-07-2015, 18:18
A game that encourages you to ride and talk to an imaginary horse is not meant for adults, males, middle, or the upper class

Could you direct me towards a mature serious game so that I might, by playing it, be perceived by others as a mature serious adult such as yourself?

Thanks,
Kon

Ghal Maraz
08-07-2015, 18:24
Could you direct me towards a mature serious game so that I might, by playing it, be perceived by others as a mature serious adult such as yourself?

Thanks,
Kon

Well, considering what a representative of GW said at the FW Open Day, I guess LTERALUS is quite right.

Turgol
08-07-2015, 18:35
Well, considering what a representative of GW said at the FW Open Day, I guess LTERALUS is quite right.

I think you did not get his point.

Lord Skrolk
08-07-2015, 21:36
To be fair, almost all the silly rules are for special characters - a few withstanding. So let's not throw the baby out with the bath water just yet.

Odin
08-07-2015, 21:45
There are so many threads now so apologies if this has been covered elsewhere. If it has, just delete this.

Source of this is GW customer service, just now, so treat as legit.

I'll stop you there.

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

Ayin
08-07-2015, 21:46
This game does not, repeat does not work for pre-teens. Pre-teens are not capable of doing the work required to work out fair armies to play with. Games for pre-teens need to have simple unambiguous rules and a good balancing mechanism.

And so I'm back to what I have been saying from the start: I can not figure out who this game is for. Lack of balance means it will not work for pre-teens, the need to assemble and paint lots of models will make it not work for casuals and the the simplicity will make it not work for veterans.

But the actual game of Age of Sigmar has two balanced forces, and we have no idea what future Age of Sigmar releases might include.

The unbalanced free-for-all comes from people who own models from the previous game (Warhammer Fantasy).

Hoffa
08-07-2015, 22:06
Models that still are sold in all GW stores and have official free to download AoS rules on the GW site. If GW does not intend new players to take part in the free for all I think GW needs to tell them that they are not really supposed to buy the models in the store and not really supposed to use the rules on the Website.

Erathil
08-07-2015, 23:43
This is one of the big things I'm waiting for.

The old armies are being squatted, and I don't know what they're going to do with those races. I get the feeling that, as distinct armies, the old 15 factions are gone... but it seems like the ideas, people, history, and legacy are moving forward and will inform four new factions...

So far, the Sigmarines are the only new addition from this setting. I'm curious what they'll do with the others. If anything new, on the order of the Stormcast, lies in store, or if they'll ever create new elf or undead units for this setting.

Hammerhand
08-07-2015, 23:46
I don't think GW has ever produced a balanced army for any game it has ever made. Even the specialist games.

Perhaps the whole point is that you fight your battle and if the game was unbalanced that is the fault of you and your opponent and not theirs. And I for one do not understand this obsession with balanced armies anyway. It's not like as soon as an army book is on the shelf the first thing your 'turbo-gamer' does is dissect the entries and manipulate the lists to give them their best chance of winning, effectively unbalancing it. And don't forget, just because 2 armies have the same points value, it doesn't necessarily mean they are balanced. And the unified lament of the masses when a new army book is released is 'they're so overpowered' or 'they've been well and truly nerfed'.

The cry for balance is as hopeless as the cry for world peace. The theory is good but it's never going to happen. The battlefield unbalances the game. The fact somebody has the first turn unbalances the game. The quality of the player, the army selection, the deployment of the forces, the dimensions of the battlefield all unbalance the game in one players favour or the other. It would be boring and pointless if it didn't.

Now if you want a truly balanced game, play with identical armies over a flat battle field with no terrain. I bet you I will have more fun trying to beat the odds and defeat my opponent whose army is ridiculously more powerful than mine. And trouncing someone who has literally no chance of beating you every now and again is good for the soul.

Besides, no general ever lead their army into a battle they only had a 50-50 chance of winning out of anything other than necessity.

Ghal Maraz
09-07-2015, 06:20
I don't think GW has ever produced a balanced army for any game it has ever made. Even the specialist games.

Perhaps the whole point is that you fight your battle and if the game was unbalanced that is the fault of you and your opponent and not theirs. And I for one do not understand this obsession with balanced armies anyway. It's not like as soon as an army book is on the shelf the first thing your 'turbo-gamer' does is dissect the entries and manipulate the lists to give them their best chance of winning, effectively unbalancing it. And don't forget, just because 2 armies have the same points value, it doesn't necessarily mean they are balanced. And the unified lament of the masses when a new army book is released is 'they're so overpowered' or 'they've been well and truly nerfed'.

The cry for balance is as hopeless as the cry for world peace. The theory is good but it's never going to happen. The battlefield unbalances the game. The fact somebody has the first turn unbalances the game. The quality of the player, the army selection, the deployment of the forces, the dimensions of the battlefield all unbalance the game in one players favour or the other. It would be boring and pointless if it didn't.

Now if you want a truly balanced game, play with identical armies over a flat battle field with no terrain. I bet you I will have more fun trying to beat the odds and defeat my opponent whose army is ridiculously more powerful than mine. And trouncing someone who has literally no chance of beating you every now and again is good for the soul.

Besides, no general ever lead their army into a battle they only had a 50-50 chance of winning out of anything other than necessity.
Nonsense, sorry. While U agree that a perfect balance is next to impossible, a game designer still should strive for it.

The problem is that for GW playtesting means trying something 20-30 times. And then be done.

Inviato dal mio GT-I9301I utilizzando Tapatalk

Morglum Ironhide
09-07-2015, 07:27
Ghal, if that's the way you feel, then why do you even bother playing a game with any rules? Why don't you just wave your figures around yelling "pew pew!" While you nock the other players figures over, and then argue that "na-ah! I cast my investable force field before you could hit me with your super wallaper sword of kill everything" Why not, it's just for fun right? Nothing matters?

dragonelf
09-07-2015, 08:00
No one is saying that the game has to be perfectly balanced. They add saying there should be some mechanic for balancing armies. There is a difference. And if GW think I am going to buy their scenarios with fixed armies that they are going to choose for me, then they are dreaming. I want to think about my strategy and design my own army. I don't want to play out a pre selected scenario Witt specific armies that I have had no say in building.

Ghal Maraz
09-07-2015, 08:47
Ghal, if that's the way you feel, then why do you even bother playing a game with any rules? Why don't you just wave your figures around yelling "pew pew!" While you nock the other players figures over, and then argue that "na-ah! I cast my investable force field before you could hit me with your super wallaper sword of kill everything" Why not, it's just for fun right? Nothing matters?

What has made you think that's what I am advocating, mate?

I want a semblance of balance in my games, not this absurd 'take whatever you want' thing. And I still think that games designers should aim at a balanced game, whether historically fought battle were 'balanced' or not.

Hammerhand
09-07-2015, 22:15
Nonsense, sorry. While U agree that a perfect balance is next to impossible, a game designer still should strive for it.

The problem is that for GW playtesting means trying something 20-30 times. And then be done.

Inviato dal mio GT-I9301I utilizzando Tapatalk

No need to apologise, but I am afraid it is not nonsense. There is a lot of sense in what I said. You decided to dismiss my points off hand with a single word and not listen to any of it. The main point being, if you made the effort to sit down with your opponent and come up with what you think is balanced, that is not only more engaging but gets rid of the frustration of the constraints of a broken army book. That was the point I was making when I said if the game is not balanced it is the fault of you and your opponent and not theirs (GW). If you want to plonk a death star of a million elves with all the gear on the table and expect anyone to have fun or want to play you then more fool you. If your opponents all decide to do the same thing then your gaming group sucks. I've played plenty of games against armies that it was very clear I would not be able to scratch, even though we had the same points values selected form so-called balanced army books. Partly because the guys I play with tailor their armies to play me but mostly because I will only choose the models I like the look of so that balance is effectively a myth anyway. Maybe if I did have a massively unfair advantage I might stand a chance of winning and my friends would have a bit more of a challenge beating me. If you're going to do this in the name of fun and having a good time with good friends then the army lists and points values are completely redundant anyway. It's not "nonsense", it's just different. An open mind is a wonderful thing.

deathmasterrayaz
09-07-2015, 22:51
No need to apologise, but I am afraid it is not nonsense. There is a lot of sense in what I said. You decided to dismiss my points off hand with a single word and not listen to any of it. The main point being, if you made the effort to sit down with your opponent and come up with what you think is balanced, that is not only more engaging but gets rid of the frustration of the constraints of a broken army book. That was the point I was making when I said if the game is not balanced it is the fault of you and your opponent and not theirs (GW). If you want to plonk a death star of a million elves with all the gear on the table and expect anyone to have fun or want to play you then more fool you. If your opponents all decide to do the same thing then your gaming group sucks. I've played plenty of games against armies that it was very clear I would not be able to scratch, even though we had the same points values selected form so-called balanced army books. Partly because the guys I play with tailor their armies to play me but mostly because I will only choose the models I like the look of so that balance is effectively a myth anyway. Maybe if I did have a massively unfair advantage I might stand a chance of winning and my friends would have a bit more of a challenge beating me. If you're going to do this in the name of fun and having a good time with good friends then the army lists and points values are completely redundant anyway. It's not "nonsense", it's just different. An open mind is a wonderful thing.

When ppl understand what you said, then, from GW point of view, every army, faction or whatsoever name is, will be equally profitable... or at least from their ruleset. No more broken armies, and another nice point... is that this will filter all of the ratkids who love to make awful but rule-wise army list.

I see a pretty dynamic game here and not for kids at all.

Hoffa
09-07-2015, 22:55
No need to apologise, but I am afraid it is not nonsense. There is a lot of sense in what I said. You decided to dismiss my points off hand with a single word and not listen to any of it. The main point being, if you made the effort to sit down with your opponent and come up with what you think is balanced, that is not only more engaging but gets rid of the frustration of the constraints of a broken army book. That was the point I was making when I said if the game is not balanced it is the fault of you and your opponent and not theirs (GW). If you want to plonk a death star of a million elves with all the gear on the table and expect anyone to have fun or want to play you then more fool you. If your opponents all decide to do the same thing then your gaming group sucks. I've played plenty of games against armies that it was very clear I would not be able to scratch, even though we had the same points values selected form so-called balanced army books. Partly because the guys I play with tailor their armies to play me but mostly because I will only choose the models I like the look of so that balance is effectively a myth anyway. Maybe if I did have a massively unfair advantage I might stand a chance of winning and my friends would have a bit more of a challenge beating me. If you're going to do this in the name of fun and having a good time with good friends then the army lists and points values are completely redundant anyway. It's not "nonsense", it's just different. An open mind is a wonderful thing.

This could have worked in 8:th edition were there existed some sort of baseline for comparing units. In AoS it is simply not possible there is no benchmark. All these "agree on what is balanced" arguments are based on the false idea that every player has a clear idea of what is balanced. If I were to take out 50 of my favorite dwarf models, how am I supposed to know how to pick out an empire force that would be an even match for those dwarfs. I have no idea and the game does not even try to help me. Ok I realise that plonking down my entire empire collection against these 50 dwarfs will not make a fun game but exactly how much of my Empire army would be reasonable. I can see no way to establish this except for playing several test games that probably will be quite boring as the armies will turn out to not have been so well matched as I had hoped. This procedure will then have to be repeated I decide to for example exchange the dwarfs for orcs.

If I fail at these tasks and have to repeatedly retry I do not at all accept that it is somehow my fault. The game designer has not given me much to go on so how can I be blamed if I fail?

Ghal Maraz
10-07-2015, 00:57
No need to apologise, but I am afraid it is not nonsense. There is a lot of sense in what I said. You decided to dismiss my points off hand with a single word and not listen to any of it. The main point being, if you made the effort to sit down with your opponent and come up with what you think is balanced, that is not only more engaging but gets rid of the frustration of the constraints of a broken army book. That was the point I was making when I said if the game is not balanced it is the fault of you and your opponent and not theirs (GW). If you want to plonk a death star of a million elves with all the gear on the table and expect anyone to have fun or want to play you then more fool you. If your opponents all decide to do the same thing then your gaming group sucks. I've played plenty of games against armies that it was very clear I would not be able to scratch, even though we had the same points values selected form so-called balanced army books. Partly because the guys I play with tailor their armies to play me but mostly because I will only choose the models I like the look of so that balance is effectively a myth anyway. Maybe if I did have a massively unfair advantage I might stand a chance of winning and my friends would have a bit more of a challenge beating me. If you're going to do this in the name of fun and having a good time with good friends then the army lists and points values are completely redundant anyway. It's not "nonsense", it's just different. An open mind is a wonderful thing.
And while I understand where do you come from and if that works for your gaming group, more power to you, I remain of the idea that it's the designer's work to give the players a balance. So that I can walk in a new club or in my FLGS and then don't be worried that I have to gauge what kind of game I'll be playing by talking to someone who could have a totally different version of a fair game and of balance. Not better or worse, just different.

Game design has made wonder in the last decades. I wonder why that shouldn't apply to GW.

If I have a balanced game and I want a narrative experience, I can still have that. But lacking any semblance of guideline on balance, I can just go for narrative play.

Between, sorry if I sounded rude or dismissive, that was not my intention. I should have phrased that better, I've only got to blame my scarce English! :-)

Inviato dal mio GT-I9301I utilizzando Tapatalk

stevegill
10-07-2015, 13:20
And while I understand where do you come from and if that works for your gaming group, more power to you, I remain of the idea that it's the designer's work to give the players a balance. So that I can walk in a new club or in my FLGS and then don't be worried that I have to gauge what kind of game I'll be playing by talking to someone who could have a totally different version of a fair game and of balance. Not better or worse, just different.

Game design has made wonder in the last decades. I wonder why that shouldn't apply to GW.

If I have a balanced game and I want a narrative experience, I can still have that. But lacking any semblance of guideline on balance, I can just go for narrative play.

Between, sorry if I sounded rude or dismissive, that was not my intention. I should have phrased that better, I've only got to blame my scarce English! :-)
The problem is that miniature games with lists to choose from are inherently imbalanced, mainly due to not being able to account for unit synergy.
Totally anecdotal, but - we usually had more fun and balanced games in WFB 2nd ed than I have seen in any of the more recent game systems that use points.

Allen
10-07-2015, 13:50
Well, to me the rules certainly don't appeal. And not because they're short. It's because they are full of holes and limited in scope.

Inviato dal mio GT-I9301I utilizzando Tapatalk


The amount of people who define "full of holes", "badly written" and "childish" AoS frankly amuse me greatly. Because, yeah, Warhammer Fantasy Battles was definitely NOT a rubbish gaming system. There was absolutely no imbalance whatsoever, no stupid rules, no ambiguous wording, no ridiculous FAQs. No, it was the pinnacle of wargaming. WHFB, WH40K and every other GW rule system are, after all, the best of the best - the envy of every wargame developing team. Game systems like Black Powder, Force on Force or Beyond the Gates of Antares pales in comparison of the magnificence that was WHFB.

Don't get me wrong: AoS is not a good wargame. But it's hardly a change from the standard GW product: lightly playtested rules, confused scope of the game, childishly written background, heavy price tag. Exactly like WHFB, WH40 and every other GW products of the last decades. AoS is on the receiving end of many emotive hatethreads only because WHFB was axed, not because WHFB was a good product.

Daigar
10-07-2015, 14:05
The amount of people who define "full of holes", "badly written" and "childish" AoS frankly amuse me greatly. Because, yeah, Warhammer Fantasy Battles was definitely NOT a rubbish gaming system. There was absolutely no imbalance whatsoever, no stupid rules, no ambiguous wording, no ridiculous FAQs. No, it was the pinnacle of wargaming. WHFB, WH40K and every other GW rule system are, after all, the best of the best - the envy of every wargame developing team. Game systems like Black Powder, Force on Force or Beyond the Gates of Antares pales in comparison of the magnificence that was WHFB.

Don't get me wrong: AoS is not a good wargame. But it's hardly a change from the standard GW product: lightly playtested rules, confused scope of the game, childishly written background, heavy price tag. Exactly like WHFB, WH40 and every other GW products of the last decades. AoS is on the receiving end of many emotive hatethreads only because WHFB was axed, not because WHFB was a good product.

I'd say WFB had about the same amount of ambiguous/incomplete rules as AoS. But AoS is only 4 pages, while WFB had over 100 pages of rules.

Ghal Maraz
10-07-2015, 14:07
The amount of people who define "full of holes", "badly written" and "childish" AoS frankly amuse me greatly. Because, yeah, Warhammer Fantasy Battles was definitely NOT a rubbish gaming system. There was absolutely no imbalance whatsoever, no stupid rules, no ambiguous wording, no ridiculous FAQs. No, it was the pinnacle of wargaming. WHFB, WH40K and every other GW rule system are, after all, the best of the best - the envy of every wargame developing team. Game systems like Black Powder, Force on Force or Beyond the Gates of Antares pales in comparison of the magnificence that was WHFB.

Don't get me wrong: AoS is not a good wargame. But it's hardly a change from the standard GW product: lightly playtested rules, confused scope of the game, childishly written background, heavy price tag. Exactly like WHFB, WH40 and every other GW products of the last decades. AoS is on the receiving end of many emotive hatethreads only because WHFB was axed, not because WHFB was a good product.
Am I allowed to express an opinion on a particular ruleset without having to point out to the problems of others? I was hoping to see a better ruleset than 8th edition, not a worse one, just to be clear.

Allen
10-07-2015, 14:21
I'd say WFB had about the same amount of ambiguous/incomplete rules as AoS. But AoS is only 4 pages, while WFB had over 100 pages of rules.

I'd say they are both quite bad wargames, period. I'm quite amused by the hordes of so-called wargamers that weep because WHFB was axed and replaced with a "childish" and "badly written" game system. In my gaming circle we call them GWgamers, not wargamers.

I can understand emotional attachment to the background, even to the models (they're a pretty heavy financial investment after all)...but saying that AoS is "full of holes" and "childish"? Really? What about WHFB, was that "well-balanced", "mature", "innovative" and so on? I played a lot of different editions, and it never striked me as a "good" wargame.

Carnelian
10-07-2015, 14:23
T...it's hardly a change from the standard GW product: lightly playtested rules, confused scope of the game, childishly written background, heavy price tag.

Although I am in agreement with the overall point of your post, I do disagree on one point - I think the price tag for the AOS box itself is pretty good! I've convinced a long standing friend who's never been into tabletop gaming but loves board games to split the box with me. We're getting it at a flg in london for 60 - and he was amazed by how reasonable that price was for what you get compared to other board games.

Also, the rules are free!

Katastrophe
10-07-2015, 14:31
But the actual game of Age of Sigmar has two balanced forces, and we have no idea what future Age of Sigmar releases might include.

The unbalanced free-for-all comes from people who own models from the previous game (Warhammer Fantasy).

That's not correct. Even if you ignore legacy armies and models there's no way to take new models, from the box or being released and know how many of what should be a fair match for how many of those. Yes, legacy models and armies create an apparent "free for all of unbalance" but it's also obvious that if I take 2 x 5 flying hammer dudes and 5 big hammer dudes and 10 hammer shield dudes there is no way to know how many of what (whether chaos or competing hammer guys) my opponent should take for a reasonably competitive game.

Katastrophe
10-07-2015, 14:32
Although I am in agreement with the overall point of your post, I do disagree on one point - I think the price tag for the AOS box itself is pretty good! I've convinced a long standing friend who's never been into tabletop gaming but loves board games to split the box with me. We're getting it at a flg in london for 60 - and he was amazed by how reasonable that price was for what you get compared to other board games.

Also, the rules are free!

Until he buys a dice shaker, measuring tool and a couple boxes of guys to fill out his army. Then he's gonna realize how ridiculous the prices are.

Carnelian
10-07-2015, 14:50
Until he buys a dice shaker, measuring tool and a couple boxes of guys to fill out his army. Then he's gonna realize how ridiculous the prices are.

Haha you're not wrong there. But I'm hoping, as I'm sure GW are, to get him hooked in with this good value box set. I don't think he'll be buying a measuring tool or dice shaker (I mean those are really crazily priced!!!!) and we'll see if he ever moves onto buying any more models. But I don't think he's factored in the painting yet. Off we go to Halfords for a primer and he can use my brushes at least...

skeptico
10-07-2015, 14:53
That's not correct. Even if you ignore legacy armies and models there's no way to take new models, from the box or being released and know how many of what should be a fair match for how many of those. Yes, legacy models and armies create an apparent "free for all of unbalance" but it's also obvious that if I take 2 x 5 flying hammer dudes and 5 big hammer dudes and 10 hammer shield dudes there is no way to know how many of what (whether chaos or competing hammer guys) my opponent should take for a reasonably competitive game.

It is correct. The forces in the box are balanced through the scenarios, which tell you what models to take on each side. And going forward, we don't yet know what similar mechanics might be released. I would not be surprised - especially given rumours that indicate this - to see extensive use of balancing by scenario restrictions in future.

Haravikk
10-07-2015, 16:00
I think with the exception of Lizardmen there weren't many people expecting races to entirely disappear; the question really is what form they should be in.

I mean, this setting is at least a thousand years in the future isn't it? Plus the whole planet exploded into weird realms being overrun by Chaos, so I'd be disappointed if there weren't changes; in fact, while I'm partly dreading the changes to the Dwarfs, I'm also excited to see in what ways they might grow. Hopefully they still hold their grudges to the exclusion of almost all else (with some backstory covering how they settled grudges with the Dark Elves), but I'm hoping that some or all Dwarfs may have abandoned the previous traditional ways in favour of more technological elements; it'd be fun to see a unit of Dwarfs with two-handed steam hammers, more black-powder weapons and so-on (or even a unit that has both). Of course it'd be nice to see some Dwarfs fiercely holding onto their traditional values too, so the mixture could be fun to see, if done well.

I just hope that whoever was in charge of naming stuff for the starter gets themselves some inspiration before they touch anything else, as Sky and Blood everything isn't to my tastes. In fact, one of the units in the starter set is called a "Bloodsecrator", seriously? I prefer my brother's suggestion of Khornsecrator; still cheesy as hell, but amusing for more of the right reasons.

Avian
10-07-2015, 17:21
As a foreigner I don't quite see what the issue is with 'Bloodsecrator' specifically. Is it worse than 'Bloodstoker'?

Kotrag
10-07-2015, 17:25
As a foreigner I don't quite see what the issue is with 'Bloodsecrator' specifically. Is it worse than 'Bloodstoker'?

Well, the latter's job is to inspire his fellow warriors to greater feats of martial prowess - so he is "stoking their blood", as it were.

JWH
10-07-2015, 17:27
I think with the exception of Lizardmen there weren't many people expecting races to entirely disappear; the question really is what form they should be in.

I mean, this setting is at least a thousand years in the future isn't it? Plus the whole planet exploded into weird realms being overrun by Chaos, so I'd be disappointed if there weren't changes; in fact, while I'm partly dreading the changes to the Dwarfs, I'm also excited to see in what ways they might grow. Hopefully they still hold their grudges to the exclusion of almost all else (with some backstory covering how they settled grudges with the Dark Elves), but I'm hoping that some or all Dwarfs may have abandoned the previous traditional ways in favour of more technological elements; it'd be fun to see a unit of Dwarfs with two-handed steam hammers, more black-powder weapons and so-on (or even a unit that has both). Of course it'd be nice to see some Dwarfs fiercely holding onto their traditional values too, so the mixture could be fun to see, if done well.

I just hope that whoever was in charge of naming stuff for the starter gets themselves some inspiration before they touch anything else, as Sky and Blood everything isn't to my tastes. In fact, one of the units in the starter set is called a "Bloodsecrator", seriously? I prefer my brother's suggestion of Khornsecrator; still cheesy as hell, but amusing for more of the right reasons.

To be fair though, creative's namegiving skills have been left wanting for more than a few years imo....so nothing new here

Katastrophe
10-07-2015, 18:27
It is correct. The forces in the box are balanced through the scenarios, which tell you what models to take on each side. And going forward, we don't yet know what similar mechanics might be released. I would not be surprised - especially given rumours that indicate this - to see extensive use of balancing by scenario restrictions in future.
So you are saying as long as you ONLY use the exact model configurations they give you, it is balanced. Not much of game there is it.

Faluna Detail
10-07-2015, 19:31
So you are saying as long as you ONLY use the exact model configurations they give you, it is balanced. Not much of game there is it.

Chess called, blah blah blah....... :)

skeptico
10-07-2015, 19:47
So you are saying as long as you ONLY use the exact model configurations they give you, it is balanced. Not much of game there is it.

No, I'm saying that the only product they have released so far provides a balancing mechanism to play with the only models they have released so far. I will also say this:

There is as yet not much to help balance other armies. However, starter sets never provide that - you always have to buy other resources. There are other resources on the way. And they will, by the looks of it, add balancing features for using other forces in other scenarios, building up a fuller game over time. In my view, judging an entire game system that is being released from scratch on the basis that the starter set doesn't help sufficiently with the use of other models is completely unreasonable. The starter set works in and of itself. So let's see how the system is expanded from there.

Daigar
11-07-2015, 09:42
Chess called, blah blah blah....... :)

I think comparing it to Age of Sigmar is an insult to chess. :p

Denny
11-07-2015, 12:45
Plus queens are still OP, and pawns suck. Why can't they balance chess! :shifty:;)

Eclipse Phase
11-07-2015, 13:10
An easy way to balance things would be to adjust unit sizes and wargear layouts on each warscroll.
This isn't accurate, but say:
1 Bloodthirster
Or
10 Chaos Knights
Or
20 Marauders
Etc.

That would be similar to having point values without an actual number.

Nightfall Shimmer
11-07-2015, 15:47
That's how I had figured they where going to balance it, before the first leaks of the Scrolls from the Boxed Set... then i figured that was how it was because the boxed set was fixed, so they'd do it for the free 8th legacy scrolls... nope. I realised they aren't going to do it that way.

I'd be pleasently surprised if they go with fixed unit sizes in the forthcoming Warscrolls from the big book and Liberators Box. But I won't be surprised if they don't.